(Beyond Pesticides, March 25, 2026) A literature review, published in Diseases, showcases the wide body of scientific literature linking pesticide exposure to liver disease through both apoptotic (programmed cell death without triggering inflammation) and non-apoptotic (regulated cell death with an inflammatory response) pathways. “In summary, our study confirms that pesticides carry significant health risks and sheds light on the underreported mechanisms that can drive their overall toxicity as a whole and hepatotoxicity [liver] in particular,” the researchers state.

 In addition to analyzing the science on pesticide-induced apoptosis, the researchers “systematically illustrated an underappreciated mechanism of pesticide-induced overall and hepatic toxicity, i.e., the ability to induce non-apoptotic regulated cell death (RCD) pathways such as ferroptosis, necroptosis, and pyroptosis.” They continue, saying, “Importantly, our review stresses the contribution of pesticide-induced cell death modes to inflammation and immunity regulation in hepatic pathology.”

Background

Pesticides, as a comprehensive group, can be subdivided into classes based on their targets: rodenticides (rodents), herbicides (weeds), insecticides (insects), fungicides (fungi), nematicides (nematodes), acaricides (mites and ticks), and bactericides (bacteria). The use of these pesticides, particularly in agriculture, has skyrocketed over recent decades. As the authors state: “In 2019, the total pesticide market size was estimated to approach $85 billion. The constant growth of this market is emphasized by the fact that its size is expected to increase to $280 billion by 2030.” This expansive market, however, causes social and economic burdens, particularly with the wide range of subsequent adverse health effects that occur with pesticide exposure.

The pesticide classes can further be identified by their chemical composition, which in turn indicates “the cellular and molecular targets for the biological action of pesticides,” the researchers note. They continue: “Insecticides primarily target the nervous system, acting as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, nicotine receptor agonists, voltage-gated sodium channel inhibitors, gamma-aminobutyric acid inhibitors, etc. Rodenticides can act as anticoagulants or mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation uncouplers. Fungicides can inhibit energy metabolism, microtubule assembly, or synthesis of fungal sterols. Likewise, herbicides target specific plant metabolic pathways, for instance, inhibiting photosynthetic processes, as well as amino acid or lipid synthesis.”

Despite these varying mechanisms of action and molecular targets, many pesticides could share common cytotoxic (damaging living cells) mechanisms. One of the main mechanisms that has been widely documented is oxidative stress. This is “triggered by excessive production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS)” and can be a driving force of pesticide-induced cytotoxicity. (See study here.) Research (see here and here) also shows that inflammation can lead to pesticide-induced toxicity.

This toxicity is linked to liver diseases, which is a large group of disorders that include nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), hepatitis, fibrosis, cirrhosis, liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma), and more. Liver disease is a leading cause of death globally, causing about 2 million deaths per year.

Understanding the effects of pesticides on liver cells is complex, as multiple mechanisms linked to liver disease are also linked to pesticide exposure. One study shows: “simultaneous involvement of oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired glucose and lipid metabolism in liver damage. Therefore, the hepatotoxicity of pesticides might be multifaceted and suggests involvement of a wide array of cellular and molecular events.”

As the authors state, “A compelling body of evidence clearly demonstrates that a wide spectrum of pesticides might facilitate the development and progression of liver diseases through altering lipid and carbohydrate metabolism, triggering oxidative stress, ER [endoplasmic reticulum] stress, and mitochondrial dysfunction in liver cells, stimulating apoptosis, promoting fibrosis, and inflammation… Although the links between pesticides, non-apoptotic RCDs, and inflammation in the liver are well-established, there is a lack of studies that directly investigate non-apoptotic RCD-mediated effects on inflammation.” This literature review aims to fill that research gap and “expand the landscape of the hepatotoxicological [liver damage caused by chemical substances] mechanisms associated with pesticides.”

Apoptotic Regulated Cell Death

A multitude of studies show how pesticides elicit hepatotoxicity through apoptosis. This research indicates that pesticide exposure is linked to “the increased risk of NAFLD, hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and elevation of circulating liver function markers,” among others.

Impaired lipid metabolism and lipogenesis (the process of synthesizing fatty acids and triglycerides) is attributed to pesticide exposure. Scientific literature finds organochlorines (such as dieldrin), neonicotinoids (imidacloprid), and pyrethroids (permethrin) can alter lipid metabolism. The fungicides carbendazim and propamocarb can also alter gene expression within the liver, disrupting critical processes. “In addition to lipid metabolism, pesticides affect carbohydrate metabolism in liver cells, which also impairs the functions of hepatocytes [main functional cells of the liver],” the researchers say. Exposure to the organophosphates dichlorvos, monocrotophos, and malathion can impact these cells, elevating risks for liver disorders.

Mitochondrial dysfunction also plays a role in pesticide-induced hepatotoxicity, which one study connects to exposure of chlorpyrifos, endosulfan, fenpyroximate, paraquat, pendimethalin, rotenone, and tebufenpyrad. Another study finds that the neonicotinoid insecticides dinotefuran, nitenpyram, and acetamiprid promotes mitochondrial dysfunction of liver cells and oxidative stress.

The link between oxidative stress and pesticide-induced apoptosis “has been clearly shown,” according to the authors. (See additional Daily News coverage here.) Research also documents the role of pesticides in triggering hepatic inflammation. One study notes morphological signs of inflammation in rat livers following exposure to imidacloprid, while another study finds similar results in mice administered chlorpyrifos. “Thus, a wide spectrum of pesticides triggers hepatic inflammation, which aggravates their hepatotoxic effects,” the researchers write.

Non-Apoptotic Regulated Cell Death

Stress-induced cell death can create an inflammatory immune response, such as those documented in pesticide-induced non-apoptotic RCD. In explaining the difference, the authors say, “Apoptosis is a non-inflammatory, caspase-dependent programmed cell death, while necroptosis, pyroptosis, and ferroptosis are pro-inflammatory, regulated lytic cell deaths.”

These three types of non-apoptotic RCD are “the most documented and widely studied RCD pathways in liver pathology, contributing to a broad spectrum of liver diseases,” highlighting the various mechanisms through which pesticides can cause liver damage. The researchers state, “Increasing evidence summarized in Table 1 suggests that induction of non-apoptotic cell death pathways like necroptosis, ferroptosis, and pyroptosis is a common mechanism of pesticide-induced toxicity.”

Ferroptosis

This type of cell death incorporates ferrous iron, with the hallmarks of ferroptosis, including alterations in the levels of iron, as well as changes in lipid and redox metabolism. Oxidative stress, impaired lipid metabolism, and ferroptosis are all linked to liver disease, with ferroptosis particularly promoting liver fibrosis.

“Our analysis reveals that ferroptosis-mediated detrimental health effects of pesticides are currently the most studied, and ferroptosis contributes to pesticide-mediated nephrotoxicity (kidney), pulmonary toxicity, neurological damage, cardiotoxicity, reproductive dysfunction, intestinal injury, and immunotoxicity,” the authors share. “Taken together, oxidative stress mediated by the generation of ROS and lipid peroxides is crucial for pesticide-induced ferroptosis.”

Necroptosis

Necroptosis is similar to and connected with apoptosis, as both pathways involve death receptor signaling. Usually, necroptosis is considered a backup mechanism if cells fail to die by apoptosis, but this process can also occur in isolation. Necroptosis can “promote progression of steatosis [fatty liver disease] to fibrosis and then to hepatocellular carcinoma” (see study here) and “accumulating evidence demonstrates that necroptosis triggered by pesticides might be involved in neurotoxicity and neurodegeneration, renal injury, cardiac dysfunction, and immunotoxicity.” Some of the pesticides that induce necroptosis include rotenone, chlorothalonil, paraquat, dichlorvos, imidacloprid, and lambda-cyhalothrin, with ROS and oxidative stress acting as a major contributor to the regulated cell death.

Pyroptosis

Pyroptosis is another inflammation-promoting cell death pathway, with a growing body of evidence that supports the significant impact of pyroptosis on liver diseases. “Recent studies on pesticide-induced pyroptosis have unveiled its impact on kidney damage, neurological diseases, intestinal and pancreatic disorders, and immunotoxicity,” the researchers state. Pesticides, including imidacloprid, fenpropathrin, thiacloprid, paraquat, malathion, rotenone, and propisochlor, are documented as triggering pyroptosis. Similar to the other non-apoptotic RCD pathways, oxidative stress plays a role in pyroptosis.

Literature Review Outcomes

In analyzing the well-documented connection between apoptosis and pesticides, as well as the smaller body of existing literature on ferroptosis, necroptosis, and pyroptosis in the liver, the authors find that ROS and oxidative stress act as key drivers of pesticide-induced cell death. This connects the role of inflammation in liver diseases to stress-induced environmental contaminants.

The authors state: “The current experimental evidence clearly indicates that a wide spectrum of pesticides can trigger non-apoptotic RCDs in different tissues, which underscores the importance of this mechanism. In this review, we have focused on the role of RCDs, e.g., ferroptosis, necroptosis, and pyroptosis, in the emergence and progression of liver diseases associated with pesticide exposure. Accumulating evidence summarized in this review suggests that these emerging forms of RCD might be involved in promoting and orchestrating inflammation, liver tissue remodeling, steatosis, and fibrosis.” While the mechanisms of pesticide toxicity are highly complex, this literature reviews adds to the mounting scientific evidence linking pesticide exposure to elevated disease risks.

Beyond Pesticides’ Resources

To learn more about liver damage and liver failure, see Daily News coverage here and here. The Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, containing nearly 3,000 studies, documents elevated rates of additional chronic diseases among people exposed to pesticides, with increasing numbers of studies associated with both specific illnesses and a range of illnesses. The Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management also provides information on specific pesticide active ingredients, with links to factsheets, health and environmental effects, regulatory status, key studies, alternatives, and more.

Beyond Pesticides’ mission is to protect public health and the environment by leading the transition to a world free of toxic chemicals. This can be accomplished through the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers use in agriculture and land management with the adoption of organic systems. Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic methods, as widely documented and supported by science (see here, here, and here), and take action to advance the organic movement.

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

Source:

Khairullina, Z. et al. (2026) Pesticides Drive Liver Diseases Through Non-Apoptotic Regulated Cell Death Pathways, Diseases. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9721/14/3/96.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 24, 2026) Published in Environmental Pollution, study results in the floriculture region of Ecuador find detections of neonicotinoid insecticides (NNI) and the herbicide atrazine in drinking and irrigation water. The biomonitoring data reported in an earlier journal article in the same region found a total of 23 compounds used as herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, their associated metabolites (breakdown products), which include organophosphates, pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids. (See Daily News here.) Researchers from the University of Iowa, University of California, San Diego State University, and Universidad de San Francisco in Quito, Ecuador, determined that 1 in 5 households (20.5%) have detectable levels of one or more neonicotinoids in drinking water samples surrounding floricultural agricultural operations. This builds on previous research underscoring the nontarget pesticidal effects in communities near agricultural operations where the chemicals drift through the air and move into soil and water.

Methodology and Results

The authors report that, “This study focused on household tap water in proximity to floricultural plantations and in the ESPINA [Secondary Exposures to Pesticides among Children and Adolescents] participants’ homes with a range of NNI and total pesticides in urinary metabolite samples of the children.” They continue: “Participant households in the water study were selected for household tap water sampling from the ESPINA study based on hotspot analysis for ESPINA children with high levels of pesticides in urinary metabolites together with ‘coldspot’ analysis of ESPINA children who had no NNI present in urinary metabolites in 2016.” The data on drinking water for this study were derived in part from a previous study covered by Beyond Pesticides in 2025, with reference to ESPINA.

The researchers also found that 57.6 percent of irrigation water samples had detectable levels of neonic insecticides, which were based on “their proximity to selected ESPINA households.” Across two irrigation channels, there were 26 irrigation samples selected across 2022 and 2023. The older channel runs through areas with a higher concentration of intensive agriculture, with the newer channel running through more rural areas with less intensive agriculture. For further information on the approaches to pesticide analysis, please see Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the study.

There are several additional notable takeaways from this study:

• Imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were the most frequently detected across the irrigation water samples. The following additional NNIs were detected in one or more samples: clothianidin (6), dinotefuran (1), acetamiprid (3), sulfoxaflor (3), and thiacloprid (2). Atrazine was detected in 3 samples.
• Across the six samples for the non-targeted analysis, 63 contaminants (including insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and transformation products) were identified, with 39 of those contaminants “confirmed presence by reference standard” across water samples for drinking water and irrigation during 2022.

Previous Coverage

There are numerous examples of peer-reviewed literature that delve into the potential for pesticide drift and associated adverse health and biodiversity effects. 

When pesticide drift is investigated, it is most often the drift from agricultural fields that is examined. A 2020 study shows that off-target drift of pesticides from greenhouses is also a reality. This research found drift of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides from crop applications in Ecuadoran floriculture greenhouses by evaluating the acetylcholinesterase enzyme (AChE) activity, necessary to the transmission of nerve impulses, in children residing nearby. The team finds that children living in homes near greenhouses in which these insecticides (widely recognized as cholinesterase inhibitors) are used exhibit reduced activity of this enzyme and abnormal functioning of the nervous system. The study analyzes both the distribution of areas of flower crops within “buffer zones” of various sizes around children’s homes, and the “correlation coefficients” (statistical measures of the strength of the relationship between two variables) between household proximity to the nearest treated greenhouse crops and to variously sized areas of flower crops within 1,000 meters of homes. (See Daily News here.)

In analyzing the data present in an article in Data in Brief, concerning levels of pesticide biomarkers present in the urine of adolescents and young adults, which are linked to numerous health implications. The biomonitoring data, collected at two time points from participants in a longitudinal cohort study in the agricultural county of Pedro Moncayo, Ecuador, encompass a total of 23 compounds used as herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides and their associated metabolites (breakdown products), which include organophosphates, pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids.  This study also relies on the ESPINA data, which was initially established in 2008 with a goal “to investigate the impacts of pesticide exposure on development from childhood to adulthood in individuals living within the agricultural community of Pedro Moncayo, Pichincha, Ecuador.” With cut flowers as one of the primary exports from Ecuador, and an emphasis on rose and flower cultivation in Pedro Moncayo, data from this region incorporates exposure to a variety of pesticides from multiple chemical classes. (See Daily News here.)

A 2025 study in Environmental Entomology shows that habitat and open space near agricultural fields become a killing field of pesticides, threatening biodiversity due to contamination from toxic drift. The study detected 42 pesticides, including several neonicotinoids, which are among the most lethal threats to pollinators. The research reveals the complexity of pesticide flow through the environment and the inadequacy of current methods of protecting nontarget organisms, including honey bees, bumblebees, and hundreds of other species of native bees worldwide. The researchers on the study, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cornell University, and Michigan State University, put silicone bands on fence posts in open areas adjacent to highbush blueberry fields on 15 farms in western Michigan. Silicone takes up chemicals in the atmosphere, which can then be extracted and analyzed. The fence posts were placed at seven intervals ranging from zero to 32 meters from the blueberry field edges. They were left in place for three weeks in July 2020. (See Daily News here.) In a novel, continent-wide study of soil biodiversity throughout Europe published in Nature earlier this year, researchers find 70% of the sampled sites contain pesticide residues, which “emerged as the second strongest driver of soil biodiversity patterns after soil properties,” particularly in croplands. (See Daily News here.)

In terms of waterways in the United States, pesticide drift is of concern to various researchers. One example includes a multidisciplinary team of researchers at the University of Connecticut, finding that 46% of Connecticut waterway samples are contaminated with levels of the neonicotinoid insecticide, imidacloprid, one of the most widely used insecticides in the United States on lawn and golf courses. The authors relied on federal data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), state-level data from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT-DEEP), and a small-scale data collection study by the Clean Rivers Project funded by the nonprofit Pollinator Pathway, Inc. In their report, Neonicotinoids in Connecticut Waters: Surface Water, Groundwater, and Threats to Aquatic Ecosystems, the researchers provide the most comprehensive view to date of neonicotinoid levels in Connecticut and offer critical recommendations for future testing within the state and nationally, given glaring data gaps. (See Daily News here.)

Pesticide contamination has also been found to drift from the field into the home. A study published in Environmental Science and Technology finds that there are 47 current-use pesticides—products with active ingredients that are currently registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) —detected in samples of indoor dust, drinking water, and urine from households in Indiana. The herbicides (13) detected include 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), Alachlor, Atrazine, CIAT (Desethyl-atrazine), Diuron, Metolachlor, Metolachlor OA (Oxanilic acid), OIAT (2-Hydroxy-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine), OIET (2-Hydroxyatrazine), Prometon, Simazine, Acetochlor, and Acetochlor OA; the insecticides (20) include neonicotinoids (Acetamiprid, Clothianidin, Dinotefuran, Imidacloprid, Thiacloprid, Thiamethoxam, NDMA [N-desmethyl-acetamiprid], and 6-CNA [6-Chloronicotinic acid]), organophosphates (Diazinon, Ethoprophos, Malathion, IMPY [2-isopropyl-4-methyl-6-hydroxypyrimidine], PNP [p-nitrophenol], and TCPγ [3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol]), pyrethroids (3-PBA [3-Phenoxybenzoic acid], 4-F-3-BA [4-Fluoro-3-phenoxybenzoic acid], and Fenpropathrin), and phenylpyrazoles (Fipronil, Fipronil sulfone, and Desulfinyl fipronil); and the fungicides (9) detected include azoles (Myclobutanil, Propiconazole, Tebuconazole, and Metconazole), strobilurins (Azoxystrobin and Pyraclostrobin), amides (Boscalid and Metalaxyl), and the benzimidazole Carbendazim. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

You can continue to stay apprised of the most pressing developments on various issues and campaigns by signing up for Weekly News Update and Action of the Week—including a call to tell your governor to adopt policies that support organic land management and ecological balance. There are also two additional actions you can take to help move practices and policy away from chemical-intensive farming in 2026:

1. Petition—Tell Food Companies to Reject GMO Wheat!
2. Tell Congress to instruct USDA to prohibit HB4 wheat and instruct EPA to prohibit the use of glufosinate herbicides on wheat.

It should be noted that both pesticides targeted for evaluation in this study are endocrine disruptors, which calls into question the regulatory standards that do not take into account adverse effects well below established threshold levels of exposure. Despite a Congressional mandate in 1996 under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) mandating that EPA establish a protocol for endocrine-disrupting testing of pesticides, the agency has never promulgated a regulatory protocol for testing.

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

Source: Environmental Pollution

(Beyond Pesticides, March 23, 2026) After President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950 and issued an Executive Order (EO), Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides, U.S. Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) stood up to say “no.” They introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (HR 7601) to undo the February 18 Executive Order, which is now being supported by a campaign to urge Congressional Representatives to cosponsor the bill. 

With the EO’s declaration that contains no supporting documentation or findings, the U.S. government is granting Bayer/Monsanto immunity from lawsuits for adverse health effects or damage associated with the production, transportation, use, and disposal of the weed killer glyphosate.

The executive order proclaims: “There is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides. Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity.  Given the profit margins growers currently face, any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.”

This proclamation was issued despite the availability of alternative, productive and profitable, practices and products that are not dependent on the weed killer glyphosate. Organic farmers and the companies in the $70 billion organic sector have proven that the unsupported EO statement is false. However, the EO comes at the same time that Bayer/Monsanto is pushing to secure immunity from liability tied to its failure to warn glyphosate users of the potential for exposure to cause cancer and undercut litigation that has so far resulted in over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements. Bayer is also seeking immunity from verdicts through a provision in the Farm Bill that has passed the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, state legislation, and a pending Supreme Court case that is attempting to overturn current liability law. Glyphosate exposure has been tied to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other adverse health effects.

Nothing in the President’s Executive Order appears to meet the intent of the Defense Production Act and its stated purpose to protect “the ability of the domestic industrial base to supply materials and services for the national defense and to prepare for and respond to military conflicts, natural or man-caused disasters, or acts of terrorism within the United States . . .”

Meanwhile, in an analysis of public records, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), a nonprofit newsroom and public health research group, discloses significant financial ties between Bayer-Monsanto, lobbying firms, and the second Trump Administration, raising concerns about basic safeguards to curb corporate influence over federal policymakers. Researchers at the University of Oregon found that the rollout of genetically engineered corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years.” Their results “suggest the introduction of GM [genetically modified] seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.” The conclusions of this study emerge as fossil fuel advocates, including President Trump, are mobilizing to establish “energy dominance” despite the market movement toward renewable energy and organic land management. While chemical-intensive farmers and land managers rely on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, organic practitioners are experiencing the economic benefit of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services, including the natural cycling of nutrients for plants.  

The ubiquitous nature of glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms is a result of the widespread application of this toxic weed killer in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening.  Both glyphosate and its main metabolite (breakdown product), aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), are detected in air, water, soil, and food, which results in multiple pathways for exposure to nontarget organisms, including humans. Over 750 herbicides contain glyphosate as the active ingredient (the ingredient in a pesticide formulation that the manufacturer claims is included to target the labeled pest), and it also plays a large role in the production of genetically modified (GM) crops, with approximately 80% of GM crops bred specifically to be glyphosate-tolerant.  

But glyphosate is not the whole story. The executive order also protects producers of phosphorus and phosphate. Phosphates that are fertilizer is important to chemical-intensive agriculture, but its mining—mainly in Florida in the U.S.—has numerous environmental impacts. Phosphate strip mining clears away vegetation, topsoil, and wildlife from hundreds of thousands of acres of sensitive lands and waters, evicting wildlife from their natural habitats, and producing hazardous wastes that threaten water quality and public health with heavy metals and radioactivity. The process of converting mined phosphate to phosphate fertilizer utilizes sulfuric acid, an extracted fossil fuel byproduct that contributes to the degradation of soil microbial life necessary for plant nutrients and pollution of waterways that support aquatic life. 

The campaign to “Tell your Congressional Representative to cosponsor HR 7601, the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act” moves forward.  

Letter to U.S. Representative:
Showing a lack of concern for the effects of residues of the weed killer glyphosate, classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, routinely found in food products, President Trump’s February 18, 2026 Executive Order “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides” (EO) grants immunity from lawsuits for glyphosate and phosphorus producers. In response, Representatives Thomas Massey (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) have introduced the bipartisan No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (HR 7601) to undo the EO.  

Nothing in the EO meets the intent of the statute. Without any support, the EO states: “Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would criticall   y jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity …[and] result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.” Organic farmers and the companies in the $70 billion organic sector are proof that this statement is unsupported.  

Jury verdicts and settlements on glyphosate exposure have told the manufacturer Bayer/Monsanto to pay over $10 billion to plaintiffs harmed by glyphosate. Tens of thousands of cases are still pending, and robust independent, peer-reviewed scientific findings link glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other adverse health effects. U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit public health research group, discloses significant financial ties between Bayer-Monsanto, lobbying firms, and the second Trump Administration, raising concerns about basic safeguards to curb corporate influence over federal policymakers.  

Researchers have found that the rollout of genetically engineered (GM) corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years,” suggesting “the introduction of GM seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.” Meanwhile, fossil fuel advocates, including President Trump, are trying to establish “energy dominance” despite the market movement toward renewable energy and organic land management. While chemical-intensive farmers and land managers rely on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, organic practitioners are experiencing the economic benefit of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services, including the natural cycling of nutrients for plants.   

Ubiquitous glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms come from widespread application of this toxic weed killer in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Both glyphosate and its main metabolite are detected in air, water, soil, and food, resulting in multiple pathways of exposure to nontarget organisms, including humans.   

But glyphosate is not the whole story. The EO also protects producers of phosphorus and phosphate. Phosphate fertilizer is important to chemical-intensive agriculture, but its mining—mainly in Florida in the U.S.—has many environmental impacts. Phosphate strip mining clears away vegetation, topsoil, and wildlife from hundreds of thousands of acres of sensitive lands and waters and produces hazardous wastes that threaten water quality and public health with heavy metals and radioactivity. The process of converting mined phosphate to phosphate fertilizer utilizes sulfuric acid, an extracted fossil fuel byproduct that contributes to the degradation of soil microbial life necessary to support healthy plants and pollution of waterways that support aquatic life.  

The success of organic farming shows this attempt to bolster chemical-intensive farming to be unnecessary ad unsustainable. Please cosponsor the No Immunity from Glyphosate Act.  

Thank you. 

Letter to U.S. Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) [Sponsors]: 
Showing a lack of concern for the effects of residues of the weed killer glyphosate, classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, routinely found in food products, President Trump’s February 18, 2026 Executive Order “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides” (EO) grants immunity from lawsuits for glyphosate and phosphorus producers. Thank you for introducing the bipartisan No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (HR 7601) to undo the EO! 

Nothing in the EO meets the intent of the statute. Without any support, the EO states: “Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity …[and] result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.” Organic farmers and the companies in the $70 billion organic sector are proof that this statement is unsupported.  

Jury verdicts and settlements on glyphosate exposure have told the manufacturer Bayer/Monsanto to pay over $10 billion to plaintiffs harmed by glyphosate. Tens of thousands of cases are still pending, and robust independent, peer-reviewed scientific findings link glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other adverse health effects. U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit public health research group, discloses significant financial ties between Bayer-Monsanto, lobbying firms, and the second Trump Administration, raising concerns about basic safeguards to curb corporate influence over federal policymakers.  

Researchers have found that the rollout of genetically engineered (GM) corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years,” suggesting “the introduction of GM seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.” Meanwhile, fossil fuel advocates, including President Trump, are trying to establish “energy dominance” despite the market movement toward renewable energy and organic land management. While chemical-intensive farmers and land managers rely on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, organic practitioners are experiencing the economic benefit of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services, including the natural cycling of nutrients for plants.   

Ubiquitous glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms come from widespread application of this toxic weed killer in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Both glyphosate and its main metabolite are detected in air, water, soil, and food, resulting in multiple pathways of exposure to nontarget organisms, including humans.   

But, as you know, glyphosate is not the whole story. The EO also protects producers of phosphorus and phosphate. Phosphate fertilizer is important to chemical-intensive agriculture, but its mining—mainly in Florida in the U.S.—has many environmental impacts. Phosphate strip mining clears away vegetation, topsoil, and wildlife from hundreds of thousands of acres of sensitive lands and waters and produces hazardous wastes that threaten water quality and public health with heavy metals and radioactivity. The process of converting mined phosphate to phosphate fertilizer utilizes sulfuric acid, an extracted fossil fuel byproduct that contributes to the degradation of soil microbial life necessary to support healthy plants and pollution of waterways that support aquatic life. 

The success of organic farming shows this attempt to bolster chemical-intensive farming to be unnecessary and unsustainable. Again, appreciate your leadership on this issue! 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2026) Biopesticides represent a kind of Utopian destination in the landscape of agricultural sustainability. If only they could ensure planetary harmony. A review of botanical biopesticides in the March 11 issue of Toxics raises important questions that require scrutiny and review under the pesticide registration process and when used in organic systems under the Organic Foods Production Act. The term biopesticide can be misleading, and any replacements for synthetic pesticides cannot be taken only on faith.

As Beyond Pesticides has noted previously, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) definition of biopesticides—“derived from such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals”—is broad, vague, and used differently by different interests. EPA regulates biopesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in three categories:

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

The review by Sandra Petrovic, PhD, and Andreja Leskovac, PhD, of the University of Belgrade, highlights the need not to rush from one solution—synthetic pesticides—to the next—biopesticides—without careful analysis of their modes of action and environmental fates, or ignoring the potential consequences.

Drs. Petrovic and Leskovac focus on botanicals out of the array of substances categorized as biopesticides. The EPA categories do not clearly address the ways botanical pesticides can be used, which are far wider than scented plant extracts in insect traps. Botanicals are plant-derived compounds such as phenols, flavonoids, resins, tannins, and terpenes. These are often in the form of essential oils from citrus plants, cloves, and mint. They may be applied to field crops, in greenhouses, and after harvest during storage and distribution.

Botanical biopesticides present serious challenges to any regulatory approval based on simplistic assumptions. Essential oils may contain more constituent compounds than commercial pesticides, and many, if not most, are unknown. The environmental fates of biopesticides are incompletely understood, although proponents tend to believe they break down rapidly and thus pose no risk beyond their intended use. But the downstream fate of biopesticides can lead to synergistic or additive toxic effects even when individual substances are present below allowed residue levels. Breakdown products can have very different chemical profiles and effects from their precursors, including in their “persistence, efficacy, and effects on non-target organisms,” the authors write.

Botanical pesticides are often quite volatile. This makes them less likely to remain as residues on crops, which is a plus compared to synthetic pesticides. However, evaporated and chemically complex essential oils “can emit measurable particulate matter” and each constituent can degrade into potentially more toxic compounds. They may also react with natural volatiles and form ozone. Particulate matter and ozone are potent health hazards—in fact, they are criteria pollutants regulated by EPA—and more commonly associated with vehicle and industrial emissions, but their potential generation by biopesticides must be considered.

Drs. Petrovic and Leskovac note that while using synthetic chemicals and biopesticides together is often touted as appropriate integrated pest management, “much less is known about their combined application, the interactions that may arise between them, and the potential agronomic or health implications of such mixed-use practices.” They cite research showing that essential oils can increase the toxicity of pyrethroids, organophosphates, neonicotinoids, and pyrroles.

All this indicates that just because a substance is “natural” does not mean it presents no hazard or risk. For example, rotenone, a plant-derived neurotoxicant, has been used for centuries to kill pests and in indigenous hunting. While it is still allowed by EPA for limited use in controlling invasive fish, it is not currently registered for food uses, and the Organic Foods Production Act’s National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances includes a section that prohibits natural substances that are hazardous, including rotenone. Beyond Pesticides emphasizes that the review process leading to appropriate restrictions on rotenone must continue to be used for all “natural” pesticides.

In 2024, EPA proposed to streamline the registration review for several “low risk biopesticides,” including alpha methyl mannoside, a growth promoter, Duddingtonia flagrans, a fungus that inhibits predatory cattle nematodes, and Pepino mosaic virus, which protects greenhouse tomatoes from other viruses.

Last year, Beyond Pesticides called on EPA to ensure that this contemplated streamlining does not rely entirely on original or previous registration data, much of which is incomplete and otherwise inadequate and may have been based on “limited actual data, data waiver request rationales, and purported absence of new data or adverse incidents reported.” EPA rationalized its registration of alpha methyl mannoside based on just such flimsy evidence. Similarly, EPA approved Duddingtonia and Pepino mosaic virus by waiving numerous data requirements and using “scientific rationale”—a euphemism for broad assumptions made without empirical support—about the likelihood of harm to nontarget organisms and ecosystem stability.

Another serious concern regarding biopesticides is the category of Plant-Incorporated-Protectants (PIPs), promoted by the pesticide industry as environmentally benign companions to synthetic pesticides. PIPs include RNAi technologies, such as the genetic engineering of Roundup-ready seeds. The “i” stands for “interfering,” which should be an immediate red flag. This technology is derived from natural processes that silence certain genes in organismal development and is the basis for a number of pharmaceuticals. It starts with double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) that splits into RNAi when it encounters a particular enzyme called “dicer.” The RNAi molecules then act to silence genes.

But RNAi technology has serious flaws. It does not always silence only the target gene, but can affect other parts of a genome in the target organism or in other, nontarget species. As one recent critical review put it, “There is no shared understanding of dsRNA sequences that trigger off-targeting.” And another, more enthusiastic review of RNAi technologies even points out that “the rapid evolution of resistance in target insect species now poses a serious threat to the durability and field efficacy of this technology.”

The same review details other downsides to the use of RNAis: dsRNA “may still affect microbial communities essential for nutrient cycling and plant health” despite its rapid degradation in the environment, and it “is not always fully degraded by microbes.” In addition, dsRNA can bind to soil minerals and possibly transfer through food webs, including among predator species like ladybugs and parasitic wasps that ingest dsRNA in treated prey. Further, pesticide researchers are exploring the delivery of RNAi via nanotechnology, which adds a new and vast degree of uncertainty to pesticide technologies’ effects on human health and the biosphere.

As Beyond Pesticides noted in its 2021 critique of EPA’s broad definition of biopesticides, “There is something counterintuitive in labeling something a ‘bio’ product (which connotes something ‘natural’) when in fact it involves genetic engineering—an entirely synthetic process.” Genetic engineering is not allowed under the USDA Certified Organic brand and label.

The regulatory systems of both the U.S. and the E.U. were developed for synthetic pesticides, and, as Drs. Petrovic and Leskovac observe, the “properties, modes of action, and environmental fate differ significantly” between synthetics and biopesticides. However, they add, this does not mean biopesticides should be given a pass toxicologically. “Instead, they should be regulated as complex chemical mixtures that require robust compositional characterization, standardized toxicological assessment, and realistic exposure evaluation, comparable in scientific rigor to that applied to synthetic pesticides.”

Continuing research suggests that careful development of biopesticides can result in much improvement over synthetics. See the Daily News regarding rose essential oil as a stimulator of tomato plants’ defenses against pests. The reported study used very low concentrations of essential oil and found that higher concentrations might be harmful. Beyond Pesticides also analyzed research on a biofungicide produced by orange peel and distilled without solvents, which can be very effective against numerous fungi infecting fruit and vegetables. These studies reflect the understanding that agricultural product protection must be holistic, taking into account both production methods and downstream effects.

Beyond Pesticides stresses that the current system is in a perpetual “chase” for the next pest “fix,” whether chemical or biological. The only way to foster stability amongst competing organisms is through balance, not total annihilation. This is what organic regenerative agriculture is founded on. Soil health and enhancing biodiversity are essential for “plant health, resilience, and prevention of disease and infestations….Organic advocates maintain that without a holistic approach, land managers remain on a pesticide treadmill and undercut ecological balance necessary in organic systems.”

Thus, in the search for food security based on sustainable relationships between humans and non-human consumers of desirable resources, there are two aspects of reality that no pest control system can escape: pest resistance and nontarget effects. Using “natural” tactics with the same old strategy will not work, because that strategy is based on the fantasy that technology can always triumph over nature, and that unintended consequences can be externalized. The pesticide industry has used this fantasy to its own financial advantage for a century. But technology’s triumph is always temporary, and cannot beat nature at her own game.

See Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Agriculture page.

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

Sources:
Biopesticides and Human Health Risks: A Critical Review
Petrović and Leskovac
Toxics 2026
https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/14/3/246

Beyond Pesticides Calls on EPA To Ensure Comprehensive Review of “Biopesticides”
Beyond Pesticides, January 28, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/01/beyond-pesticides-calls-on-epa-to-ensure-comprehensive-review-of-biopesticides/

“Biopesticides,” with Broad Definition, Challenged as Unsustainable
Beyond Pesticides, August 13, 2021
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/08/biopesticides-with-broad-definition-challenged-as-unsustainable/

Biofungicides Show Promise in Agriculture and Land Management, Study Finds
Beyond Pesticides, September 6, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/09/review-of-biofungicides-highlights-feasibility-of-alternatives-to-hazardous-pesticides-in-organic-agriculture-and-land-management/

Study Bolsters the Case for Essential Oils (EO) in Organic Pest Management for Tomato Production
Beyond Pesticides, April 3rd, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/04/study-bolsters-the-case-for-essential-oils-eo-in-organic-pest-management-for-tomato-production/

Minimum Risk Pesticide: Definition and Product Confirmation
Environmental Protection Agency
https://www.epa.gov/minimum-risk-pesticides/minimum-risk-pesticide-definition-and-product-confirmation#confirmunder

205.602 Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production.
The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances
U.S. Code
Title 7 Subtitle B Chapter I Subchapter M Part 205 Subpart G The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-M/part-205/subpart-G/subject-group-ECFR0ebc5d139b750cd/section-205.602

(see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-proposes-streamlined-registration-review-process-several-low-risk-biopesticidesfrom) “minimum risk” pesticides (see
https://www.epa.gov/minimum-risk-pesticides/minimum-risk-pesticide-definition-and-product-confirmation#confirmunder) section 25b of FIFRA.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 2026) A study of water contamination in Protected Areas (PAs) in Brazil, published in Science of The Total Environment, highlights the pervasiveness of pesticides. “Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of these PAs in mitigating pesticide contamination in watercourses and to investigate how land use patterns influence the presence of pesticide residues,” the authors state. “We found pesticide compounds in biofilms [mutually beneficial community of microorganisms] both inside and outside PAs’ streams, with no buffer effect of these protected lands against herbicides, insecticides and fungicides, contrary to our expectations.” In analyzing epilithic biofilms, which are communities of microorganisms that adhere to submerged rocks and surfaces in aquatic ecosystems, the researchers find residues of 14 pesticide compounds and one metabolite across the 19 sampling sites, threatening aquatic organisms and ecosystem functioning. The authors say, “[M]onitoring epilithic biofilms in PAs provides valuable information by detecting pesticide compounds that analysis of surface water and sediments might miss.”

Through various routes, such as runoff to waterways, leaching into groundwater, and aerial drift, pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, even in remote and protected areas. As the testing of the freshwater epilithic biofilms in this study reveals 15 pesticide residues both in protected and non-protected areas, this shows the widespread nature of pesticide contamination in waterways that has deleterious impacts on biodiversity. PAs, as documented here, do not adequately safeguard this biodiversity, despite conservation strategies trying to protect natural areas with buffer zones, particularly near agricultural areas.

“In this study, we hypothesized that PAs are an efficient way to mitigate pesticide contamination, given the strict regulations of land use and land cover inside these areas, resulting in lower accumulation of these compounds in epilithic biofilm samples from streams inside their borders than those outside,” the researchers note. This hypothesis, however, was proven wrong as pesticides residues “were found in almost 95% of the sampling sites,” both in and around the protected areas. Higher concentrations of certain pesticides are also shown within the PAs when compared to levels in the surrounding non-protected areas.

Importance and Background
PAs act as crucial refuges for many organisms and provide vital ecosystem services, including water purification and soil conservation. Protecting natural areas is increasingly important, as habitat destruction, environmental contaminants, and the ongoing biodiversity and climate change crises continue to threaten wildlife and ecological systems. Within PAs, many human activities are restricted, which allows “natural regeneration and recovery of ecosystems, enabling the maintenance, survival, and recovery of natural and/or threatened species.”

As the authors say, PAs are: “one of the main refuges for biodiversity, especially for the functioning of forests located close to high anthropogenic activities, as these can result in environmental chemical changes that propagate through trophic levels and influence important ecosystem processes. Their role is essential and, in several countries, they represent the only land specifically designed to preserve natural habitats.”

In Brazil, where the study was conducted, there are multiple types of PAs, all with boundaries defined by law designed to decrease human impact and protect the environment. “Together, they preserve 19% of the Brazilian terrestrial land, encompassing different biomes,” the researchers write. They continue: “Considering only the Atlantic Forest biome, a biodiversity hotspot and one of the most threatened in the world, where this study was carried out, the proportion of the biome that is protected is reduced to approximately 10%. Brazil is one of the world leaders in land protection, but it is also one of the leaders in crop production, and PAs surrounded by agricultural and other economic activities (such as cattle raising) suffer from the indirect impacts of these types of land use.”

Even with many terrestrial PAs surrounding waterways that are meant to provide protection, the biodiversity of freshwater ecosystems continues to decline. “Based on the index used by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) since 1970, the populations of freshwater aquatic organisms have declined by 83%, more than twice the rate of marine and terrestrial species,” the authors point out. One of the main factors adversely impacting biodiversity is the contamination of pesticides in these aquatic ecosystems. Once pesticide residues reach these environments, they can bioaccumulate and biomagnify within the food web, causing adverse effects to a multitude of organisms.

“Among these organisms, there are the epilithic biofilms–complex communities of bacteria, fungi, and algae embedded in extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) on rock surfaces–that act as long-term pollutant accumulators,” the researchers describe. These organisms provide key services, such as nutrient cycling, primary production, and decomposition of organic matter, in aquatic environments, in addition to being able to act as bioindicators of health. “Because biofilms can accumulate pollutants over time, allowing for the detection of long-term and seasonal contamination patterns, they supply a fingerprint of pesticide usage in the catchment,” the authors add.

Study Methodology
The study was conducted in five PAs throughout southern Brazil within the Atlantic Forest Biome, including São Joaquim National Park (SJNP), Aparados da Serra National Park (ASNP), Serra Geral National Park (SGNP), São Francisco de Paula National Forest (SFPNF), and the Private Natural Heritage Reserve Portal das Nascentes (PNHR). At each of these sites and surrounding areas, 20 rocks were randomly selected for epilithic biofilm sample collection. Pesticide residue detection in these samples was then conducted at the Pesticides Laboratory of the Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA) in Balcarce, Argentina.

Analysis of 46 pesticides and metabolites was performed, finding concentrations of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides in the majority of samples. The pesticide residues tested for include glyphosate and its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic-acid (AMPA), 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, acetochlor, alachlor, allethrin, ametrine, atrazine, atrazine-desethyl, atrazine desisopropyl, atrazine-OH, carbaryl, chlorimuron-ethyl, chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos methyl, kresoxim-methyl, diazinon, dicamba, diclosulam, dimethoate, epoxiconazole, fipronil, flumethrin, flurochloridone, fomesafen, flumioxazin, imazapic, imazapyr, imazethapyr, imidacloprid, metalaxyl, metconazole, metribuzin, metsulfuron-methyl, parathion-methyl, pendimethalin, piperonyl butoxide, pirimicarb, pirimiphos-methyl, simazine, tebuconazole, tetramethrin, and triticonazole.

Results
Of the 46 compounds tested for, 15 were present in both PAs and non-protected areas. Of note, insecticide and fungicide concentrations are higher inside PAs, and there is a correlation between fungicide presence and nearby forest plantations. In looking at the concentrations of herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides both inside and outside the PAs, there are no statistically significant differences in the mean concentrations, despite the researchers’ prediction that there would be less pesticide residue present in the protected areas.

The residues identified in the samples include seven herbicides (glyphosate and AMPA, picloram, metsulfuron-methyl, metribuzin, acetochlor, and pendimethalin), five insecticides (allethrin, imidacloprid, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, and tetramethrin), and three fungicides (epoxiconazole, triticonazole, and tebuconazole). Nine of these pesticides are present within the PAs (three herbicides, three insecticides, and three fungicides) and all sampling sites are “contaminated by at least one compound, even in pristine and protected regions, except site 12, where no compound was detected.”

Additional noteworthy results include:

• Aside from site 12, at least one fungicide compound is detected in each sampling site.
• The fungicide triticonazole is present in 15 of the 19 sampling sites.
• The herbicide pendimethalin is detected most frequently in seven sites, five of which are inside PAs.
• “[S]ite 15 (SGNP) had the highest number of pesticides recorded within PAs, five in total: imidacloprid, carbaryl, triticonazole, tebuconazole, and pendimethalin.”
• “[S]ite 14 (SGNP) had the highest pesticide concentration registered, comprising four compounds – the herbicides picloram and pendimethalin; and the fungicides tebuconazole and triticonazole.”
• While only present in a few sites, glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA show the highest overall concentrations.
• Higher insecticide concentrations are documented inside PAs, with allethrin having the most significant results being detected in four sampling sites (three within PAs and one outside).
• “[A] significant positive correlation between fungicides and silviculture is observed, in which an increase in the land covered by planted forest resulted in a higher fungicide concentration.”
• Fungicides from the class known as azoles have a “notable presence along our sampling sites, being recorded in 18 of the 19 sites. We highlight triticonazole, present in eight PAs, which is widely used in cereal crops in order to control different fungal diseases and seems to be one of the least toxic fungicides for biodiversity. We also detected tebuconazole, a fungicide banned in Europe, in nine sites, five within PAs.”

These results indicate that PAs do not act as effective buffers against pesticide contamination in freshwater, with the aquatic environments in PAs, and all organisms within them, vulnerable to the adverse effects of pesticide residues. In summary, the researchers state: “[T]he conservation of freshwater ecosystems faces a challenge with pesticides, as more and more of these compounds are found in the most varied types of environments, regardless of the degree of anthropization in their surroundings, where even pristine environments can be affected, as observed in PAs. The ideals of sustainable development must be considered when balancing food production worldwide with biodiversity conservation.”

Previous Research

There is a long history of pesticide contamination in waterways, with scientific literature documenting risks to not only aquatic organisms as a result, but also to terrestrial wildlife and humans. In a Daily News post from 2024, entitled Pesticide-Contaminated Algae Found to Jeopardize Ecosystems and Human Well-Being [Study], research on pesticide-contaminated algae finds that the disruption of algal communities has a devastating effect on the health of the aquatic food web. The study findings show that contact with pesticides can result in changes to “algal physiology, causing tissue injury, developmental delay, genotoxicity, procreative disruption, and tissue biomagnification” that alter the dominance of algae species in the environment. This, in turn, “can impact higher trophic levels and have a domino effect on the aquatic food web. It is possible for biodiversity to disappear, reducing ecosystem stability and resistance to environmental alterations,” the study authors state.

The persistence of pesticides in the environment leads to bioaccumulation in “algal tissues, which could result in biomagnification as the toxins climb the food chain and endanger higher trophic levels.” The direct contact with these chemicals can cause “rapid physiological stress that impairs photosynthesis growth rates and, in extreme situations, results in death,” while the indirect contact with other organisms through the food web leads to negative impacts on the biological balance of entire marine ecosystems. The pesticide-laden algae pass their contamination to organisms that consume them, and the contamination continues to increase through trophic transfer. As the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains, “Phytoplankton and algae form the bases of aquatic food webs. They are eaten by primary consumers like zooplankton, small fish, and crustaceans. Primary consumers are then eaten by fish, small sharks, corals, and baleen whales. Top ocean predators include large sharks, billfish, dolphins, toothed whales, and large seals. Humans consume aquatic life from every section of this food web.” For more information on water contamination and the threats to biodiversity, see here, here, and here.

The Organic Solution
To remove pesticide residues within both protected and non-protected areas that threaten all life and ecosystem stability, the elimination of all petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers from agricultural and land management practices is necessary. Organically managed systems focus on soil health, building a healthy foundation that makes the use of chemical-intensive practices obsolete. Taking into consideration all of the adverse effects of pesticide exposure and the ubiquitous nature of pesticide residues within the environment, as well as all of the effects that have yet to be fully studied, the path forward must incorporate a widespread transition to fully organic practices.

Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic methods, as widely documented and supported by science (see here, here, and here), and take action to advance the organic movement.

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

Source:

Mollmann, V. et al. (2026) Epilithic biofilms as bioindicators of water contamination by pesticides in Protected Areas from Atlantic Forest, Science of The Total Environment. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969726003177.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 18, 2026) Researchers in Germany and Brazil investigated the biodiversity of agricultural landscapes in organic and non-organic areas in “bee hotels,” finding that there is a positive correlation between organically managed fields and numerous indicators of improved pollinator health, including an “increase in bee abundance, species richness, and diversity.” This study, 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.

Methodology and Results

Research for this study “was conducted at 17 sites in the southern part of Germany, Baden-Württemberg, including eight conventional and nine organic farming systems.” Researchers for this study are based at the Institute of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics at Ulm University in Germany and the Laboratory for Bee Studies at the Federal University of Maranhão in São Luís, Maranhão in Brazil. The authors signed a “declaration of competing interest,” stipulating that “that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.”

From the end of April to November 2021, cavity nests were installed and monitored until February 2022, giving the nests time to overwinter. The bees that spawned once were assessed for species type and sex after they were moved into a greenhouse and subsequently frozen for analysis.” To analyze differing landscapes across eight conventional and nine organic nesting sites, the researchers identified ‘foraging zones’ around each site based on units of circular areas within a 500-meter radius.

“Our study demonstrates positive effects of organic farming for solitary bees of the genera Heriades, Chelostoma, Hylaeus, Megachile, Osmia, Hoplites, and Coelioxys. Both brood cells and species abundance increased with a higher proportion of organic farming in the conventional agricultural landscape,” says the authors. They continue: “Similarly, bee diversity showed a significant positive response, while forest cover had no detectable effect. Difference on diversity cannot be attributed to proportion of bees that failed to develop. Regarding sexes, a higher abundance of both sexes, females and males was recorded within organic sites, at local and landscape levels.”

In discussing their main results, the authors explain: “The higher diversity of crop rotations and presence of semi-natural habitats and absence of heavy application of pesticides in organic systems likely provides critical resources that are often scarce in intensive conventional landscapes dominated by monocultures.” Their analysis confirms that landscapes with a significant presence of organic farms and organic-compatible pest management systems positively impacted pollinator abundance and diversity at the agricultural landscape and individual farm level.

The authors’ main takeaway is that organic land management principles, both on-farm and on the broader ecosystems in which they are embedded, play “a more critical role in supporting bee diversity and abundance as suggested previously.”

Previous Coverage

The issue of pesticide contamination in food production and in ecosystems continues to emerge with increased demand for residue testing. A new analysis by Environmental Working Group finds that “37% of non-organic, or conventionally grown, California produce samples had residues of pesticides that are ‘forever chemicals’ known as PFAS.” Beyond Pesticides has submitted comments on the five PFAS pesticides proposed for registration in 2025 (Cyclobutrifluram, Diflufenican, Isocycloseram, Trifludimoxazin, and Epyrifenacil), as well as the “emergency” exemption proposal for tetflupyrolimet on the basis of herbicide resistance, continuing to lock producers into toxic systems of degradation rather than non-chemical alternatives to pest management.

In terms of pesticide impacts on pollinators, a study published last year in Science of The Total Environment reports widespread pesticide contamination collected from beehive monitoring across the European Union (EU). “This study has produced the first EU-wide distribution map of terrestrial pesticide contamination and demonstrates widespread pesticide contamination of EU environments,” the authors write. The study, led by a cohort of citizen-scientists, documents pesticide drift across the European continent. The results found that 188 of the 429 targeted pesticide compounds were detected in noninvasive, in-hive passive samplers (APIStrips) across 27 EU countries between May and August of 2023. (See Daily News here.)

There is a significant record of the ecological and pollinator benefits of organically managed systems. In a 2024 study published in Journal of Applied Ecology, German researchers compared 16 agricultural landscapes in Lower Saxony and northern Hesse that have different combinations of semi-natural habitat, organic practices, and annual and perennial flower strips. Overall, the researchers found that organic farming provides the highest benefit to the bees, along with the presence of diverse flowering plants in and near monoculture fields. This study compares the effects of three honey bee conservation methods on the prevalence of the parasitic mite Varroa destructor and the 11 parasites Varroa transfers to bees, and the impact of these destructive organisms on bee colony growth. Organic practices lead directly to lower parasite load and higher colony growth—essentially, the more organic crops, the more bees, and the more parasites, the fewer bees. Pesticide use in monocultures doubles the damage. Pesticides increase mortality, damage bees’ immune systems, and reduce foraging capacity, while monocultures disturb bees’ nutritional balance, making them less able to resist parasites and survive pesticide exposure. (See Daily News here.)

In 2025, a study published in Conservation Genetics focuses on meadows in southern Bavaria (the largest state of Germany by surface land mass area). The study finds that biomass is significantly higher on organic meadows compared to the conventionally farmed ones. “The organically managed meadows returns 11.2% more BINs (5,679) than the conventionally managed ones (5,109), a highly significant difference,” the researchers conclude. They continue: “1,400 BINs (i.e., 22% of all BINs) were only found on the organic meadows… For most families, the comparison of organic and conventional meadows revealed a higher diversity in the organic meadows, irrespective of family size. Particularly rich on organic meadows were the Hymenoptera families Megachilidae, Cynipidae, Diapriidae, the Coleoptera families Buprestidae, Carabidae, and Mordellidae, as well as Thripidae.” (See Daily News here.)

Organically managed farmland has been found to have significant benefits for climate and the environment, according to USDA researchers and field trials run by Rodale Institute and higher education institutions around the U.S. and the globe. As one recent example, a study published in Scientific Reports highlights the benefits of organic agriculture in comparison to different farming systems over five years on four crops (maize, tomato, faba bean, and potato). “Soil carbon sequestration is a long-time storage of carbon in soil which represents 70% of the carbon in land,” the authors note. “Therefore, the main aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the agricultural practice systems on the soil carbon sequestration and properties, productivity, water consumption, soil carbon sequestration, CO₂ emission and cost of some agricultural crops.” As a result, the experiment reveals that, compared to chemical-intensive farming, organic methods enhance soil properties, reduce water consumption, provide higher yields and higher soil carbon sequestration, reduce CO2 emissions, and achieve the highest total net profit for all four crops after five years. (See Daily News here.)

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

The Rodale Institute, Ohio State University, and Tennessee State University determined in a study (2025) based on field trials that organic grain cropping systems contain higher concentrations of total nitrogen and soil organic carbon, exceeding those found in conventional, chemical-intensive systems. (See Daily News here.) This study is an extension of the Rodale Institute’s Farming System Trial (FST), an ongoing 40+-year field study published in 2020 with the overarching goal of “[a]ddress[ing] the barriers to the adoption of organic farming by farmers across the country.” The FST finds:

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

Call to Action

You can track pollinator, biodiversity, and organic agriculture developments with various Beyond Pesticides’ tools, including through Daily News and the journal Pesticides and You. Learn more about your potential exposure to toxic pesticides and chemicals in over 90 non-organic crops, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and related items in the Eating With a Conscience database.

You can continue to stay apprised of the most pressing developments on various issues and campaigns by signing up for Weekly News Update and Action of the Week—including a call to tell your governor to adopt policies that support organic land management and ecological balance.

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

Source: Global Ecology and Conservation

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2026) An article in Microorganisms by researchers from the U.S., Israel, and Australia analyzes the adverse health and environmental effects of genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), specifically genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs). As the authors state, the prevalence of genetic engineering has “accelerated the creation and large-scale environmental release” of GMMs, which “present unique, long-term risks to human and environmental health.” One of the authors, André Leu, DSc, spoke at the first session of Beyond Pesticides’ National Forum Series: Forging a Future with Nature in 2023. (See recording here.)

This review provides risk scenarios of GMMs, showing the threat to ecological systems, particularly within the soil, and human health. As GMMs are “biologically active, self-replicating entities capable of rapid mutation and global dispersal” they present greater risks, and current regulatory frameworks do not adequately assess their potential harm. Genetically altering microorganisms, the most complex and diverse systems in biology, and creating new gene combinations with unknown implications, “has the potential to disrupt the functions, diversity, interactions, and impacts of microbes and microbiomes,” the researchers note. They continue: “This puts human and environmental health at risk. Worst-case scenarios include the promotion of diseases, risks to species survival, and damaged or collapsed ecosystems.”

This is not a theoretical issue. As the authors point out, currently there are two prominent companies that have publicly announced the use of GMMs on large amounts of agricultural land. Pivot Bio has used their product, Proven®, and released “GM bacteria on nearly 5 million acres, with as many as 5 trillion microbes per acre” to continually fix nitrogen, while Bayer has “released a seed treatment called Poncho®VOTiVO® 2.0 (now sold by BASF) that contains GM Bacillus thuringiensis.”

Importance and Background

Currently, consistent and extensive regulations for GMOs and GMMs are deficient, with the regulatory processes for assessing organisms that have had their genetic material (DNA) intentionally changed varying around the world. “Pre-release safety testing, assessments for human and environmental impact, and monitoring frameworks are lacking,” the authors say. They continue: “In the US, GMMs for commercial use are primarily regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as toxic substances, which is ill-suited for biological organisms. In addition, most other GMMs (not for commercial use) are unregulated and untracked.” (See more below on regulatory deficiencies.)

Microorganisms play an important role within ecosystems. Types of microorganisms include bacteria, archaea, fungi, viruses, bacteriophages, and protists, all of which can live as a collection in a microbiome. These systems require balance to adequately promote crucial life functions, whether that is soil microbiomes supporting healthy plants and food crops or the human gut microbiome supporting immunity, metabolism, detoxification, and resistance to infection.

“[N]atural microbiomes have proven critical to human and environmental health, and GMMs carry a high level of unpredictability with the potential to produce long-term, significant ecological threats,” the researchers share. They continue: “The use of GMMs in agriculture, including biological control agents for plant disease and bioremediation for soil, is expanding rapidly. The global market value in 2021 was $10.25 billion; it was predicted to nearly triple to $29.31 billion by 2029. Although most applications use naturally occurring microbes, the use of GMMs in agriculture is expected to increase dramatically.” Given the questions regarding an adequate regulatory framework, this expansion exacerbates the potential threat to human and soil health, as well as all wildlife.

Health and Environmental Implications

The unpredictability of genetic engineering presents risks that are not adequately addressed prior to the release of GMMs or GMOs. As a result, the consequences of allowing these organisms to enter the environment could be “widespread, long-term, and difficult or impossible to remediate.” The impacts could range from antibiotic resistance, cancer, and developmental delays to fully altered ecosystems.

As the review indicates, there are “at least five unique characteristics of microbes that make the regulation of GMMs more difficult—and potentially more impactful—than genetically modified plants and animals.” This includes:

1. “Rapid replication. Unlike plants and animals that may require growing seasons and gestation periods to pass down traits to offspring, microbes under ideal conditions can double their numbers in as little as 20 minutes.
2. Challenges with containment. Microbes are not easily contained. They can travel to distant and unexpected ecosystems and hosts and interact with a wide range of other microbes and organisms.
3. Gene transfer. Microbes might readily transfer their genes to other microbes (known as horizontal gene transfer), or receive genes transferred from GM or non-GM microbes. If they confer advantages, the transferred genes may continue to be passed on from mother to daughter cells, exponentially increasing their count.
4. Microbiomes are life-critical. Microbial communities are critical to the health and function of humans, animals, plants, and ecosystems around the planet.
5. Unknown complexities. Science has only identified perhaps one percent of the estimated one trillion microbes on the planet. Furthermore, we have only begun to map the complex relationships within and between microbiomes, hosts, and ecosystems.”

Gut Microbiome

The gut microbiome is critical to health, allowing for the “resilience and survivability of mammals over evolutionary history” through roles in nutrient absorption, immune function, transient and chronic inflammation, intestinal barrier integrity, metabolism, mental health, and more. GMMs can cause imbalances in the gut microbiome, promoting disease within the gastrointestinal system.

Infant Health

As addressed on Beyond Pesticides’ resources page for children’s health, early life is a critical time in which “windows of vulnerability” occur, with critical implications for long-term health, including preconception. A child’s microbiome starts with the mother, as microbial information is passed down. “The first three years of life are key in terms of the development of the host-microbe interactions, which directly impact the development of the baby’s immune system, gut health, and neurological development,” the authors of the current review say.

The gut microbiome within infants is even more crucial, as it “protects against pathogenic infections, promotes gastrointestinal development, and coincides with healthy neurological development. The infant microbiome helps build an informed and precise immune system—one that attacks infections, but does not attack harmless substances, as in the case of food allergies, or self-tissues, in the case of autoimmunity.” GMMs, however, can disrupt these systems and cause long-term health implications.

Oral Health

Within the human body, the oral microbiome is the second-most biodiverse microbial population, housing at least 770 species. The review states: “When balanced, the oral microbiome prevents disease, resists pathogenic infections, provides multi-layer immune defenses, and reduces inflammation. Friendly oral bacteria contribute up to 25% of a person’s total daily needs of the critical blood-pressure-lowering chemical, nitric oxide. On the other hand, an imbalanced oral microbiome increases the risk of heart attack by nearly 50%. It not only promotes cavities, gum disease, and heart disease, but an imbalanced oral microbiome has also been implicated in brain inflammation, lung infections, diabetes, head and neck cancers, preterm birth, and inflammatory joint disease.”

Soil Health

The microbes in the soil are important for soil formation as they perform crucial soil processes and break down organic matter, weather minerals, fix nitrogen, and contribute to soil structure. “However, introducing the unpredictable element of genetically modified microbes to enhance certain capacities, such as nitrogen fixation, into ecosystems already under considerable stress introduces exceptionally high risks,” the researchers point out. “Nevertheless, GMO microbes have been, and are currently released at a large scale (millions of acres) into many parts of the world without rigorous risk assessments on how they might impact all the above processes, long-term or short-term.” Risks include heightened pathogenicity (causing disease), additional emergence of pests or weeds, and resistance.

“There is an even greater risk in unleashing genetically modified microbes into soil ecosystems because microbes can adapt and evolve continuously through processes such as horizontal gene transfer,” the authors note. “Through this mechanism, a modified microbial gene from a GMM could be transferred to a native soil microbe, altering its genome and its ecological niche.”

GMOs and GMMs in Agriculture

One of the largest concerns related to genetic engineering is resistance, which is not merely a hypothetical threat. Genetically modified crops with herbicide resistance have led to herbicide-resistant “super weeds” developing naturally as a response. While attempting to create crops that can be sprayed with high amounts of herbicides like glyphosate, “super weeds” also emerged with this resistance. This is due to the natural process of genetic selection, an evolutionary process where certain traits are advantageous and become more common than others.

“Depending on the type of GM microbes and the selection pressure put on the system to select for them, it is likely that the selection of super microbes will happen at a much faster rate than what we observed in super weed plants, which could lead to super soil microbes,” the researchers say. They continue: “Moreover, GMMs that harm soil biodiversity (by killing beneficial microbes) would be a significant threat because they would make the soil microbiome susceptible to invasion and disturbance. The question we, as a society, should be addressing is how we can support and stimulate the natural, incredible diversity of beneficial soil microbes instead of modifying them or stamping them out.”

Insufficient Regulations

Genetic engineering, such as through the CRISPR-Cas9 technology, has allowed for the removal, addition, and/or alteration of DNA sequences that can then turn genes on or off within organisms. The review highlights: “Numerous scientific and popular articles envision CRISPR’s revolutionary role in solving a long list of human and societal ills. Increasing evidence, however, demonstrates that the process causes significant unpredictable changes in the genome, including additions, deletions, chromosomal shattering, and widespread mutations that do not occur naturally.”

As this technology continues to advance, regulatory assessments are not advancing with it. “Rather than increasing regulatory requirements, numerous countries, including the U.S., Canada, UK, Japan, Australia, India, and others, have deregulated plant, animal, and/or microorganisms altered by gene- editing technology,” the authors write.

Currently within the U.S., there is no federal legislation that recognizes GMMs as a category, as well as no requirements for GMMs to undergo separate evaluations for potential environmental impacts. The responsibility of GMO regulation is divided among the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and EPA, with “policies created prior to genetic engineering technology [that] are criticized as inadequate.”

As the researchers note, “Most GMMs for commercial use fall under the purview of the EPA, which improperly regulates them as toxic controlled substances (industrial chemicals).” Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA only requires a 90-day notice from manufacturers using GMMs. “Regulating GMMs using methods designed for toxic chemicals is inappropriate and ignores the fact that these are biologically active organisms and critical to health and environment,” the authors state. Additionally, “Because EPA only regulates GMMs created for commercial use, most other GMMs, including those produced by formal and informal research, students, and home hobbyists, are unregulated and untracked.”

For additional coverage from Beyond Pesticides on the role of genetic engineering (GE) in agriculture, see Consumer Choice and the Spread of Genetically Engineered Food, Court Nixes Scanning for Mandated Food Label Info, Allows GE Ingredients To Be Called “Bioengineered”, and Government Report Pushes Genetically Engineered Crops, Despite Failure and Effective Alternatives.

Take Action

GMMs and GMOs in agriculture are not progress. They are part of the same failed, chemical-intensive farming system that already threatens pollinators like bees, pollutes water, and traps farmers on a costly chemical treadmill. We do not need genetically modified crops. What we do need is certified organic farming and traditional plant breeding—approaches that protect people and the planet by transitioning us away from toxic chemicals. Together, we can protect our food, support farmers and farmworkers, and build a healthier, more just food system for all. Take two actions: 1. Petition—Tell Food Companies to Reject GMO Wheat! and 2. Tell Congress to instruct USDA to prohibit HB4 wheat and instruct EPA to prohibit the use of glufosinate herbicides on wheat.

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

Source:

Lerner, A. et al. (2026) Genetically Modified Microorganisms: Risks and Regulatory Considerations for Human and Environmental Health, Microorganisms. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/14/2/467.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 16, 2026) On the brink of the first genetically engineered (GE) wheat to be introduced into the U.S. market, after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved it in August, 2024, groups are calling on Congress to instruct USDA to prohibit HB4 wheat and instruct EPA to prohibit the use of glufosinate herbicides on wheat. The herbicide on which the crop is dependent, glufosinate, is a highly toxic herbicide banned in the European Union because of its links to reproductive and developmental harm.

The drought- and herbicide-tolerant wheat, known as HB4 GMO wheat, follows a long line of genetically engineered crops that have been allowed to be grown in the U.S., with Roundup Ready^TM (glyphosate-tolerant) soybeans being among the first crops allowed in 1996. While the introduction of this technology promised to reduce pesticide use (herbicides are included under the definition of pesticide), the exact opposite occurred, with the skyrocketing of herbicide use. (See Daily News review of a study by Charles Benbrook, PhD, “Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S.—the first sixteen years.”) The extraordinary increase in herbicide use associated with GE crops has been accompanied by an escalating increase in weed resistance to the herbicides used on the crops, which has led to pressure to develop new herbicides, use multiple combinations of herbicides, and even the proclamation of emergency weed problems justifying the use of unregistered herbicides, as is the case with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) consideration of a PFAS herbicide, tetflupyrolimet, because weeds are so out of control in GE rice production. As EPA’s comment period ends today, March 16 (see next paragraph to comment), Beyond Pesticides and dozens of groups are calling on the agency to deny the emergency and reject the use of the unregistered PFAS herbicide because the resistance problem is highly predictable (and therefore not an emergency under the law) and only exacerbates the problem.

[In a two-step action, groups are Urging Congress to tell EPA that herbicide resistance is not an emergency and PFAS chemicals must not be broadcast in the environment. After clicking on the submit button to send a message to Congress, the page will automatically redirect to suggested language for a comment to EPA. Because the federal government shut down easy access to the public comment process, you will need to cut and paste this language into the Federal Register.]

In recent years, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of USDA regulations have loosened the restrictions concerning which genetically engineered (GE or GMO) crops can be grown. It has applied the new regulations to allow HB4 wheat engineered to be resistant to the toxic herbicide glufosinate. It is actually a fairly simple approval process to introduce. This is what APHIS/USDA announced in August:

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) recently reviewed the following plants modified using genetic engineering to determine whether they posed an increased plant pest risk as relative to non-modified comparators:

•  . . .
• Bioceres Crop Solutions, wheat with drought tolerance and herbicide resistance.   

APHIS found these modified plants were unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to other cultivated plants. As a result, they are not subject to regulation under 7 CFR part 340. From a plant pest risk perspective, this modified plant may be safely grown and bred in the United States.”

In December 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California vacated the 2020 USDA /APHIS rule, formerly known as the SECURE (Sustainable, Ecological, Consistent, Uniform, Responsible, Efficient) rule, which had been adopted to streamline USDA oversight of plants developed using genetic engineering. In a December 4, 2024 announcement, USDA/APHIS stated, “Regulatory Status Review responses, Confirmation Request responses, and active permits that USDA issued prior to December 2, 2024, remain valid.” This includes the decision on HB4 wheat, according to which USDA/APHIS concluded that HB4 wheat and its offspring derived from crosses with other non-modified and modified plants do not pose increased “plant pest risk,” and therefore are not regulated under the Plant Protection Act.

The vacatur of the 2020 rule reverts the core USDA biotechnology regulations to their pre-2020 framework. Although most consider the older framework more restrictive, as noted in 2016 comments by Beyond Pesticides, its regulatory criteria used a product-based approach and assumed that the process of biotechnology poses no distinctive risks, which fails to consider the higher rates of unintended effects that genetic engineering poses when compared to conventional chemical use and conventional plant breeding. The risk assessments conducted under the rule failed to consider the efficacy of the technology, the chemical dependency that is built into many of these technologies, and the long-term health and environmental effects that the technology poses.

Because of the predictable herbicide resistance to current herbicides, such as Bayer/Monsanto’s ‘Roundup’ and dicamba, pesticide manufacturers are introducing newer glufosinate products, including those intended for use with HB4 wheat. The wheat is modified to tolerate glufosinate, a highly toxic herbicide banned in the European Union because of its links to reproductive and developmental harm. It has been linked to miscarriages, stillbirths, and birth defects. If this wheat is grown, glufosinate could be sprayed directly on wheat crops, likely leading to residues in everyday foods like bread, pasta, and cereal. Pregnant people, children, farmworkers, and frontline communities would be most at risk.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide registration process is insufficient to protect public health, endangered species, the environment, and biodiversity. EPA’s presupposition that farmers must use toxic chemicals to be productive and profitable clouds and undermines the regulatory process—and keeps farmers on a toxic pesticide treadmill. Fundamental change requires EPA—in every pesticide registration and registration review—to examine whether there are practices that can eliminate harm, not substitute one toxic conventional pesticide for another.

GE food is not progress. It is a repeat of the same failed, pesticide-intensive farming that already threatens pollinators like bees, pollutes water, and traps farmers on a costly chemical treadmill. Nearly half of U.S. wheat is exported, yet many major trading partners with the U.S. will not accept GE wheat. That means even small genetic contamination incidents could shut down exports and threaten wheat farmers’ livelihoods—even farmers who never plant it.  

Herbicide resistance is a predictable outcome of reliance on herbicides. GE wheat is not needed, given the productivity and profitability of certified organic farming and traditional plant breeding—approaches that protect people and the planet by transitioning away from toxic chemicals. Organic is currently the only agricultural system alternative to chemical-intensive farming that is defined under law, the Organic Foods Production Act, with a National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, and a certification, inspection, and enforcement system. Advocates say that organic protects agricultural production and food safety, supports farmers and farmworkers, and builds a healthier, more just food system for all. By eliminating petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, the benefits of organic are cross-cutting, mitigating existential threats to health, biodiversity, and climate.

For more background, see Friends of the Earth’s report, Genetically Engineered Wheat: Risks and Concerns.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative:
In recent years, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA/APHIS) regulations have loosened the restrictions concerning which genetically engineered (GE or GMO) crops can be grown. It has applied the new regulations to allow HB4 wheat engineered to tolerate the toxic herbicide glufosinate.

The action to allow GE wheat demonstrates the flaws in the approval process and allows widespread exposure to a toxic herbicide that is banned in many countries.

In December 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California vacated the 2020 USDA /APHIS rule, formerly known as the SECURE (Sustainable, Ecological, Consistent, Uniform, Responsible, Efficient) rule, which had been adopted to streamline USDA oversight of plants developed using genetic engineering. In a December 4, 2024 announcement, USDA/APHIS stated, “Regulatory Status Review responses, Confirmation Request responses, and active permits that USDA issued prior to December 2, 2024, remain valid.” This includes the decision on HB4 wheat, according to which, USDA/APHIS concluded that HB4 wheat and its offspring derived from crosses with other non-modified and modified plants do not pose increased “plant pest risk,” and therefore are not regulated under the Plant Protection Act.

The vacatur of the 2020 rule reverts the core USDA biotechnology regulations to their pre-2020 framework. Although most consider the older framework more restrictive, it used a product-based approach and assumed that the process of biotechnology poses no distinctive risks, which fails to consider the higher rates of unintended effects that genetic engineering poses when compared to conventional chemical use and conventional plant breeding. The risk assessments conducted under the rule failed to consider the efficacy of the technology, the chemical dependency that is built into many of these technologies, and the long-term health and environmental effects that the technology poses.

Because of the predictable weed resistance to current herbicides, pesticide manufacturers are introducing newer glufosinate products, including those intended for use with HB4 wheat. The wheat is modified to tolerate glufosinate, a highly toxic herbicide banned in the European Union because of its links to reproductive and developmental harm. It has been linked to miscarriages, stillbirths, and birth defects. If this wheat is grown, glufosinate could be sprayed directly on wheat crops, likely leading to residues in everyday foods like bread, pasta, and cereal. Pregnant people, children, farmworkers, and frontline communities would be most at risk.

GE food is not progress. It is a repeat of the same failed, pesticide-intensive farming that already threatens pollinators like bees, pollutes water, and traps farmers on a costly chemical treadmill. Nearly half of U.S. wheat is exported, yet many of our major trading partners will not accept GE wheat. That means even small genetic contamination incidents could shut down exports and threaten wheat farmers’ livelihoods—even farmers who never plant it.

Herbicide resistance is a predictable outcome of reliance on herbicides. We do not need GE wheat. What we do need is certified organic farming and traditional plant breeding—approaches that protect people and the planet by transitioning us away from toxic chemicals. Together, we can protect our food, support farmers and farmworkers, and build a healthier, more just food system for all. 

Please instruct USDA to prohibit HB4 wheat and instruct EPA to prohibit the use of glufosinate herbicides on wheat.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2026) In a press release on March 10, 2026, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) cites independent test data on the herbicide indaziflam with detections of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the “forever chemicals” known for significant toxicity at low level exposure and high persistence. The product, Rejuvra™, is produced by Envu (a former division of Bayer) and “is being sprayed and considered for use across millions of acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Forest Service land.” Scientific literature connects indaziflam and PFAS with adverse effects to human, soil, and biodiversity health, raising serious concerns about their wide use in agriculture and general land management of lawns, parks, playing fields, ornamentals, fence lines, rights-of-way, rangeland, open space, and Christmas trees.

Background
As a pre-emergent weed killer used to kill annual grasses and unwanted broadleaf plants, the fluoroalkyltriazine herbicide is broadly labeled for use in residential areas, commercial ornamental and sod production, forestry, and mostly orchard crops. While indaziflam is considered a “selective” herbicide, it actually kills and prevents germination of a wide range of broad-leaved plants and grasses and comes close to being a soil sterilant.  Since the chemical is subject to drift and movement off the target site, it can kill annual native plants that provide important ecosystem services for pollinators and wildlife. Documented health and environmental effects of indaziflam include genotoxicity/DNA damage, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, kidney and liver damage, birth/developmental effects, leaching, and acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms, among others. (See here, here, and here.)

The classification of PFAS encompasses a large group of chemicals, with a definition that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) eschews. A large number of scientists and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) classify compounds with one fully fluorinated carbon atom as PFAS, which are not accurately captured in EPA’s risk assessments. A wide body of science on the adverse health and environmental effects of PFAS exists, as these synthetic chemicals have become ubiquitous in nature, wildlife, and humans, as demonstrated by biomonitoring studies. Research, documented in a literature review in Environmental Science & Technology and additional articles, highlights the importance of a universal, cohesive definition of PFAS that incorporates all fluorinated compounds, including the long carbon chain PFOA (perfluorooactanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid), as well as the ultrashort-chain perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs).

Both long and short chain PFAS’ adverse effects include, but are not limited to, cancer, endocrine-disrupting effects, and immune system damage. The multitude of sources of PFAS and various exposure routes lead to widespread contamination of the environment and organisms. PFAS use in agriculture represents a large source of poisoning and contamination because of their wide application as pesticide active ingredients, use in the plastic containers that pesticides are stored in, and as surfactants in pesticide products. Additionally, PFAS are used in many other plastic storage containers and food packaging, personal care products, nonstick cookware, cleaning supplies, treated clothing, firefighting foam, and machinery and equipment used in manufacturing—all of which contaminate food, water, soil, and the air.  (See Daily News here.)

Product Testing Results
In testing Rejuvra™, PEER finds the presence of multiple PFAS in all twelve samples, including PFHxS (perfluorohexanesulfonic acid) and PFHxA (perfluorohexanoic acid). PFBS (perfluorobutanesulfonic acid) and PFOS were also detected in many of the samples. (See the full lab reports here, here, and here.)

The press release notes: “‘The discovery of toxic chemicals in a product intended for landscape-level use should set off alarm bells,’ said Chandra Rosenthal, PEER Public Lands Advocate. ‘Our public lands should not be exposed to chemicals whose impacts remain unknown and that will persist in the environment indefinitely.’”

On the product label itself, it is listed that indaziflam is the only active ingredient, making up 19.05% of the mixture, with the other 80.95% as “Other Ingredients” or “inert ingredients” that are not disclosed on product labels but can have adverse biological and chemical effects. EPA interprets the federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), to allow secrecy of all inert or other ingredients—regardless of toxicity, except for highest toxicity category above a designated percentage of the product—in pesticide products that the manufacturer claims are not included in the formulation as the “active” chemical ingredient to attack the target pest. Active ingredients are mostly a small fraction of the total formulation.

PEER writes: “Manufacturers are not required to disclose the inert ingredients in pesticides, which can make up to 95% of the product and may include PFAS. The detection of PFAS in Rejuvra reinforces the need for full chemical disclosure of all ingredients in pesticides.”

While not detailing all of the human health risks that independent scientific literature documents for indaziflam, the label highlights some of the environmental hazards. “The product label warns that Indaziflam can contaminate surface waters via runoff and is toxic to fish, vertebrates, and aquatic plants,” PEER notes. “This is a serious concern, given the extensive network of streams, wetlands, and riparian corridors across public lands.”

The presence of PFAS in this herbicide product is alarming to scientists and public health and environmental advocates, not only in terms of the lack of disclosure but because of the increased risks associated with chemical mixtures within products and pesticide mixtures as they are encountered in the environment, which can have additive or synergistic effects. This heightened toxicity is not accounted for in individual active ingredient assessments, further threatening health and the environment.

Previous Research
Both indaziflam and PFAS have been covered in previous Daily News. One study published in Science of the Total Environment, entitled “The silence of the clams: Forestry registered pesticides as multiple stressors on soft-shell clams,” finds that chronic exposure to pesticides, including indaziflam, used in conventional forestry operations runoff harm soft shell clams. Rather than focusing on the impact of a single chemical, researchers analyzed the combined effects of several pesticides. “This is an important data gap to fill as research on these compounds’ toxicity typically focuses on individual compound effects at high concentrations to determine lethality, which while necessary for understanding compound toxicity, can miss sublethal effects that can have long term impacts on these systems,” said lead author Allie Tissot, PhD, previously of Portland State University and currently with the Oregon Department of Agriculture. (See Daily News here.)

Another article highlights how indaziflam causes broadscale devastating ecological and health effects. Use of the herbicide indaziflam is an example of the ineffectiveness of management based on herbicides. The action on seedlings is long-lasting, thus inhibiting the growth and establishment of a resilient plant community that is resistant to invasion. Given its persistence and widespread effects and the extent of the damage it causes to native soil seed banks and plant biodiversity, indaziflam could contribute to the decline of ecosystems where it is applied, similar to the cascading impacts of the systemic insecticides, such as fipronil and the neonicotinoids, on animals. The impacts of indaziflam could be even greater than insecticides since plants are the foundation of all living systems. Building resilience and resistance into a plant community requires working with succession, which requires the growth of some annuals, in preparation for the longer term community of mostly perennials—contrary to the approach of killing all “weeds.”

From epigenetic to immunotoxic effects, there is a wide range of health implications with PFAS exposure. Because of their ubiquitous use, studies report that PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. Furthermore, pregnant women can readily transfer compounds to the developing fetus through the placenta. PFAS residues are persistent in food and drinking water, with over six million U.S. residents regularly encountering drinking water with PFAS levels above the EPA health advisory of 70 ng/L. Therefore, PFAS are detectable in almost all of the U.S. population—disproportionately afflicting people of color communities—and have implications for human health. (See Daily News here.)

A previous Daily News article, titled “Science on “Forever Chemicals” (PFAS) as Pesticide Ingredients and Contaminants Documented,” shows how and to what extent PFAS can be introduced into pesticide products, and how this impacts health and the environment. The findings are gleaned from public records requests to state and federal agencies in the U. S. and Canada, as well as from publicly accessible databases discussed in the commentary Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment. According to the authors: “The biggest contributor to PFAS in pesticide products was active ingredients and their degradates [chemical breakdown products]. Nearly a quarter of all U.S. conventional pesticide active ingredients were organofluorines and 14% were PFAS, and for active ingredients approved in the last 10 y[ears], this had increased to 61% organofluorines and 30% PFAS.”  

In related research, a review using California Department of Pesticide Regulation fruit and vegetable test data conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), PFAS pesticides were found in peaches, strawberries, and other popular fruits. According to the report, “Out of 930 samples of 78 types of non-organic, California-grown fruits and vegetables tested, 348 samples, or 37%, had traces of PFAS pesticides, based on state testing data EWG reviewed.”

EPA Continues to Register PFAS Pesticides, with Declaration of an “Emergency
Policy and toxicology are slated to collide as EPA considers allowing the use of the PFAS pesticide, tetflupyrolimet, by invoking an emergency waiver process in federal pesticide law. If authorized, EPA’s decision will permit the use of an unregistered pesticide under an emergency waiver provision—in this case, an emergency caused by weed resistance to weed killers (herbicides) on the market. EPA is accepting public comments until March 16, 11:59 pm EDT. Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to object to EPA approval by writing to EPA and Congress stating that herbicide resistance is not an emergency and PFAS chemicals must not be broadcast in the environment. 

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

The Organic Solution
As PEER points out in their press release: “‘Land managers have safer, proven alternatives to spraying Rejuvra,’ said David Jenkins, former Senior Executive at BLM. ‘Mechanical removal, restoration with native plants, and improved grazing management can reduce invasive grasses without introducing new toxic risks.’”

With EPA’s failure to perform its statutory duty to adequately protect the health of the environment and all organisms within it, as extensively covered by Beyond Pesticides, the call to truly safeguard ecosystems and public health with the elimination of pesticides, including all herbicides like indaziflam and all PFAS, takes on a greater urgency. Instead of creating a complicated workaround that will not address the urgent health, biodiversity, and climate crises, EPA must cancel registrations of pesticides that harm health and the environment and facilitate a widescale conversion to organic practices.

The holistic, systems-based organic solution for land management and agriculture offers numerous health and environmental benefits. Learn more about how to take action and have your voice heard on governmental efforts that are harmful to the environment and public and worker health, increase overall pesticide use, and undermine the advancement of organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies here.

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

Source:

Rosenthal, C. and Jenkins, D. (2026) New Testing Detects Toxic PFAS in Herbicide Applied Across Public Lands, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Available at: https://peer.org/new-testing-detects-toxic-pfas-in-herbicide-applied-across-public-lands/.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2026) The science connecting pesticide exposure to neurotoxicity continues to mount. 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.”

Neurological conditions can manifest as headaches, muscle weakness, tremors, paralysis, coordination challenges, vision loss, hallucinations, vertigo, seizures, memory loss, slurred speech, trouble breathing with minimal exertion, and more. The range of adverse effects from low-dose, long-term exposure and low-dose (or subchronic) exposure during developmental phases of life raises serious questions about the adequacy of the regulatory review of pesticides, which focuses on acute high and lethal dose exposure. One study on the neurotoxicity of pesticides, published in Chemosphere, concludes, “New regulatory and preventive measures to mitigate the neurotoxic effects of pesticides are needed.” (See also Daily News.)

Even at low concentration, chronic exposure to pesticides and other environmental contaminants “poses serious ecological and health concerns” that occur as these chemicals “bioaccumulate in organisms and biomagnify through food chains, ultimately threatening biodiversity and ecosystem balance.” (See Daily News coverage here and here.) This review captures scientific literature that documents the proposed mechanisms of neurotoxicity from exposure to pesticides and other toxicants, threatening vertebrate neurophysiology.

Importance and Background

Contaminants that specifically target the nervous system cause damage to nerve cells, disrupting neural functions. These toxicants can “interfere with neurotransmission, block nerve impulses, or induce cellular degeneration, leading to severe physiological consequences.” According to the World Health Organization (WHO), over one in three people are affected by neurological conditions, the leading cause of illness and disability worldwide.

As the current review points out, “the prevalence of autism has tripled between 2000 and 2016, coinciding with a more than 15-fold increase in chemical production since the 1940s, including neurotoxicants… Recent data indicate that the prevalence of autism continues to rise, with the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] reporting 1 in 36 children diagnosed with ASD [autism spectrum disorder] in 2020, coinciding with sustained high levels of industrial chemical production.” The researchers continue, saying, “Additionally, exposure to agricultural chemicals such as glyphosate has increased markedly, with usage rising to about 250 million pounds per year in the United States and animal models linking glyphosate to oxidative stress and depressive-like behaviours such as reduced mobility in the forced swim test and increased immobility time, which are indicative of behavioural despair and altered neurochemical signaling.”

When chemicals impair neuronal signaling, it can lead to symptoms such as paralysis and convulsions. The nervous system plays a crucial role in animal physiology, as “even subtle biochemical disruptions in specific neuronal populations can significantly alter behaviour.” Specifically, some pesticides, namely organophosphates, carbamates, and organochlorines, act by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase (AChE), an enzyme essential for neurotransmission, which can lead to “prolonged neuronal excitation and potential neurotoxicity.” (See study here.)

As many environmental pollutants have been connected to neurotoxic symptoms, this is a public health concern. “There is growing evidence from human epidemiological studies that environmental pollutants cause neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, endoplasmic reticulum stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, myelin sheath disruption, and alterations in the BBB [blood-brain barrier] anatomy that lead to cognitive dysfunction and reduced quality of life,” the authors state. “These environmental contaminants also significantly lower IQ, have teratogenic effects [causing birth defects/malformations], cause developmental neurotoxicity, and cause mental growth retardation.” (See here and here.)

What the Science Shows

Neurotransmission and brain development are impacted by various pesticides, as documented in many different organisms. “Environmental neurotoxicants have been linked to measurable population declines and biodiversity loss in various vertebrate groups,” the researchers write. Below is evidence of these impacts:

Amphibians

Behavioral abnormalities, neurodevelopmental deficits, and population decreases are seen in amphibian populations with pesticide exposure. As the review points out: “In amphibians, chronic pesticide exposure, particularly organophosphates and carbamates, has led to widespread neuromuscular dysfunction, predator evasion failure, and larval mortality, contributing to regional declines of species like the northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens). [The h]erbicide atrazine, through endocrine disruption and neurodevelopmental interference, contributed to amphibian population crashes and altered sex ratios in wild populations.” (See here.)

The insecticide carbaryl also causes serious harm to amphibians by interfering with their immune and neurological systems. In addition, tadpole immunosuppression, oxidative stress, and developmental defects are linked to long-term exposure to low concentrations of carbaryl. (See studies here and here.)

Reptiles

Pesticides, particularly organophosphates, have “a major negative impact on reptiles’ behaviour, neuromuscular coordination, and ability to survive,” which jeopardizes “population viability by impairing eating, predator evasion, and reproductive activities.” (See research here.) Among the range of effects, including neurological, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are known to bioaccumulate, also threaten aquatic and semi-aquatic species. “The reproductive, endocrine, neurological, cardiovascular, and immunological systems are among the several systems that are impacted by PFASs since they are endocrine disruptors,” the authors note. In one study, wild freshwater turtles (Emydura macquarii macquarii) captured downstream from an industrial PFAS source in Queensland, Australia show changes in their blood, as well as significant bioaccumulation and signs of toxicological stress.

Mammals

In mammals, including humans, pesticide exposure causes deleterious health effects, particularly on the nervous system, directly and indirectly. Direct effects include pesticides interacting with the nervous system and causing damage or disruption to neural function while indirect effects apply to other bodily systems that, in turn, impact the nervous system. “Exposure to neurotoxic chemicals, like pesticides, may be linked to behavioural and cognitive disorders, such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and other developmental cognitive impairments, according to research,” the researchers say. They continue: “Many neurotoxic pollutants are also endocrine disruptors, affecting human hormonal systems, which can lead to reproductive and developmental issues. Humans, especially children and pregnant women, are highly susceptible.”

A wide body of science connects paraquat (PQ) to adverse health effects in humans. As the review highlights: “Human PQ poisoning caused severe systemic inflammation and markedly increased serum pro-inflammatory cytokines… [T]hese preliminary studies of PQ-induced molecular events associated with PD pathophysiology highlight neuroinflammation elements, impaired dopaminergic neurons in the midbrain, disrupted lipid metabolism, and severe systemic inflammation.” In studies of mice (see here and here), PQ also bioaccumulates in the liver, kidneys, and lungs and causes oxidative stress and DNA damage.

Another chemical class with documented effects on human health is pyrethroids. The authors state: “A class of insecticides known as pyrethroids shares structural similarities with natural pyrethrins. Pyrethrins are used in agriculture and pest management, which results in a variety of environmental pollutants that harm human health and a decline in the population of soil microbes that influence soil fertility and health… In addition to producing significant quantities of ROS [reactive oxygen species, essential for cell signaling, homeostasis, and immunity at low levels], pyrethroids are reported to alter the human plasma biochemical profile.” (See here.)

Additional Concerns

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. “This concept challenges traditional toxicology, which often evaluates substances in isolation,” the researchers note. The scientific literature has long documented the regulatory deficiencies regarding assessing additive and synergistic effects of pesticide mixtures.

For example, exposure to both organophosphates and pyrethroids causes synergistic effects in vertebrates, such as fish and rats. Neurological impairment, as well as increased mortality, is documented, as well as increased oxidative stress and damage to detoxification pathways. “This results in increased neurotoxicity, developmental abnormalities, and impaired motor functions in exposed wildlife [and] emphasizes how regulatory risk evaluations must take into account the cumulative effects of pesticide combinations rather than analyzing them separately.” (See research here and here.)

Previous Research

The science on neurotoxicity is robust. In a Daily News from last year, entitled Behind the Numbers Linking Pesticides to Neurological Disorders, the World’s Largest Source of Disability, a report published by The Lancet on the global burden of nervous system diseases is reviewed, with the connection to pesticide exposure discussed. The Lancet report indicates that disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from Parkinson’s disease have increased by 10 percent, and autism spectrum disorder and dementia by 2 percent each, all of which have been connected to pesticide exposure. See Beyond Pesticides’ deep archive of the evidence on pesticides and neurological diseases in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases: Brain and Nervous System Disorders section. The Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management is an archive of information about specific pesticides and their adverse health effects.

Another Daily News post documents the neurotoxic impacts of neonicotinoids in mammals. A study, published in The Journal of Toxicological Sciences, shows that a single dose of the neonicotinoid insecticide clothianidin induces behavioral abnormalities, predominantly in female mice, throughout key stages of development. In testing mice at various ages, sex-specific changes were identified that highlight not only varied effects on males and females, but also how pesticide exposure at a young age can cause lasting impacts throughout adulthood in mammalian species. Additional studies highlight the neurotoxic effects of pesticides that increase the prevalence of mood disorders and neurodevelopmental damage in children. (See here and here.)

Moving Forward

Exposure to pesticides poses severe risks to wildlife, as well as humans, leading to population declines, reproductive issues, behavioral abnormalities, and more. Protecting all organisms from these deleterious effects requires the widespread elimination of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, as well as the adoption of alternative land management practices that negate the need for harmful pest management methods.

The current study authors conclude by saying: “A One Health approach, emphasizing the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health, is essential for linking ecological neurotoxicity findings, such as those in zebrafish, amphibians, or sentinel species, with human conditions such as autism spectrum disorder and Parkinson’s disease… Such a comprehensive, translational approach is vital to safeguarding neurodevelopment, biodiversity, and long-term ecosystem health from the growing burden of environmental neurotoxicants.” They also identify organic farming practices as able to “help minimize pesticide residues in food, reducing the risk of long-term health effects.”

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. Take Action: >> Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to become a cosponsor of the Opportunities in Organic Act (S. 3717/H.R. 7318).

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

Source:

Shaw, R. et al. (2026) Emerging prospects and consequences of environmental neurotoxic pollutants in the vertebrate system, Discover Toxicology. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44339-025-00042-w.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 11, 2026) The Monsanto Company, founded in 1901 and acquired by the multinational corporation Bayer AG in 2018, submitted its opening brief to the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) last month, seeking liability immunity from lawsuits filed by product users who have been harmed but not warned about potential product hazards. The question before SCOTUS is: “Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where EPA has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval.” If successful, the Court would be overturning (reversing) its 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, 544 U.S. 431, which upheld EPA and state registration of pesticides as a floor of protection, without releasing manufacturers of the responsibility to warn for potential harm that is not required by EPA. 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 of or should have known. The Missouri case before the Supreme Court, Durnell v. Monsanto, on the cancer causing effects of the weed killer glyphosate (Roundup^TM) resulted in a jury verdict (in 2023) of $1.25 million and the total number of jury verdicts and settlements may amount to over $10 billion in liability if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts and hundreds of thousands of other plaintiffs make the same claim.  

Bayer has a multi-pronged strategy to shield pesticide manufacturers from liability for failure-to-warn, including at the Supreme Court, in Congress, and in state legislatures. Last week, Bayer successfully pushed for a Farm Bill (the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567), which was reported out of the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, that gives the pesticide industry immunity from failure-to-warn liability. The industry, in lobbying for its vested economic interest, has amassed a large support structure, which includes key officials in the Trump administration and a team of lobbyists and lobbying (“government relations”) firms.  According to a new report by U.S. Right to Know, Tracing Bayer’s ties to power in Trump’s Washington, there have been significant lobbying investments by the multinational pesticide corporation just in the past year, including: 

• “At least $9.19 million on federal lobbying in [2025]”; 

•  “16 key administration officials with ties to Bayer’s lobbying or legal network. Bayer and its lobbyists have access to people in power at the White House, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and even those in high level positions closest to Trump”;

• “45 people registered to lobby for Bayer under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and at least 13 outside lobby firms –  seven of which are now among the highest-paid firms in D.C”; and, 

• “More than 30 senior officials at lobby firms retained by Bayer have direct ties to Trump, having worked in one or both of his administrations or political campaigns.” 

The authors point out that, across the four main trade and agribusiness groups that rely on pesticide products for their business models (American Chemistry Council, CropLife America, National Corn Growers Association, and American Soybean Association), a “combined $22 million on federal lobbying in 2025, with 12 more outside lobby firms and 79 more registered lobbyists in the fourth quarter.” Please also see here for USRTK’s newly published Bayer Lobbying Tracker to follow the money. 

Advocates, including farmers, farmworkers, rural communities, public health and medical professionals, and environmentalists, continue to call on their elected officials to oppose pesticide liability shields in their state legislature and in Congress. Learn more at Beyond Pesticides’ Failure-to-Warn resource hub. 

Review 

The main arguments in the Monsanto brief include: 

1. “FIFRA Expressly Preempts Durnell’s Failure-To-Warn Claim”; 
2. “FIFRA Impliedly Preempts Durnell’s Failure To-Warn Claim”; and, 
3. “Preemption Of Durnell’s Claims Is Critical To American Agriculture And Innovation.” 

1. Court Precedent. In terms of the first argument on express preemption, Monsanto alleges that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) creates binding federal requirements and is a comprehensive regulatory process. The brief maintains that Bayer’s products are not misbranded, contain necessary warnings, do not cause “unreasonable adverse effects (statutory standard in FIFRA),” and the pesticide product label cannot be changed without authorization by EPA. They also allege that the Missouri Court of Appeals is in violation of 7 U.S.C. §136v(b), which forbids state requirements “in addition to or different from” FIFRA’s labeling regime. Previous SCOTUS cases—including Bates v. Dow (2005) and  Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier (501 U.S. 597, 1991)—have already clarified the discrepancies between local, state, and federal responsibilities as they pertain to preemption. (Please see the Bates Decision section below for additional details.)

2. The law allows injured parties to seek a remedy. The second argument on implied preemption emerges from the logic that the corporation (Monsanto) cannot add a cancer warning without EPA approval, otherwise it could be constituted as a “misbranded” product. Nothing in the law prevents the registrant (manufacturer) from proposing a label that exceeds EPA’s minimum requirement.  In Bates v. Dow, the Court ruled: “ Section 360k does not preclude States from imposing different or additional remedies, but only different or additional requirements. . . Accordingly, although FIFRA does not provide a federal remedy to farmers and others who are injured as a result of a manufacturer’s violation of FIFRA’s labeling requirements, nothing in §136v(b) precludes States from providing such a remedy.” The court acknowledges the power of the manufacturer over the label, finding, “Successful [tort] actions of this sort may lead manufacturers to petition EPA to allow more detailed labelling of their products [emphasis added].”
    
3. Sustainable alternatives are productive and profitable. The third argument states that preemption of state-level failure to warn claims is necessary because farmers’ livelihood is harmed by “keeping efficacious pesticides off the market based on purported risks that EPA has determined are unfounded, or based on risks that are real but reasonable, will cause farmers to resort to products that may create equal (or worse) health and environmental risks, while providing inferior protection for crops.” Moreover, Bayer claims that EPA has been consistent with what it purports to be the overall conclusion “that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk and EPA’s express rejection of IARC’s [International Agency for Research on Cancer] contrary view, plaintiffs have parlayed that IARC finding into over one hundred thousand lawsuits seeking billions and billions in liability.” This argument is undermined by the November 2025 retraction of a journal article, which was cited in over 800 other peer-reviewed studies, without the authors’ disclosure of their relationship to Monsanto/Bayer. The editor-and-chief, Martin van den Berg, PhD, of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, which published the article 25 years ago, wrote in the journal, “Concerns were raised regarding the authorship of this paper, validity of the research findings in the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor and potential conflicts of interest of the authors,” thus calling in question EPA’s classification of glyphosate as not carcinogenic. (See Daily News here.) Numerous studies find organic production systems to be more productive and profitable than chemical-intensive practices promoted by Bayer/Monsanto and the agrichemical industry, with savings tied to the natural nutrient cycling and ecosystem services resulting from robust biodiversity. (See Study Affirms that Organic Farming Improves Soil Health, Microbial Life, and Pathogen Resistance with reference to the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial — 40-Year Report).

Solicitor General Amicus Brief 

In an amicus brief published on December 1, 2025, the Office of the Solicitor General (SG) and the White House called on SCOTUS to grant Bayer’s case certiorari. The U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer (former Solicitor General of Missouri, home to Bayer-Monsanto’s U.S. headquarters), in siding with the Germany-based, multinational pesticide corporation, calls for SCOTUS to take on the case, which could lead to a prohibition on state-level failure-to-warn claims based on the arguments laid out in the amicus brief. (See Daily News here.) 

The U.S. government argues that certiorari should be granted on three grounds: 

1. The Missouri Court of Appeals was incorrect in their decision in Durnell v. Monsanto (2023) because they argue that there is a prohibition on unilateral label changes for federal labeling requirements; therefore, state tort duties requiring additional warnings are expressly preempted. 

2. There are now opposing decisions in the Third Circuit and the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that state level failure-to-warn claims are expressly preempted by FIFRA. 

3. FIFRA §136v(b) on “Uniformity” prohibits states from requiring pesticide manufacturers from having to contend with 50 different labeling requirements. 

The Solicitor General’s position in the Trump administration is a reversal from the Biden Administration’s position after Bayer’s 2022 petition for writ of certiorari. (See Daily News here for context.) 

Review of Bates Decision 

A Pesticides and You article (2005) by H. Bishop Dansby explains the U.S. Supreme Court decision on “failure to warn” in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, which includes the following:  

• Duty to Warn: Manufacturers have a legal duty to provide adequate warnings about the potential risks associated with their products, including pesticides. This duty arises from the recognition that manufacturers possess knowledge about the potential dangers of their products and have a responsibility to inform consumers about these risks.  

• Negligence and Design Defect: If a plaintiff alleges that a pesticide product caused harm even when used according to the label, they may argue that the product was negligently designed due to a failure to warn. In other words, they claim that the manufacturer did not adequately warn about the risks associated with the product’s design. The court may view this cause of action as a “failure to warn” disguised as a “design defect.”  

• Parallel Remedies: The court clarified that state common law tort actions, such as failure to warn claims, can run parallel to federal regulations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This means that even though FIFRA regulates pesticide labeling, state actions can still be pursued if they do not conflict with federal regulations and are not preempted. 

Bates v. Dow cites an earlier case, Ferebee v. Chevron (Ferebee, 736 F. 2d, at 1541–1542), in which the court found:

“By encouraging plaintiffs to bring suit for injuries not previously recognized as traceable to pesticides such as [the pesticide at issue], a state tort action of the kind under review may aid in the exposure of new dangers associated with pesticides. Successful actions of this sort may lead manufacturers to petition EPA to allow more detailed labelling of their products; alternatively, EPA itself may decide that revised labels are required in light of the new information that has been brought to its attention through common lawsuits. In addition, the specter of damage actions may provide manufacturers with added dynamic incentives to continue to keep abreast of all possible injuries stemming from use of their product so as to forestall such actions through product improvement.”  

As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke with clarity in Bates:  

“The long history of tort litigation against manufacturers of poisonous substances adds force to the basic presumption against pre-emption. If Congress had intended to deprive injured parties of a long available form of compensation, it surely would have expressed that intent more clearly. See Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238, 251 (1984) [Footnote 25]. Moreover, this history emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items. See Mortier, 501 U. S., at 613 (stating that the 1972 amendments’ goal was to “strengthen existing labeling requirements and ensure that these requirements were followed in practice”). Particularly given that Congress amended FIFRA to allow EPA to waive efficacy review of newly registered pesticides (and in the course of those amendments, made technical changes to §136v(b)), it seems unlikely that Congress considered a relatively obscure provision like §136v(b) to give pesticide manufacturers virtual immunity from certain forms of tort liability. Overenforcement of FIFRA’s misbranding prohibition creates a risk of imposing unnecessary financial burdens on manufacturers; under-enforcement creates not only financial risks for consumers but risks that affect their safety and the environment as well.” 

In December 2023, farmworker organizations and Beyond Pesticides, represented by the Center for Food Safety, filed a petition with EPA urging the agency to remove glyphosate from the market after having won a 2022 court decision forcing EPA to redo its science evaluation.  

That 2022 court decision in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that EPA’s 2020 approval of glyphosate was  unlawful. The court voided EPA’s “interim registration review” decision approving the continued use of glyphosate, issued in early 2020. “EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and shirked its duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),” the court wrote in its opinion. At the time of the decision, Beyond Pesticides said: “EPA’s failure to act on the science, as detailed in the litigation, has real-world adverse health consequences for farmworkers, the public, and ecosystems. Because of this lawsuit, the agency’s obstruction of the regulatory process will not be allowed to stand, and EPA should start shifting food production to available alternative non- and less-toxic practices and materials that meet its statutory duty.” As reported by the Center for Food Safety, “[T]he court struck down, or vacated the human health assessment. The court also required that EPA redo and/or finish all remaining glyphosate determinations by an October 2022 deadline, or within four months. This includes a redone ecological toxicity assessment, a redone costs analysis of impacts to farmers from pesticide harms, as well as all Endangered Species analysis and mitigation.” (See Daily News here.) 

Call to Action 

As the Farm Bill moves to the House Floor, Beyond Pesticides will strive to remove Title X, Part 1 of the legislation. Updates will be provided with background information as Farm Bill legislation moves through the U.S. Senate. 

In the meantime, consider the following action opposing the allowance of an unregistered PFAS pesticide under an “emergency” waiver provision in federal pesticide law. Policy and toxicology are slated to collide as EPA considers allowing the use of a PFAS pesticide by invoking an emergency waiver process. If authorized, EPA’s decision will permit the use of an unregistered pesticide under an emergency waiver provision—in this case, an emergency caused by weed resistance to weed killers (herbicides) on the market.

EPA is accepting public comments until March 16, 11:59 pm EDT. Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to object to EPA approval by writing to EPA and Congress stating that herbicide resistance is not an emergency and PFAS chemicals must not be broadcast in the environment.  

You can continue to stay apprised of the most pressing developments on various issues and campaigns by signing up for Weekly News Update and Action of the Week—including a call to tell your governor to adopt policies that support organic land management and ecological balance. 

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

Sources: Bayer; U.S. Right to Know 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 10, 2026) An article in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry identifies pesticides, often neglected, as a core factor in the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) in agricultural environments. With antibiotic and antimicrobial resistance growing and infections becoming untreatable and deadly, the World Health Organization (WHO) has identified the problem as a “silent pandemic.”

The authors, from Yangzhou University in China, highlight the persistence of both pesticide residues and ARGs throughout the environment, with both being found in water, soil, air, animal manure, and the human gut. “Existing studies have fully confirmed that pesticides are not isolated in the agricultural ecosystem but deeply participate in the proliferation and spread of ARGs through direct coselection, indirect induction of multiple resistances, and promotion of horizontal gene transfer, forming a combined pollution risk that superimposes on the traditional sources,” the authors note. The now well-known phenomenon of horizontal gene transfer—the movement of genes in bacteria from one bacterial species to another, which is facilitated by phages—means that ARGs in those (possibly harmless) bacteria can move to bacteria that cause disease in plants or humans.

As stated in previous Daily News posts, pesticides by themselves are a grave threat to health and the environment. As is global warming. As is antibiotic resistance. Each of these problems has to be analyzed in its own silo to reveal the mechanisms driving their dynamics. But eventually, it must be acknowledged that they actually converge. ARGs, considered a class of pollutants, are found in certain types of bacteria and can spread through the environment and subsequently to humans and animals. The problem of antibiotic resistance, and the role of pesticides in promoting this resistance, is an urgent global phenomenon and public health crisis. To safeguard public health and ecological security, the spread of resistance genes in agricultural environments, as well as the practices that promote them, need to be eliminated.

Mechanisms of Pesticide-ARG Interactions

ARGs are continuously released into the environment. “However, current policies and research mainly focus on the issue of antibiotic abuse, while the widespread presence of pesticides in agricultural environments and their potential impacts on ARGs have not received sufficient attention for a long time,” the researchers say. They continue: “While paying attention to the contribution of livestock breeding and medical waste to antibiotic resistance genes in the environment, we must also recognize that the widespread use of pesticides, including herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides, is a powerful but underestimated selection pressure and driving factor for the generation, enrichment, and spread of ARGs.”

The review highlights three core mechanisms in which pesticides promote the spread of ARGs:

1. Direct coselection pressure. Many agricultural pesticides, particularly the triazole fungicides tebuconazole, propiconazole, and difenoconazole, share a similar mechanism of action with clinical antifungal agents like fluconazole and voriconazole. “All these compounds target the CYP51 enzyme in the ergosterol biosynthesis pathway within fungal cell membranes,” the authors note. “When microorganisms alter this common target to survive, they can develop resistance to both classes of drugs simultaneously.” Tebuconazole, for instance, induces cross-resistance, as shown in a study of Cryptococcus neoformans. (See study here.)
2. Indirect coselection and induction of multiple resistances. Microorganisms, when under pressure from pesticide exposure, activate defense mechanisms called “efflux pumps” to expel harmful substances. Since many efflux pumps do not have strong substrate specificity, they can also “expel structurally similar antibiotics from cells, leading to tolerance to multiple drugs.” The researchers continue, describing: “More and more studies have shown that soil pesticide pollution is related to the formation of bacterial pesticide–antibiotic cross-resistance. Bacteria in the environment have acquired pesticide–antibiotic cross-resistance to resist the dual selection pressure of pesticides and antibiotics.” This cross-resistance then increases the spread of bacterial multidrug resistance in the environment and further threatens human health.
3. Promotion of horizontal gene transfer. Concentrations of pesticide residues, even at sublethal levels, significantly accelerate the spread and diffusion of ARGs. “Pesticide stress can directly activate the stress response system of microorganisms and promote horizontal gene transfer,” the authors note. As an example, research finds that the fungicide mancozeb induces “bursts of bacterial reactive oxygen species,” as well as additional changes to repair responses and cell membrane permeability.

The promoting effect of pesticides on ARGs is not limited to chemical-intensive agricultural areas, as “its influence has significant cross-border transmission characteristics.” In addition, global change factors (e.g., nitrogen deposition) intensify pesticide-induced stress and can further promote the mobilization of ARGs through soil, water, and air. “This kind of transmission network that transcends environmental media and geographical boundaries has transformed local agricultural pollution problems into regional or even global public health risks,” the researchers state.

Previous Coverage

Beyond Pesticides has long documented the science identifying the role of pesticides in the spread of ARGs. Just over the past two years, multiple Daily News articles have focused on the threat of ARGs to health and the environment, as scientific literature continues to connect chemical-intensive agricultural practices to this major crisis.

• Combination of Pesticide and Nitrogen Use in Agriculture Escalates the Spread of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (October 2025)—An important study links pesticides, antibiotics, and nitrogen fertilizers to the extreme global crisis of antibiotic resistance, raising serious concerns about the adverse impacts of conventional (chemical-intensive) agricultural practices. A research team, from several Chinese universities and laboratories and Queen’s University in Belfast, conducted a three-year study in China using soil bacteria and phages (bacteriophages, or viruses that invade bacteria) from an experimental field, exposing them to a variety of conditions ranging from the control (no exposures) to various combinations of nitrogen fertilizer and two categories of pesticides (the insecticide chlorpyrifos and a blend of the fungicides azoxystrobin and propiconazole).
• Escalating Bacterial Resistance Supports Call for Antibiotic Pesticide Ban in Agriculture and Synthetic Turf (October 2025)—With the release of a study that links the use of nitrogen fertilizer in combination with antibiotic pesticides to escalating bacterial resistance, public health advocates are renewing their call for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Congress to eliminate antibiotic pesticide use in land management. This action comes on the heels of a WHO study finding that antibiotic resistance is evolving even faster than previously thought.
• As Millions Die from Antibiotic-Resistant Infections Annually, Study Shines Light on Pesticide Connection (July 2025)—Pesticides and antibiotics are linked inextricably in the looming crisis of human and ecosystem health. Both started out as quasi-miraculous solutions to age-old human problems, yet it has been clear that the failures of each present severe challenges—and that they are synergistic because they trigger the same kinds of defensive mechanisms in their targets: insects, fungi, and weeds on the one hand, and microbes on the other. A review of contamination of waterways in India with pesticides and antibiotics, published in Environmental and Geochemical Health, recounts the many threats that arise when these chemicals mix and how their presence in water makes the problems much worse. 
• Group Calls on Congress and EPA to Ban Pesticides Leading to Antimicrobial Resistance and Global Health Threat (July 2025)—As the problem of antimicrobial-resistant infections continues to escalate to pandemic proportions, Beyond Pesticides is again calling on Congress and the federal government to urgently start to eliminate the use of pesticides that contribute to antibiotic resistance. While data accumulates on antimicrobial resistance, the 79th United Nations General Assembly High-Level Meeting on antimicrobial resistance (September 2024) points to nearly five million deaths in 2019 from antibiotic-resistant microbial infections and $1 trillion in annual health care costs per year by 2050 globally.
• Study Finds Synergistic Convergence of Global Warming, Pesticide Toxicity, and Antibiotic Resistance (May 2025)—A 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.
• Mechanism for Escalating Antibiotic Resistance in Agriculture Detailed in Study, as Crisis Grows (January 2025)—Adding to the body of scientific literature on the fast-escalating antibiotic resistance crisis is a study published by Chinese scientists in Environmental Science & Technology, which shows that antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) in soils move up through trophic levels via predation. Gut microbiomes of soil fauna have been found to be reservoirs of ARGs. How this process operates in soils is vital because what happens in soil microbes does not stay there. If bacteria altered in soils move up trophic levels, ARGs may strengthen the multicellular agricultural pests the industry is trying to kill—insects, fungi, plants—not to mention bringing their libraries of resistant genes into the microbiomes of vertebrates, including humans.
• Children’s Health Threatened by Antimicrobial Use in Agriculture, Pediatric Doctors Say (October 2024)—The American Academy of Pediatrics published a technical report in September on antimicrobial resistance, which it calls a global public health threat, identifying the health implications of antibiotic use in animal agriculture. The lead authors, both medical doctors from the Department of Pediatrics at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, note the rise in antimicrobial-resistant infections that result in increased morbidity, mortality, and health care costs for not only adults, but also infants and children as well. “[A]ll use of antimicrobial agents exerts selective pressure that increases the risk of development of resistance,” the authors state, highlighting the importance of limiting antimicrobial uses.
• American Academy of Pediatrics and United Nations Issue Alerts on Antibiotic Resistance Crisis (October 2024) The researchers and agencies raising the alarm exhibit a higher degree of concern about antimicrobial resistance—understood as a growing worldwide pandemic—than the history and ongoing inaction by EPA—resulting in the allowance of widespread nonmedical uses of antibiotics in agriculture and on synthetic (or artificial) turf. Contrary to broad scientific understanding, EPA told a federal appeals court, “There is no data that antibiotic use in agriculture leads to the presence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria of human health concern,” and that “[a]t the present time, there is little evidence for or against the presence of microbes of human health concern in the plant agricultural environment.” EPA’s inaction, despite the agency’s sponsoring of research that confirms the spread of antibiotic resistance to humans from horizontal gene transfer in the environment, only adds to the problem. As drug resistance has been documented as being on the rise for years, EPA’s response, or lack thereof, has been increasingly apparent.
• Antibiotic-Resistance Genes Rise with Pesticide Application, as Study Adds to a Plethora of Findings (May 2024) A study from the Academy of Biology and Biotechnologies and the Federal Rostov Agricultural Research Centre adds to the body of science linking pesticide use with negative impacts on soil health and bacterial communities. This study, performed by researchers and soil experts, found an increase in specific bacterial families that host ARGs with exposure to pesticides. Since soil serves as a habitat for a wide range of bacteria, including many that are resistant to antibiotics, analyzing the organisms within soil samples is an indicator of overall environmental health. Agricultural soils are essential in food production, and as this study states, “[I]ntensive exploitation of such soils implies the widespread use of various chemical plant protection products (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides) and mineral fertilizers, which contribute to pollution and a decrease in soil quality.” 

Take Action

As the science connecting pesticides to deleterious health and environmental effects continues to mount, the urgent need to transition to healthier agricultural and land management practices becomes stronger. Organic methods offer a holistic solution that combats the current crises of biodiversity, public health, and climate change. In promoting soil health and negating the need for petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, organic practices also protect the health of all organisms and mitigate the promotion of ARGs, as shown in the scientific literature above.

Learn how you can take action each week through Action of the Week and sign up to receive action alerts and updates straight to your email. To help in Beyond Pesticides’ mission of creating an organic, pesticide-free world, get involved as a Parks Advocate through the Parks for a Sustainable Future program or consider making a contribution here.

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

Source:

Shi, J. et al. (2026) The Spread of Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Agricultural Environments: Pesticides Are a Neglected Driving Factor, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jafc.6c01788.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 9, 2026) Policy and toxicology are slated to collide as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers allowing the use of a PFAS pesticide by invoking an emergency waiver process in federal pesticide law. If authorized, EPA’s decision will permit the use of an unregistered pesticide under an emergency waiver provision—in this case an emergency caused by weed resistance to weed killers (herbicides) on the market. EPA is accepting public comments until March 16, 11:59pm EDT. Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to object to EPA approval by writing to EPA and Congress stating that herbicide resistance is not an emergency and PFAS chemicals must not be broadcast in the environment. 

The pesticide that is being requested for use is a new not yet registered, herbicide tetflupyrolimet (TFP), which is a PFAS chemical according to the definition of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The fact that the chemical is not registered by EPA means that it has not been reviewed in accordance with all the safety assessments reviewed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The states applying for the exemptions under Section 18 of FIFRA—Missouri and Arkansas—claim that there is an emergency requiring the use of TFP because barnyardgrass is resistant to the herbicides currently allowed to be used in rice. 

Among other issues, the requirements in EPA regulations for emergency exemptions require that—in addition to the lack of effective available pesticides—the situation must be “urgent” and “non-routine,” and, at the same time, “[n]o economically or environmentally feasible alternative practices which provide adequate control are available.” Most plant scientists say and the vast body of scientific literature finds that, according to a study in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, the “use of synthetic herbicides over the past 70 years has imposed strong and widespread selection pressure, leading to the evolution of herbicide resistance in hundreds of weed species.” It continues, “Both target-site resistance (TSR) and nontarget-site resistance (NTSR) mechanisms have evolved to most herbicide classes.” Plant resistance to herbicides is not an emergency, but a predictable outcome of the reliance on herbicides. This is widely known to land managers, including farmers, and extensively evaluated in the scientific literature. (See also here.)

The emergency exemption applications from Arkansas and Missouri demonstrate the failure of herbicides to control barnyardgrass in rice. As regulators, land grant agricultural institutions, and land managers ignore the inevitable resistance “emergency,” organic rice production is successful—and commands a 56.1% price advantage over rice produced with chemical-intensive methods. Organic production productively and profitably uses a range of cultural, mechanical, and biological practices, as discussed in a literature review in the International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. In this context, ecological farming practitioners and advocates maintain that the proposed use does not meet the definition of an emergency. 

A September 2018 report from EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) identifies issues important to protecting health and the environment, including a tightening of the emergency exemption program. The EPA’s response to the report left many of these problems unresolved. ”Measures and Management Controls Needed to Improve EPA’s Pesticide Emergency Exemption Process” (Report No. 18-P-0281, September 25, 2018), finds that the agency’s practice of routinely granting “emergency” approval for pesticides through its Section 18 (of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act/FIFRA) program does not effectively address risks to human health or the environment. 

After repeated use of toxic herbicides, including clomazone, quinclorac, propanil, acetolactate synthase inhibitors, and acetyl CoA carboxylase inhibitors, the states seeking the emergency pesticide use propose to pour yet another toxic chemical onto rice fields. According to the product label included in the applications, TFP poses hazards to surface water and groundwater: “This product may impact surface water quality due to runoff of rainwater. This is especially true for poorly draining soils and soils with shallow groundwater. This product is classified as having a high potential for reaching surface water via runoff for several months or more after application. .  . This chemical may leach into groundwater if used in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow.” 

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

EPA continues to ignore the widely accepted definition of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals” given their persistence, which is supported by scientists and by OECD. EPA’s current definition is at odds with the prevalent scientific thinking of scientists worldwide who have challenged the agency’s position and its resulting risk assessments. The OECD definition should be used as a basis for risk assessments. Also of concern is that TFP, like many other PFAS, breaks down into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which threatens aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems as well as health through liver toxicity and “possible harmful impacts on the development of embryos in humans and mammals,” according to studies. 

Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to object to EPA of the emergency exemption for approval of tetflupyrolimet (TFP) by writing to EPA, by March 16, 11:50pm EDT, and Congress stating that herbicide resistance is not an emergency and PFAS chemicals must not be broadcast in the environment. with the following comment:

Letter to members of Congress:
EPA is considering granting “emergency” exemptions for the use of the unregistered herbicide tetflupyrolimet (TFP), which is a PFAS chemical according to the definition of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The states applying for the exemptions—Missouri and Arkansas—claim that there is an emergency requiring the use of TFP because barnyardgrass is resistant to the herbicides currently allowed to be used in rice.

Among other things, the requirements in EPA regulations for emergency exemptions require that—in addition to the lack of effective pesticides—the situation must be “urgent” and “non-routine,” and “[n]o economically or environmentally feasible alternative practices which provide adequate control are available.” Herbicide resistance is not an emergency, but a predictable outcome of reliance on herbicides. The applications from Arkansas and Missouri demonstrate the failure of herbicides to control barnyardgrass in rice. Yet organic rice production is successful—and commands a 56.1% price advantage over rice produced by chemically-intensive methods. Thus, this proposed use does not meet the definition of an emergency.

A September 2018 report from EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) identified issues important to protecting health and the environment. The EPA’s response to the report left many of these problems unresolved. “Measures and Management Controls Needed to Improve EPA’s Pesticide Emergency Exemption Process” (Report No. 18-P-0281, September 25, 2018), finds that the agency’s practice of routinely granting “emergency” approval for pesticides through its Section 18 program does not effectively address risks to human health or the environment. The process is still in need of improvement.

After repeated use of toxic herbicides, including clomazone, quinclorac, propanil, acetolactate synthase inhibitors, and acetyl CoA carboxylase inhibitors, these states propose to pour yet another toxic chemical onto rice fields. According to the product label included in the applications, TFP poses hazards to surface water and groundwater: “This product may impact surface water quality due to runoff of rainwater. This is especially true for poorly draining soils and soils with shallow ground water. This product is classified as having a high potential for reaching surface water via runoff for several months or more after application.” “This chemical may leach into groundwater if used in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow.”

Furthermore, TFP is a PFAS chemical. PFAS chemicals have become the new DDT—miracle substances that share the less beneficial characteristics of DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic. Their toxicity has led the agrichemical industry to look to them for new pesticides. Given the likelihood of water contamination, it is disturbing that drinking water health advisories issued by EPA show PFAS levels as low as .02 parts per trillion (ppt) have the potential to cause adverse health effects for public health.

EPA continues to ignore the widely accepted definition of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” that is supported by scientists and by OECD. EPA’s current definition is at odds with the prevalent scientific thinking of scientists worldwide who have challenged the agency’s position and resulting risk assessments. The OECD definition should be used as a basis for risk assessments. Also of concern is that TFP, like many other PFAS, breaks down into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which threatens aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems as well as health through liver toxicity and possible harmful impacts on the development of embryos in humans and mammals.

Please urge EPA to deny emergency exemptions for tetflupyrolimet and all PFAS pesticides, as defined by OECD.

Thank you

Suggested comment to EPA: (Comment period ends on March 16 at 11:59pm EDT.]
EPA is considering granting “emergency” exemptions for the use of the unregistered herbicide tetflupyrolimet (TFP), which is a PFAS chemical according to the definition of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The states applying for the exemptions—Missouri and Arkansas—claim that there is an emergency requiring the use of TFP because barnyardgrass is resistant to the herbicides currently allowed to be used in rice. 

Among other things, the requirements in EPA regulations for emergency exemptions require that—in addition to the lack of effective pesticides—the situation must be “urgent” and “non-routine,” and “[n]o economically or environmentally feasible alternative practices which provide adequate control are available.” Herbicide resistance is not an emergency, but a predictable outcome of reliance on herbicides. The applications from Arkansas and Missouri demonstrate the failure of herbicides to control barnyardgrass in rice. Yet organic rice production is successful—and commands a 56.1% price advantage over rice produced by chemically intensive methods. Thus, this proposed use does not meet the definition of an emergency. 

A September 2018 report from EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) identified issues important to protecting health and the environment. The EPA’s response to the report left many of these problems unresolved. “Measures and Management Controls Needed to Improve EPA’s Pesticide Emergency Exemption Process” (Report No. 18-P-0281, September 25, 2018), finds that the agency’s practice of routinely granting “emergency” approval for pesticides through its Section 18 program does not effectively address risks to human health or the environment. The process is still in need of improvement. 

After repeated use of toxic herbicides, including clomazone, quinclorac, propanil, acetolactate synthase inhibitors, and acetyl CoA carboxylase inhibitors, these states propose to pour yet another toxic chemical onto rice fields. According to the product label included in the applications, TFP poses hazards to surface water and groundwater: “This product may impact surface water quality due to runoff of rainwater. This is especially true for poorly draining soils and soils with shallow groundwater. This product is classified as having a high potential for reaching surface water via runoff for several months or more after application.” “This chemical may leach into groundwater if used in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow.” 

Furthermore, TFP is a PFAS chemical. PFAS chemicals have become the new DDT—miracle substances that share the less beneficial characteristics of DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic. Their toxicity has led the agrichemical industry to look to them for new pesticides. Given the likelihood of water contamination, it is disturbing that drinking water health advisories issued by EPA show PFAS levels as low as .02 parts per trillion (ppt) have the potential to cause adverse health effects for public health. 

EPA continues to ignore the widely accepted definition of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” that is supported by scientists and by OECD. EPA’s current definition is at odds with the prevalent scientific thinking of scientists worldwide who have challenged the agency’s position and resulting risk assessments. The OECD definition should be used as a basis for risk assessments. Also of concern is that TFP, like many other PFAS, breaks down into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which threatens aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems as well as health through liver toxicity and possible harmful impacts on the development of embryos in humans and mammals. 

Please deny the emergency exemptions for tetflupyrolimet and all PFAS pesticides, as defined by OECD. 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 6, 2026) The Farm Bill—the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567—reported out of the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday strips environmental and public health protections from pesticides, reversing over 90 years of environmental laws adopted by Congress to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment that stretch back to the first Farm Bill in 1933. The Committee rejected the Protect Our Health Amendment, sponsored by Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), which would have ensured that the final bill maintain three core safeguards in current law: (i) Judicial review of chemical manufacturers‘ failure to warn about pesticide hazards; (ii) Democratic right of local governments in coordination with states to protect residents from pesticide use; and, (iii) Local site-specific action to ensure protection—the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides under numerous environmental statutes. All Republicans and one Democrat (Rep. Adam Gray, D-CA) on the Committee blocked the Pingree amendment.

The Agriculture Committee bill adversely affects a wide range of social and conservation issues, including the protection of family farms, food security, environmental and public health, local and state authority, and judicial review, according to a cross-section of groups representing these interests. Overall, critics say, the Committee 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.

“Discarding the traditional bipartisan process used to draft the Farm Bill in the Agriculture Committees of Congress, the Republican majority has instead passed a measure that has garnered across-the-board disapproval, except from those representing the vested interests of chemical companies and agribusiness,” said Jay Feldman, executive director.

The Pingree amendment would have removed text from the bill provisions that: (i) prohibit lawsuits by farmers and consumers harmed by pesticides for which manufacturers failed to provide complete safety warnings (Section 10205); (ii) take away the authority of local governments to protect residents and the local environment from pesticide use (Section 10206), and; (iii) repeal requirements in numerous federal statutes to protect against local pesticide contamination that could affect waterways, drinking water, federal projects, endangered species, migratory birds, and toxic waste (Section 10207).

The bill moves to the House floor amid growing opposition. The final bill was reported out with 27 Republicans and 7 Democrats voting for the measure and 17 Democrats voting against.

Background

 Subtitle C of Title X, Part 1, “Regulatory Reform,” of the GOP Farm Bill is a sweeping set of exemptions, waivers, and revocations undermining 50 years of environmental laws adopted by Congress to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment. The bill language: 

1. Redefines and exempts plant regulators, biostimulants, “inert” ingredients, and genetically engineered materials from proper oversight. Pesticides and related “plant incorporated protectants” as listed above would be exempted from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration review requirements, as well as from tolerance setting requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (Section 10201);  
   
   
2. Further weakens and delays safety measures and environmental protections with a requirement for “harmonizing” interagency coordination. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is charged with considering the economic costs of increased risk mitigation measures when up for public comment, further weakening a science-based approach to risk management that considers alternatives. The USDA Office of Pest Management Policy is mandated to coordinate with other federal agencies to consider pesticide use data, economic data of viable chemical alternatives, and likely to advance chemical-intensive practices (Section 10202);  
   
   
3. Weakens Endangered Species Act protections under new interagency working group regulations. The interagency working group will now require the Office of Pest Management Policy to attend, limit meeting requirements to just once a year rather than twice a year, and increase the influence of chemical companies in pesticide registration review decisions before public meetings are held (Section 10203);  
   
   
4. Diminishes the integrity of the pesticide registration review process. Repeals Section 711 of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022, which mandates that EPA complete initial registration reviews of pesticides by October 1, 2026, striking a blow to scientific integrity and the assurance that active ingredients are adequately assessed before being released into the market (Section 10204);  
   
   
5. Immunizes chemical companies from liability and failure to warn. Prohibits lawsuits by farmers and consumers harmed by pesticides for which manufacturers failed to provide complete safety warnings (Section 10205);   
   
   
6. Preempts state and local authority. Takes away the authority of local governments to protect residents and the local environment from pesticide use with local restrictions (Section 10206);  
   
   
7. Exempts pesticides from reviews to protect water, ecosystems, and endangered species. Repeals requirements in numerous federal statutes authorized by Congress over the last 50 years to protect against local pesticide contamination that could adversely affect waterways, drinking water, federal projects, endangered species, migratory birds, and toxic waste cleanup (Section 10207); and,  
   
   
8. Eliminates the USDA Multiple Crop and Pesticide Use survey. Discontinues surveys, which provide baseline information to communities and farmers to inform practices and outcomes (Section 10211). 

 Highlighted in the critique of the Farm Bill passed out of committee is the undermining of agricultural policies’ contribution to solving critical health, food security, biodiversity, and climate concerns, such as the following:

• Petrochemical fertilizer dependency. Petrochemical fertilizer production and use have been directly tied to the release of greenhouse gases, a reduction in the drawdown of atmospheric carbon through soil sequestration, nitrate contamination (converted to nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas) of air and water, and the harm to soil microbial life that escalates pesticide dependency. The proposed legislation—throughout the Conservation Title (Title II), including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program subtitle (Subtitle C), and in the Research Title (Title VII) —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.
  
  
• Hunger and social injustice. With one in seven people experiencing food insecurity and Congressional action last year (so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”) adopting a historically large $186 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), the GOP-proposed “farm bill ignores hunger,” said the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). “AFSC believes in the need for a just Farm Bill that works toward ending hunger, invests in sustainable agriculture, supports small family farms rather than corporate monopolies, protects our environment, and makes nutritious food available to all.”
  
  
• Unsustainable agriculture. “The bill takes no meaningful steps toward building a fair, responsible, and accessible farm safety net while needlessly siphoning funding away from popular and effective conservation programs, according to the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
  
  
• Endangered conservation programs. A letter from a broad range of environmental, farm, and public health groups characterizes the bill as follows: Rolls back or diverts proven conservation investments at a time when demand for soil health and resilience programs continues to outpace available funding; Weakens pesticide oversight and curtails state and local authority to protect farmworkers, children, pollinators, waterways, and endangered species from chemical exposure; Expands categorical exclusions and other mechanisms that limit environmental review, public input, and undermine our bedrock environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and more; and, Constrains rural energy affordability programs that help farmers and small businesses lower operating costs and achieve energy independence.

Agriculture Committee Vote Breakdown

• Members voting to report H.R. 7567 out of committee: [34] Rep. Glenn G.T. Thompson (R-PA-15), Chair; Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA-08), Vice chair; Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE-02); Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL-12); Rep. Rob Bresnahan (RPA-08); Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL-03); Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA-21); Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR-01); Rep. Sharice Davids (D-KS-03); Rep. Don Davis (D-NC-01); Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-TX-15); Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN-04); Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-IA-04); Rep. Brad Finstad (R-MN-01); Rep. Adam Gray (D-CA-13); Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC08); Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX-13); Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD-AL); Rep. Trent Kelly (R-MS-01); Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK-03); Rep. Tracey Mann (R-KS-01); Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-MI-08); Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN-08); Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL-15); Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL-01); Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA-04); Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA03); Rep. Josh Riley (D-NY-19); Rep. John Rose (R-TN-06); Rep. David Rouzer (R-NC-07); Rep. Dave Taylor (R-OH02); Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI-03); Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-NM-02); and Rep. Tony Wied (R-WI-08).  
  
  
• Members voting to take no action on H.R. 7567 in committee: [17] Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN-02), Ranking member; Rep. Shontel Brown (D-OH-11), Vice ranking member; Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC-12); Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-IL-13); Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24); Rep. Shomari Figures (D-AL-02); Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT-05); Rep. John Mannion (D-NY-22); Rep. April McClain Delaney (D-MD-06); Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA-02); Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME-01); Rep. Andrea Salinas (D-OR-06); Rep. David Scott (D-GA-13); Rep. Eric Sorensen (D-IL-17); Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI-13); Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-HI-02); and Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA-07).  
  
  
• Members not present [bereavement]: [2] Rep. Jim Baird (R-IN-04) and Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-IL-01).

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 6, 2026) Does humanity want to live in a world without birds? This may seem like an extreme question, but a new study in Science concludes that, without changes in human behavior, just such a world may be on the horizon. This would be a tragedy of colossal proportions, not only for the ecosystem services birds provide, but for the meaning of human life and a healthy biosphere. The oldest human-made image of a bird is 40,000 years old.

The new study, by Czech environmental scientist François Leroy, PhD, and two colleagues from The Ohio State University, measured local population abundances of 261 North American bird species between 1987 and 2021. They also measured the speeds at which the species’ populations rose or fell. The study was based on data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey, a program of the U.S. Geological Survey in coordination with the Canadian Wildlife Service. This survey involves direct observations of bird populations along roadsides during breeding season. The program was created in the mid-20^th century in response to the severe mortalities associated with the use of DDT, highlighted by Rachel Carson in her seminal 1962 work, Silent Spring.

In the current study, the researchers use data from 1,033 of the thousands of road segments where observers counted birds over the 35-year period. There is a significant increase in bird abundance in only 17% of the roadside routes, whereas 70% of the routes see a significant decline. The sharpest declines are seen along routes in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Arizona. Over all of North America, “[O]n average, routes experienced a significant acceleration of bird abundance decline,” the authors write. In the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and California, the rate of bird decline clearly accelerates. Other areas, including parts of New England and the Pacific Northwest, see the rate of decline slow.

The researchers note that agricultural intensification and land use changes have been linked to changes in bird populations, and they integrate a set of related indicators, including climate, habitat, and human impacts, with the observational data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey. The results suggest that rapid climate warming is an important factor in bird declines. Not all species can adapt quickly, and others are leaving their traditional landscapes and moving northward.

The second major factor is what the authors call “high-intensity agriculture”—areas with high pesticide and fertilizer use and very large farm sizes. Pesticides are known bird killers. Pesticides’ effects on birds are varied, ranging from outright mortality to developmental damage to gut microbiota changes to derangement of breeding behavior and flight orientation. As has been documented extensively, some of the worst actors include neonicotinoids (e.g., imidacloprid), pyrethroids (permethrin), and phenylpyrazoles (fipronil). See our bird archive for more information.

As Beyond Pesticides has noted here and here, climate and synthetic chemical use work together to the detriment of whole ecosystems. The study authors make an important connection in this regard: While climate is likely responsible for the magnitude of bird losses, it is agriculture that is probably driving the acceleration of those losses. Astonishingly, the authors also observe that, “To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale study that has linked the acceleration of abundance change to the environment.” In a rational world, that link would have been suspected and analyzed decades ago. That it has taken until 2026 to produce a study making the connection is, according to advocates, an indication of the distortions produced by corporate and industrial interests—currently accelerating themselves—in the scientific and regulatory structures that are supposed to maintain balance in human life and the environment.

One finding in the Science study that points out the need for humans and wildlife to find ways to overlap is that in most of North America, birds and humans tend to occupy the same climatic zones: “[T]he strongest acceleration of decline occurs around intermediate mean temperatures” —50°F—“where bird populations are densest and human activities are most pronounced.” Unless human activity can accommodate the needs of non-human life, we will be living in a very species-poor world—so poor, in fact, that humans may not be able to sustain themselves. One ray of hope is that even small accommodations to wildlife and natural landscape systems can make a difference. A 2025 Italian study found that “Even a small increase in the naturalness of agricultural land,” such as preserving patches of steppe grassland, riparian forest, and wetlands can produce “significant biodiversity benefits.” Eliminating pesticides would make an even bigger difference.

The current study adds to the strong evidence that industrial agriculture using synthetic chemicals is destroying the biological structures vital to the maintenance of biodiversity and ecological health. The lessons of Silent Spring—a work that put birds at the forefront of a dawning awareness that pesticides are a Faustian bargain—apparently must be re-learned. Advancing organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies is an urgent priority. See our Action of the Week Archive for steps you can take right now.

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

Sources:

Acceleration hotspots of North American birds’ decline are associated with agriculture
Leroy et al.
Science 2026
https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.ads0871

Latest State of the Birds Report Highlights Population Declines Indicative of Deteriorating Ecosystem Health
Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/03/latest-state-of-the-birds-report-highlights-population-declines-indicative-of-deteriorating-ecosystem-health/

Garden Pesticide Use Harms Local Bird Populations, Study Authors Say “We Should Simply Ban These Poisons”
Beyond Pesticides, February 8, 2023
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2023/02/garden-pesticide-use-harms-local-bird-populations-study-authors-say-we-should-simply-ban-these-poisons/

Impacts of Intensive Agriculture on Birds: A Review Structural Biodiversity Analysis in a Case Study of Wild Bird Communities in Southern Europe
Gioiosa et al
Agrociencia
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3298/12/4/129  

(Beyond Pesticides, March 5, 2026) In a deep analysis of public records, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), a nonprofit newsroom and public health research group, discloses significant financial ties between Bayer-Monsanto, lobbying firms, and the second Trump Administration, raising concerns about basic safeguards to curb corporate influence over federal policymakers.

The USRTK tracker and report, “Tracing Bayer’s ties to power in Trump’s Washington,” (see more) finds that there have been significant lobbying investments by the multinational pesticide corporation just in the past year, including: 

• “At least $9.19 million on federal lobbying in [2025]”; 

•  “16 key administration officials with ties to Bayer’s lobbying or legal network. Bayer and its lobbyists have access to people in power at the White House, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and even those in high level positions closest to Trump”; 

• “45 people registered to lobby for Bayer under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and at least 13 outside lobby firms – seven of which are now among the highest-paid firms in D.C”; and, 

• “More than 30 senior officials at lobby firms retained by Bayer have direct ties to Trump, having worked in one or both of his administrations or political campaigns.” 

The report points out that the four main trade and agribusiness groups that promote and defend pesticide products (American Chemistry Council, CropLife America, National Corn Growers Association, and American Soybean Association) spent a “combined $22 million on federal lobbying in 2025, with 12 more outside lobby firms and 79 more registered lobbyists in the fourth quarter.”

Environmental and public health advocates across the country continue to call for a wholesale transition to organically managed systems to provide an economically prosperous and ecologically healthy alternative to the toxic chemical-dependent status quo.

Main Takeaways

In terms of the web of lobbying firms partnered up with Bayer, there is a noticeable revolving door at work between industry, regulators, previous presidential campaign staffers, and Trump administration appointees, including Ballard Partners (founder and four partners), Mercury Public Affairs (four partners), Venture Government Strategies (two partners and two senior leadership), Holland & Hart, and Invariant, among several others. The individuals cited are well-placed policy advisors to the Trump Administration. The highlights include:

• Brian Ballard, founder of Ballard Partners, was a major campaign fundraiser in the 2024 presidential election with over $50 million in contributions; Ballard also served on the 2024 inaugural and transition finance committees and previously served as a Florida lobbyist for the Trump Organization;
• Daniel McFaul, managing partner at Ballard, who served on the 2016-2017 presidential transition team and is a registered lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council;
• Bryan Lanza, partner at Mercury Public Affairs, was the communications director and deputy communications director for the 2016-2017 transition team and 2016 Trump-Pence campaign, respectively;
• Jonathan Blum, senior vice president at Venture Government Strategies, who served senior roles in the Treasury Department during the first and second Trump administrations, with a brief stint at Treasury under two different leadership roles through a significant portion of 2025 before joining the firm in December;
• Troy Lyons, senior director of federal affairs at Holland & Hart, who served various leadership roles in the EPA Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, including as “EPA’s chief liaison to Congress” in the first Trump Administration; and,
• Ken Barbic, principal of the Food and Agriculture Practice Group at Invariant, served as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s assistant secretary for congressional relations from 2018 to 2021.

Additional notable ties between previous Republican Administrations, lobbying firms, and Bayer-Monsanto include Todd Strategy Group, Capitol Council, BGR Government Affairs, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, The Russell Group, HB Strategies, Washington Tax and Public Policy Group, and The Peterson Group.

Previous Coverage

On June 30, 2025, Kyle Kunkler started work as deputy assistant administrator for pesticides in EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Mr. Kunkler is an experienced agribusiness lobbyist, having come directly from the American Soybean Association, where he was director of government affairs. He joins Nancy Beck, PhD, herself a migrant from the American Chemistry Council. Not coincidentally, a mere three weeks after Mr. Kunkler’s appointment, EPA opened the floodgates to allow use of the controversial herbicide dicamba to flow unrestricted once again through the nation’s ecosystems. (See Daily News here.)

As Beyond Pesticides and other organizations have been documenting for decades, there is a long history of independent, peer-reviewed scientific literature that has not been influenced by industry, in which deleterious effects from glyphosate are noted. Just this year, studies have connected glyphosate to human health threats, including DNA and cellular damage, female reproductive dysfunction, kidney injury and cancer, blood cancer, and endocrine disruption, among others.  

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

The conclusions of this study emerge as fossil fuel advocates, including President Trump, are mobilizing to establish “energy dominance” despite the market movement toward renewable energy and organic land management. While chemical-intensive farmers and land managers rely on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, organic practitioners are experiencing the economic benefit of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services, including the natural cycling of nutrients for plants. (See Daily News here.)

The ubiquitous nature of glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms is a result of the widespread application of this toxic weed killer in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Both glyphosate and its main metabolite (breakdown product), aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), are detected in air, water, soil, and food, which results in multiple pathways for exposure to nontarget organisms, including humans. Over 750 herbicides contain glyphosate as the active ingredient (the ingredient in a pesticide formulation that the manufacturer claims is included to target the labeled pest), and it also plays a large role in the production of genetically modified (GM) crops, with approximately 80% of GM crops bred specifically to be glyphosate-tolerant. See the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management for additional information on glyphosate and other pesticide active ingredients. (Note that pesticide formulations, not disclosed on the product label, are generally made up of mostly nondisclosed ingredients, known as “inert” or “other” ingredients, that can be highly toxic; see also here.)

In its 2019 report, Toxic Secret, Friends of the Earth found that foods sold by the top four U.S. food retailers — Kroger (NYSE: KR), Walmart (NYSE: WMT), Costco (NYSE: COST), and Albertsons — contain residues of toxic pesticides linked to a range of serious health and environmental problems. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has been detected in popular foods, including “100% pure” honey, Doritos, Oreos, Goldfish, Ritz Crackers, German beers, California wines, and UK bread. (See Daily News here.) A 2019 residue study by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) found that 19 of 20 common beers and wines tested and sold in the United States contain glyphosate residues. (See Daily News here.)

The science on pesticide safety has been deeply politicized, given the controversy on glyphosate registration and litigation surrounding the active ingredient’s links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. What was once considered a landmark study concluding that the weed killer glyphosate did not cause cancer was retracted last week after it was revealed in lawsuit documents that the authors did not disclose their relationship with Monsanto/Bayer. The editor-in-chief, Martin van den Berg, PhD of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, who published the article 25 years ago, wrote in the journal, “Concerns were raised regarding the authorship of this paper, validity of the research findings in the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor, and potential conflicts of interest of the authors.” (See Daily News here.)

In a study published in Poultry Science, researchers found adverse reproductive effects in roosters (Gallus gallus domesticus) from low-dose exposure to the fungicide tebuconazole, the insecticide imidacloprid, and glyphosate individually and in mixtures—with all concentrations at or below the maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the European Union. “Sub-MRL [sub-maximum residue limit] 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 [imidacloprid] 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.)

In the aftermath of the 2015 decision by the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization designating glyphosate as “probably” carcinogenic (see Daily News here), a research project published in partnership with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) determined that glyphosate acts as a glycine analogue that incorporates into peptides during protein synthesis. In this process, it alters a number of proteins that depend on conserved glycine for proper function. According to the authors, glyphosate substitution for glycine correlates with several diseases, including diabetes, obesity, asthma, Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and Parkinson’s disease, among others. (See Daily News here.)

Invoking the Defense Production Act of 1950

On February 18, the Trump administration issued an Executive Order (EO) that could provide blanket legal protection for all liability associated with the use of glyphosate. By activating the Defense Production Act of 1950 and its immunity from lawsuits provision for glyphosate manufacturers, the administration could mandate production of glyphosate as a “national security” concern and provide blanket legal protection for its activities and resulting harm. (See Daily News.)

Nothing in the President’s executive order appears to meet the intent of the statute and its stated purpose to protect “the ability of the domestic industrial base to supply materials and services for the national defense and to prepare for and respond to military conflicts, natural or man-caused disasters, or acts of terrorism within the United States . . .” Without any supporting documentation or findings, the executive order states: “There is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides. Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity.  Given the profit margins growers currently face, any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.”

Organic farmers and the companies in the $70 billion organic sector do not agree with this broad, unsupported statement in the executive order.

Call to Action

The best way to get started is by taking action, including with the current deliberations on the Farm Bill. >> In order to uphold fundamental protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment, tell your Congressional representative to support Rep. Pingree’s Protect Our Health Amendment (removes Sections 10205-10207), move to strike Sections 10201-10204 and 102011, and support the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act provisions. Without a comprehensive overhaul, urge a vote against the Farm Bill.

If you have already contacted your U.S. Representative on the Farm Bill in the past two weeks, please click HERE to send them a reminder, in light of the postponement and the new date for a committee vote on March 3! *If a member is on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, the letter you submit will automatically adjust the language by recognizing their Committee membership.

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

Source: U.S. Right to Know

(Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2026) In the International Journal of Epidemiology, researchers from France assess the risks of kidney cancer with a wide range of agricultural activities and tasks, finding that occupational exposure heightens kidney cancer risk. In studying participants from the French AGRIculture and CANcer cohort (AGRICAN) with incident kidney cancer, elevated risks of disease development between 25-56% are documented for both men and women engaging in agricultural activities. In men, the authors find increased kidney cancer in those “working with rapeseed and sunflowers, and tasks related to other crops such as corn, wheat/barley, beet, and tobacco.” In women, an increased risk is noted for winegrowers and corn growers. “Pesticide use (on fields and/or seeds) was associated, for both sexes, with these crops, showing exposure-response relationships with crop area and work duration,” the researchers state.

This study, of a large cohort of agricultural workers, highlights the disproportionate risks of adverse kidney health to farmworkers directly handling pesticides or encountering pesticide residues on recently treated products. According to the World Cancer Research Fund, kidney cancer is the 14^th most common cancer worldwide, affecting men more often than women. Kidney cancer incidence and mortality have increased globally, with various causes, such as occupational exposure to environmental contaminants, as established risk factors.

Evidence from meta-analyses and large case-control studies provide evidence that links pesticides and kidney cancer, as they show elevated kidney cancer risks in pesticide-exposed individuals. “Furthermore, kidney cancer latency is uncertain, with some studies indicating a 20- and 30-year delay post-exposure,” the authors note. (See studies here and here.)

Study Methodology and Results

In the current study, the AGRICAN cohort contains 654 cases of incident kidney cancer, as “identified through cancer registries from 2005-2007 until 31 December 2017.” The affected individuals filled out mailed questionnaires detailing exposure to pesticides and farm activities, such as applying pesticides or sowing/harvesting sprayed crops. The questionnaire included information on 13 crop types and 5 types of livestock on farms.

As the researcher say, “Incident cases of kidney cancer and their histologic subtypes were obtained from the population-based cancer registries of each of the 11 participating areas, with histologic confirmation for each case.” From this information, statistical analyses were performed to determine associations between agricultural exposure and kidney cancer risk. These were conducted separately for men and women to account for genetic, etiological, and exposure differences. Of the total 654 incident kidney cancer cases, 467 occurred in men and 187 occurred in women, displaying a 2.5:1 ratio.

As a result, increases in kidney cancer risks in men are observed in rapeseed, sunflower, and tobacco growers, with direct exposure to pesticide treatments, seeds, and sowing showing positive associations with the disease across all of these crops. “An increased risk was also observed in growers of wheat and/or barley, corn, beet, and field vegetables,” the authors note. In terms of livestock exposure and kidney cancer incidence, a slight increase in risk is observed in men for pigs, poultry, and sheep.

In females, increased risks are observed for winegrowers and corn growers, reaching 56% and 25%, respectively. The data shows a risk increase of over 40% for “women working in wineries, using pesticides in vineyards and corn crops, and taking part in grape harvesting and vineyard maintenance.” The researchers continue, saying: “The risk of kidney cancer increased both with the duration of exposure to winegrowing and with the size of the area under the vines. The risk almost doubled for a working duration of ~30 years and almost tripled for the largest vineyard areas. It also doubled for those treating seeds of corn crops.”

In summarizing the results, the authors state: “When the effect of various crops and livestock activities on 654 kidney cancers among farmers in the AGRICAN cohort was analysed, risks for specific crops and animal exposures appeared in both men and women… The study revealed a positive association between working in open field crops and other crops and the risk of kidney cancer, showing an increased risk ≤50%.”

Previous Research

Cited in the study is additional scientific literature that connects pesticide exposure to adverse effects on kidney health. This includes:

• A case-control study in Canada of 157 cases of kidney cancer where individuals report exposure to pesticides finds that pesticide and herbicide exposure is associated with an increased risk.
• “Similar patterns were found a few years earlier in a case-control study in Denmark, with a doubling in risk for men exposed to insecticides or herbicides.”
• Positive associations are observed in a case-control study conducted in Italy involving kidney cancer and potato and fruit growing.
• Another study in Italian hospitals shows two-fold increased risk for fruit farmers.

As shared in a Daily News article last year, titled Study Reveals Mechanisms of Kidney Injury and Cancer from Exposure to Weed Killer Glyphosate, a novel study in Scientific Reports combines computational analyses with toxicological data to identify pathways affected by exposure to the phosphanoglycine herbicide glyphosate. The analyses identify glyphosate targets that correlate with kidney injury and kidney cancer, revealing pathways with significant glyphosate-induced alterations, including the dysregulation of nitrogen metabolism that leads to ammonia accumulation and oxidative stress, both of which contribute to renal (kidney) damage and carcinogenesis (development of cancer).

“This study provides a comprehensive investigation into the molecular mechanisms by which glyphosate may contribute to kidney injury and kidney cancer, employing an array of bioinformatics tools for target prediction, toxicity assessment, pathway enrichment analysis, molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation,” the researchers state. The results of the analyses and simulations highlight the molecular mechanisms underlying glyphosate’s nephrotoxic (damaging to kidneys) and carcinogenic (cancer-causing) effects.

Research on the effects of pesticides on kidney health has been documented for many years. A previous Daily News from 2015, entitled “Kidney, Liver Damage Linked to Chronic, Low-Dose Glyphosate Exposure,” highlights a research study published in Environmental Health that links chronic, ultra-low dose exposure to glyphosate in drinking water to adverse impacts on the health of the liver and kidneys. (See additional coverage on kidney health here.)

The Organic Solution

As Beyond Pesticides has advocated for over 40 years, the path forward that best protects public health, as well as the health of all wildlife and the environment, is with organic agriculture and land management. These methods provide a holistic approach that eliminates the use of harmful petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, such as those that cause kidney cancer as displayed in the current study.

Recently published study from researchers at Prairie View A&M University in Texas in the journal Sustainability, a study of organic agricultural systems from 1960 to 2021, concludes 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. (See Daily News here.)

While science continues to prove that organic practices can be productive, profitable, and safer for all, additional support is needed to implement a successful widespread transition away from chemical-intensive land management. Add your voice to the organic movement and help make this possible!

ACTION

Meanwhile, the GOP-proposed Farm Bill (the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567) has been widely criticized for gutting protections from pesticides, including provisions that shield chemical manufacturers from liability, preempt the authority of states and localities to restrict pesticides, and slash protections from pesticides under all major environmental statutes. Importantly, there are other elements in the proposed legislation that are being highlighted as undermining agricultural policies’ contribution to solving critical health, food security, biodiversity, and climate concerns.

>> Tell your Congressional representative to advocate for the removal of Farm Bill Title X, Subtitle C, Part 1, which contains attacks on foundational protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment—and vote against the Farm Bill if those provisions are not removed. and >> Tell Congress to support and fund international organizations critical to the global health of humans and the biosphere, AND Tell Governors/Lieutenant Governors to join (as well as thank them for joining) the Governors Public Health Alliance and to expand their support for international agencies that protect biodiversity and mitigate the climate crisis (IUCN, IPBES, and IPCC).

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

Source:

Nassar, C. et al. (2026) Kidney cancer and occupational agricultural exposures in the AGRIculture and CANcer cohort, International Journal of Epidemiology. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-abstract/55/1/dyag001/8466691.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 3, 2026) Research published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology (CRT) and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) documents the genetic and epigenetic (changes to gene function without altering the DNA sequence) effects to pesticide-exposed groups through early-life exposure and from transgenerational inheritance (passed down through generations). These studies highlight the complex nature of mechanisms of toxicity, as well as the various pesticide exposure routes that begin even prior to conception. The analyses evaluate general and specific pesticide exposure as reported in observational and laboratory research. Through a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on “DNA damage, cytogenetic damage, DNA methylation, or gene expression outcomes associated with prenatal and early childhood pesticide exposure,” the CRT authors link genotoxic mechanisms and epigenetic alterations to adverse health outcomes while the PNAS study shows pesticide-induced epigenetic alterations in mammals across 20 generations that “suggest the maternal and paternal lineages can both induce and inherit epigenetic alterations that influence disease (e.g., kidney, testis, ovary, prostate) incidence, reproductive health (e.g., parturition, infertility), and overall fitness generationally.”

As the CRT study states: “One of the main ways pesticides can cause harm is through genotoxicity—their ability to damage genetic material. This damage can appear as breaks in DNA strands, structural changes in chromosomes, or epigenetic alterations that modify gene activity without changing the DNA structure itself… [which] may have profound implications for growth, neurodevelopment, and long-term disease risk.” Genotoxicity can occur through multiple pathways, including oxidative stress and changes in DNA methylation (biochemical controls in the body for gene expression, detoxification, and cell repair) patterns. Epigenetic changes, however, are changes in gene function (turning genes on or off) without underlying DNA sequences being altered. These changes can be inherited by subsequent generations (referred to as epigenetic transgenerational inheritance) and can lead to developmental effects and increased disease susceptibility.

Study Methodology and Results

In the Critical Reviews in Toxicology study, a review of observational research, including cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies, was performed. Twenty-eight studies were analyzed, which focus on “the genotoxic consequences of prenatal and early childhood pesticide exposure.” As the authors note, “Eligible outcome measurements included biomarkers of DNA damage (e.g. percentage of DNA in comet tail, olive tail moment, tail length), frequency of cytogenetic abnormalities (e.g. micronuclei counts, chromosomal aberrations), DNA methylation levels at specific genomic loci or global methylation status, and expression levels of genes involved in DNA damage response, detoxification, or other relevant pathways.”

The study populations incorporate embryos, fetuses, infants, and young children up to five years of age, as well as pregnant mothers if the placenta was investigated, where pesticide exposure was self-reported. As a result, the researchers find “substantial DNA damage in pesticide-exposed groups, with stronger effects in maternal and cord blood,” as well as cytogenetic (chromosome) damage in agricultural areas, “significant downregulation of DNA damage/repair genes and distinct biological responses across inflammatory, oxidative stress, and cell signaling pathways,” and changes in DNA methylation. “The evidence supports substantial genotoxic and epigenetic alterations following early-life pesticide exposure, highlighting mechanistic pathways that may underlie adverse health outcomes and reinforcing the need for precautionary policies during critical developmental windows,” the authors write.

Noteworthy study results include:

• Pesticide exposure causes DNA strand breaks, and early-life exposure leads to persistent alterations in DNA methylation.
• Higher pesticide levels occur in umbilical cord plasma as compared to mothers’ plasma.
• Adverse pregnancy outcomes are associated with pesticide exposure and DNA damage, most commonly with reduced birth weight.
• One study finds “associations between pesticide exposure, DNA methylation, and cognitive outcomes in children from an agricultural region of California.”
• Parental pesticide exposure is linked to genital malformations in male newborns. (See study here.)
• Chlorpyrifos exposure is associated with reduced cognitive performance and language performance at age 2, with stronger effects observed in boys. (See here.)
• Another study reports “increased oxidative stress markers (catalase, super-oxide dismutase, malondialdehyde) and decreased antioxidant enzymes (glutathione reductase and peroxidase) in preterm compared to term groups.”
• In examining the epigenetic effects of prenatal pesticide exposure, one study finds “persistent methylation alterations in genes implicated in breast cancer pathways.”

In summary, the researchers state: “These results suggest that early-life pesticide exposure may program lifelong alterations in gene expression through stable epigenetic modifications, potentially increasing susceptibility to diseases like cancer, metabolic disorders, and neurodevelopmental conditions.”

In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study, the impact of environmental exposures on health outcomes throughout generations is assessed using the agricultural fungicide vinclozolin. This research follows a lineage of rats with ancestral vinclozolin exposure through twenty generations, revealing insights into long-term mammalian models of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance. “Ancestrally exposed rats to vinclozolin showed significant parturition [act of giving birth] abnormalities in both the maternal and paternal lineages after 16 generations,” the authors state, which includes maternal deaths during labor and stillbirths.

As a study of generational inheritance throughout 20 generations, this research highlights the long-term stability and evolutionary implications of epigenetic modifications. These alterations can only be transmitted/passed down to subsequent generations through germline cells. In analyzing the F23 generation, after the pregnant mothers in the F0 generation were initially exposed, the research shows how epigenetic mechanisms are part of the inheritance of disease and phenotypic variation. The initial exposure of the pregnant female affects three generations: the mother, the fetus, and the fetus’s developing sperm or egg cells. This means that the third generation (F3) is the first to not experience directly exposure, and thus, starts the ‘transgenerational’ groups.

The study results “reveal significant insights into the effects of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance on both female and male pathology,” including how “transgenerational epigenetic inheritance from vinclozolin exposure may lead to increased spermatogenic cell apoptosis [cell death] that increases over multiple generations” and rare DNA mutations, although the majority of the inherited effects involve changes in genes rather than DNA. Females show an increase in kidney and ovarian disease, as well as disruption in folliculogenesis (maturation process of ovarian follicles) and an increase in large ovarian cysts. In the later generations, males are also impacted with higher rates of prostate and testicular disease, with steadily declining sperm health.

The researchers conclude: “In this study, the observed changes in disease incidence and reproductive health indicate a response to exposure to toxicants. As epigenetic inheritance accumulates over generations, it can contribute to rapid evolutionary changes that cannot be explained by genetic mutations alone.”

In coverage of this study by U.S. Right to Know, it emphasizes how these findings “suggest that epigenetic changes linked to an ancestral chemical exposure and endocrine disruptor can persist for many generations and accumulate over time. Twenty rat generations span a few years. In humans, that could translate to centuries.” The article continues, stating: “The study also underscores a regulatory blind spot, since traditional toxicology focuses on direct toxicity and genetic mutations. Epigenetic inheritance suggests low-dose exposures could leave molecular imprints that amplify across generations.”

Previous Research

Beyond Pesticides has extensive coverage on both epigenetic and genotoxic effects of pesticides, with a multitude of studies showing DNA damage as a result of exposure. One study last year, 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.)

Another study from 2024 highlights pesticide-induced epigenetic changes, including changes relating to “DNA methylation, histone modification, and differential microRNA expression [which ‘can alter the expression of many disease-related genes’]” in a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature published in Environmental Epigenetics. “Our review did provide evidence that pesticide exposure could lead to epigenetic modifications, possibly altering global and gene-specific methylation levels, epigenome-wide methylation, and micro-RNA differential expression,” researchers share in the conclusion of the study. (See Daily News here.)

Additional research, cited in the CRT study, shows:

• “Research on various organophosphate pesticides, including malathion and chlorpyrifos, and pyrethroids, including cypermethrin, has demonstrated that in utero exposure leads to DNA strand breaks, oxidative stress, disruption of antioxidant enzyme balance, and subsequent behavioral abnormalities in offspring.” (See here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
• “Multiple meta-analyses have quantified increased risks of childhood cancers associated with prenatal pesticide exposure.” (See studies here and here.)
• One study finds “a 1.6-fold elevated risk of neuroblastoma among children whose mothers were exposed during pregnancy, suggesting genotoxic mechanisms may underlie these associations.”
• Biomonitoring studies document elevated levels of DNA damage markers in children and pregnant women exposed to agricultural and residential pesticides. (See here and here.)

The Organic Solution

As research connecting pesticide exposure to deleterious adverse health effects continues to mount, and regulatory processes fail to adequately protect public health, the holistic alternative to agriculture and land management founded in organic principles is the only way to ensure true health and safety for future generations. Children are particularly susceptible to the harmful effects of pesticides, and this increased vulnerability continues throughout childhood, putting kids at increased risk of cancer, developmental delays, and learning disabilities. See Hazards of Pesticides for Children’s Health and Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix for more information.

Beyond Pesticides’ latest action, Momentum Building Against GOP Farm Bill, Pesticide “Reform” Guts Protections from Pesticides,  cites recent studies demonstrating connections between prenatal and postnatal exposure to pesticides and severe consequences for children underscore what are being called unnecessary dangers of agriculture that relies on toxic pesticides. Besides leukemia and other cancers, childhood or in utero exposure to pesticides leads to a greater risk of asthma, ADHD, reproductive hormone production in girls, cardiometabolic disorders in boys, and suppression of the immune system, among other problems. These outcomes are unnecessary, since organic agriculture can produce any product produced by chemical-intensive agriculture. With future agriculture policy now under consideration, it is important that the Farm Bill not be used to prop up the chemical industry, but instead support organic agriculture that will not threaten vulnerable populations.

Dispensing with a tradition of bipartisan consultation in the Agriculture Committees of Congress on the Farm Bill, the Republican leadership of the House Agriculture Committee is facing resounding criticism from food, farming, environmental, and consumer groups on their highly partisan bill—the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567. The Committee postponed last week’s vote on the Farm Bill until TODAY, March 3, which provides additional time for people and organizations to let members know (or remind them) that the Farm Bill, as proposed, only serves the interests of chemical manufacturers and agribusiness. 

Get involved: >> In order to uphold fundamental protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment, tell your Congressional representative to support Rep. Pingree’s Protect Our Health Amendment (removes Sections 10205-10207), move to strike Sections 10201-10204 and 102011, and support the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act provisions. Without a comprehensive overhaul, urge a vote against the Farm Bill. 

 If you have already contacted your U.S. Representative on the Farm Bill in the past two weeks, please click HERE to send them a reminder, in light of the postponement and the new date for a committee vote on March 3! *If a member is on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, the letter you submit will automatically adjust the language by recognizing their Committee membership. 

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

Sources:

Ferdinand, P. (2026) One exposure. Twenty generations later, the damage is still unfolding., U.S. Right to Know. Available at: https://usrtk.org/healthwire/one-exposure-twenty-generations-later-the-damage-is-unfolding/.

Korolenko, A. et al. (2026) Stability of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of adult-onset disease and parturition abnormalities, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Available at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2523071123.

Sherif, M. et al. (2026) Genotoxic and epigenetic signatures of early-life pesticide exposure: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Critical Reviews in Toxicology. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/10408444.2026.2623020.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 2, 2026) In advance of deliberations on the Farm Bill tomorrow, March 3, in the Agriculture Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, opposition to the GOP-proposed legislation has been widely expressed by farm, environmental, consumer, and social justice organizations. The bill, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567, is a dramatic departure from previous Farm Bills going back to the first one in 1933, which began a process of integrated policy to address family farmers’ sustainability, land conservation, energy, climate, and food security. Discarding the traditional bipartisan process used to draft the Farm Bill, the Republican leadership has instead proposed a measure that has garnered across-the-board disapproval, except from those representing the vested interests of chemical companies and agribusiness.

In order to uphold fundamental protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment, a campaign has emerged to urge U.S. Representatives to support Rep. Pingree’s Protect Our Health Amendment (removes Sections 10205-10207), move to strike Sections 10201-10204 and 102011, and support the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act provisions. Without a comprehensive overhaul, this campaign is urging a vote against the Farm Bill.

Central to the GOP Farm Bill, released by the chair of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee on February 13, is the overturning of critical protections for the health of farmers, consumers and the environment. Three core safeguards are threatened:

• Judicial review of chemical manufacturers‘ failure to warn about pesticide hazards,
• Democratic right of local governments in coordination with states to protect residents from pesticide use, and
• Local site-specific action to ensure protection—the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides.  

Importantly, there are other elements in the proposed legislation that are being highlighted as undermining agricultural policies’ contribution to solving critical health, food security, biodiversity, and climate concerns, such as the following:

• Petrochemical fertilizer dependency. Petrochemical fertilizer production and use have been directly tied to the release of greenhouse gases, a reduction in the drawdown of atmospheric carbon through soil sequestration, nitrate contamination (converted to nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas) of air and water, and the harm to soil microbial life that escalates pesticide dependency. The proposed legislation—throughout the Conservation Title (Title II), including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program subtitle (Subtitle C), and in the Research Title (Title VII) —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.
• Hunger and social injustice. With one in seven people experiencing food insecurity and Congressional action last year (so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”) adopting a historically large $186 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), the GOP-proposed “farm bill ignores hunger,” said the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). “AFSC believes in the need for a just Farm Bill that works toward ending hunger, invests in sustainable agriculture, supports small family farms rather than corporate monopolies, protects our environment, and makes nutritious food available to all.” 
• Unsustainable agriculture. “The bill takes no meaningful steps toward building a fair, responsible, and accessible farm safety net while needlessly siphoning funding away from popular and effective conservation programs, according to the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. 
• Endangered conservation programs. A letter from a broad range of environmental, farm, and public health groups characterizes the bill as follows: Rolls back or diverts proven conservation investments at a time when demand for soil health and resilience programs continues to outpace available funding; Weakens pesticide oversight and curtails state and local authority to protect farmworkers, children, pollinators, waterways, and endangered species from chemical exposure; Expands categorical exclusions and other mechanisms that limit environmental review, public input, and undermine our bedrock environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and more; and, Constrains rural energy affordability programs that help farmers and small businesses lower operating costs and achieve energy independence.

There will be an effort by some members of the Committee to remove specific sections of the legislation that shield chemical manufacturers from liability, preempt the authority of states and localities to restrict pesticides, and slash protections from pesticides under all major environmental statutes. Ultimately, however, without a total overhaul, dozens of groups are urging a no vote on the bill. 

The GOP 2026 Farm Bill amounts to a wish list for the chemical industry and agribusiness. “With future agriculture policy now under consideration, it is important that the Farm Bill not be used to prop up the chemical industry, but instead supports organic agriculture that will not threaten vulnerable populations and the ecosystems that support life,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. 

There is opposition to the bill in Congress. Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, condemned the GOP Farm Bill, saying it would be “’very difficult, if not impossible’ for her to back a GOP-led farm bill because it contains ‘poison pills’ and doesn’t do enough to aid struggling farmers,” according to Politico. Make America Healthy Again advocates are also incensed over the provision that grants chemical companies immunity from lawsuits for injury when they fail to provide complete safety warnings. Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME) has indicated that she will seek to strike provisions of the bill [see below]. 

Subtitle C of Title X, Part 1, “Regulatory Reform,” of the GOP Farm Bill is a sweeping set of exemptions, waivers, and revocations undermining 50 years of laws adopted by Congress to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment. The bill language: 

1. Redefines and exempts plant regulators, biostimulants, “inert” ingredients, and genetically engineered materials from proper oversight. Pesticides and related “plant incorporated protectants” as listed above would be exempted from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration review requirements, as well as from tolerance setting requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (Section 10201);  
2. Further weakens and delays safety measures and environmental protections with a requirement for “harmonizing” interagency coordination. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is charged with considering the economic costs of increased risk mitigation measures when up for public comment, further weakening a science-based approach to risk management that considers alternatives. The USDA Office of Pest Management Policy is mandated to coordinate with other federal agencies to consider pesticide use data, economic data of viable chemical alternatives, and likely to advance chemical-intensive practices (Section 10202);  
3. Weakens Endangered Species Act protections under new interagency working group regulations. The interagency working group will now require the Office of Pest Management Policy to attend, limit meeting requirements to just once a year rather than twice a year, and increase the influence of chemical companies in pesticide registration review decisions before public meetings are held (Section 10203);  
4. Diminishes the integrity of the pesticide registration review process. Repeals Section 711 of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022, which mandates that EPA complete initial registration reviews of pesticides by October 1, 2026, striking a blow to scientific integrity and the assurance that active ingredients are adequately assessed before being released into the market (Section 10204);  
5. Immunizes chemical companies from liability and failure to warn. Prohibits lawsuits by farmers and consumers harmed by pesticides for which manufacturers failed to provide complete safety warnings (Section 10205);   
6. Preempts state and local authority. Takes away the authority of local governments to protect residents and the local environment from pesticide use with local restrictions (Section 10206);  
7. Exempts pesticides from reviews to protect water, ecosystems, and endangered species. Repeals requirements in numerous federal statutes authorized by Congress over the last 50 years to protect against local pesticide contamination that could adversely affect waterways, drinking water, federal projects, endangered species, migratory birds, and toxic waste cleanup (Section 10207); and,  
8. Eliminates the USDA Multiple Crop and Pesticide Use survey. Discontinues surveys, which provide baseline information to communities and farmers to inform practices and outcomes (Section 10211). 

U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME) plans to introduce the Protect Our Health Amendment, which will remove from the bill sections 10205, 10206, and 10207 (numbers 5, 6, and 7 above). In addition, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Pingree have introduced a bill, the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act, to prevent implementation of a February 18 Executive Order that activates the Defense Production Act of 1950, declares the production of glyphosate a national security concern, and provides blanket liability protection for manufacturers of the pesticides. This legislation may be introduced as an amendment to the Farm Bill. 

ACTION
In order to uphold fundamental protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment, tell your Congressional representative to support Rep. Pingree’s Protect Our Health Amendment (removes Sections 10205-10207), move to strike Sections 10201-10204 and 102011, and support the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act provisions. Without a comprehensive overhaul, urge a vote against the Farm Bill.

If you have already contacted your U.S. Representative on the Farm Bill in the past two weeks, please click HERE to send them a reminder! *If a member is on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, the letter you submit will automatically adjust the language by recognizing their Committee membership. 

Letter to members of the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture:
The GOP Farm Bill, as proposed and before the House Agriculture Committee, threatens policies intended to protect against the diseases and illnesses touching families and communities, including brain and nervous system disorders, birth abnormalities, cancer, developmental and learning disorders, immune and endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, among others. Also threatened are policies intended to protect wildlife, including mammals, bees and other pollinators, fish and other aquatic organisms, birds, and the biota within soil, which are adversely affected with reproductive, neurological, endocrine-disruptive, and developmental anomalies, and cancers. 

Dispensing with a tradition of bipartisan consultation in the Agriculture Committees of Congress on the Farm Bill, the GOP Farm Bill is facing resounding criticism from food, farming, environmental, and consumer groups. The bill overturns three core safeguards critical to the health of farmers, consumers, and the environment—judicial review of chemical manufacturers’ failure to warn about pesticide hazards, the democratic right of local governments and states to protect residents from pesticide use, and local site-specific action to ensure the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides. Subtitle C of Title X, entitled Regulatory Reform, is a sweeping set of exemptions, waivers, and revocations undermining 50 years of laws adopted by Congress to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment, including provisions that:

*Redefine and exempt plant regulators, biostimulants, “inert” ingredients, and genetically engineered materials from proper oversight. (Section 10201);

*Further weaken and delay safety measures and environmental protections with a requirement for “harmonizing” interagency coordination. (Section 10202);

*Weaken Endangered Species Act protections under new interagency working group regulations. (Section 10203);

*Diminish the integrity of the pesticide registration review process. (Section 10204);

*Immunize chemical companies from liability and failure to warn. (Section 10205);

*Preempt state and local authority, taking away the authority of local governments to protect residents and the local environment from pesticide use with local restrictions (Section 10206);

*Exempt pesticides from reviews to protect water, ecosystems, and endangered species, repealing requirements in numerous federal statutes authorized by Congress over the last 50 years to protect against local pesticide contamination that could adversely affect waterways, drinking water, federal projects, endangered species, migratory birds, and toxic waste cleanup (Section 10207); and,

*Eliminate the USDA Multiple Crop and Pesticide Use survey. (Section 10211).

Please support U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree’s (D-ME) Protect Our Health Amendment, which will remove from the bill Sections 10205, 10206, and 10207. In addition, support amendments from Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) and Rep. Pingree’s No Immunity for Glyphosate Act to prevent implementation of a February 18  Executive Order (EO) that activates the Defense Production Act of 1950, declaring the production of glyphosate a national security concern and providing blanket liability protection for manufacturers of the pesticides.

Please do not weaken the protection of our health and the environment. Without a comprehensive overhaul, please vote against the Farm Bill.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representatives who are not members of the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture:
I’m writing to ask you to speak with your colleagues on the Agriculture Committee in advance of the Farm Bill markup on March 3. The GOP Farm Bill, as proposed and before the House Agriculture Committee, threatens policies intended to protect against the diseases and illnesses touching families and communities, including brain and nervous system disorders, birth abnormalities, cancer, developmental and learning disorders, immune and endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, among others. Also threatened are policies intended to protect wildlife, including mammals, bees and other pollinators, fish and other aquatic organisms, birds, and the biota within soil, which are adversely affected with reproductive, neurological, endocrine-disruptive, and developmental anomalies, and cancers. 

Dispensing with a tradition of bipartisan consultation in the Agriculture Committees of Congress on the Farm Bill, the GOP Farm Bill is facing resounding criticism from food, farming, environmental, and consumer groups. The bill overturns three core safeguards critical to the health of farmers, consumers, and the environment—judicial review of chemical manufacturers’ failure to warn about pesticide hazards, the democratic right of local governments and states to protect residents from pesticide use, and local site-specific action to ensure the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides. Subtitle C of Title X, entitled Regulatory Reform, is a sweeping set of exemptions, waivers, and revocations undermining 50 years of laws adopted by Congress to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment, including provisions that:

*Redefine and exempt plant regulators, biostimulants, “inert” ingredients, and genetically engineered materials from proper oversight. (Section 10201);

*Further weaken and delay safety measures and environmental protections with a requirement for “harmonizing” interagency coordination. (Section 10202);

*Weaken Endangered Species Act protections under new interagency working group regulations. (Section 10203);

*Diminish the integrity of the pesticide registration review process. (Section 10204);

*Immunize chemical companies from liability and failure to warn. (Section 10205);

*Preempt state and local authority, taking away the authority of local governments to protect residents and the local environment from pesticide use with local restrictions (Section 10206);

*Exempt pesticides from reviews to protect water, ecosystems, and endangered species, repealing requirements in numerous federal statutes authorized by Congress over the last 50 years to protect against local pesticide contamination that could adversely affect waterways, drinking water, federal projects, endangered species, migratory birds, and toxic waste cleanup (Section 10207); and,

*Eliminate the USDA Multiple Crop and Pesticide Use survey. (Section 10211).

Please urge support for Representative Chellie Pingree’s (D-ME) Protect Our Health Amendment, which will remove from the bill Sections 10205, 10206, and 10207. In addition, please urge support for amendments from Representative Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) and Rep. Pingree’s No Immunity for Glyphosate Act to prevent implementation of a February 18 Executive Order (EO) that activates the Defense Production Act of 1950, declaring the production of glyphosate a national security concern and providing blanket liability protection for manufacturers of the pesticides.

Please ask your colleagues on the Agriculture Committee not to weaken the protection of our health and the environment. Without a comprehensive overhaul, please urge a vote against the Farm Bill in the Agriculture Committee.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2026) Researchers at Prairie View A&M University in Texas published in the journal Sustainability a study of organic agricultural systems from 1960 to 2021, concluding 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!

Study Methodology, Background, and Findings

The authors of this literature review arrived at the following conclusions on research trends for human health and environmental impacts of organic systems (for further analysis, the numbers below list citations from their report):

• “[O]rganic food has been documented to have higher antioxidant capacity, acidity, and phosphorus as well as lower levels of cadmium, pesticides, and other chemicals (18–22). Additionally, organic practices increase the content of secondary metabolites in fruits and vegetables, which is associated with a reduced risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease (23).”
• “[C]onsuming organic fruits and vegetables as part of a well-balanced, regular diet and a healthy, active lifestyle can reduce obesity, enhance immune responses, lower cholesterol and blood pressure, and reduce the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and preeclampsia [6,19,26–27]. In the same vein, the consumption of organic products in a population can be considered as an indicator of public health [28].”

The report also reviews the discrepancies in federal and state-level support programs for organic agriculture that have resulted in regional disparities:

• “In the Northeast, states such as Maryland and Vermont experienced a 115% increase in cover crop adoption from 2012 to 2017. In contrast, Pennsylvania, which lacked such a program, experienced a more minor increase [78].”
• “In contrast, state-level policies, such as California’s tailored incentives and extension services, are more flexible and locally responsive, thereby improving accessibility for small-scale farmers, especially those focusing on organic fruits and vegetables in the U.S. [80]. For instance, in California, there have been state-level organic certification programs geared towards improving transition effectiveness by using the detailed Pesticide Use Report (PUR) to monitor field-level practices, enabling precise tracking of pesticide trends and compliance, and mandating annual registration for all organic producers, including small farms often excluded from federal datasets [81].”
• “Federal extension typically provides broad-based educational materials, yet it often lacks the localized, practice-specific insights that organic farmers require, prompting many to turn to peer networks and NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] for actionable guidance [83]. In contrast, state-level extension programs, such as those in Georgia, offer more targeted, regionally adapted resources but struggle with agents’ limited knowledge of organic agriculture, underscoring the need for enhanced agent training to improve the effectiveness of support [84,85].”

Additionally, the report also delves into “economic importance” and “strategies to boost consumption,” including:

• “Munne-Bosh and Bermejo [109] reported that organic farming could provide high-quality fruits by enhancing pollination and reducing protective treatments, which may ultimately increase the production of antioxidant compounds in fruits and vegetables. Similarly, Baransky et al. [19] reported that organically grown fruits and vegetables contain higher levels of antioxidant compounds.”
• “Most organic products are processed and consumed locally, particularly fruits and vegetables [111,112]. For example, Iowa experienced an increase in food markets aimed at establishing a direct link between producers and consumers without intermediaries.”
• “According to USDA data [41,114] from 2007 to 2021, the area devoted to the production of organic fruits and vegetables increased by more than 100% (Figure 3). Its value increased from $685 million to $1913 million [1.913 billion], representing more than a 200% increase (Figure 4). Finally, the number of farms involved in the production of organic fruits and vegetables grew by more than 100% (Figure 5).”

The researchers for this study are based at Prairie View A&M University, the oldest Historically Black College and University (HBCU) and second-oldest public higher education institution in the state of Texas. More specifically, they are published authors at the College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources. Ram L. Ray, Ph.D., P.E., ACUE, Sixto Marquez, Ph.D, and Damar Wilson are the lead authors of this study.

The authors reviewed Agricola, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar to assess “the emergence of the modern organic movement in 1960 through 2021.” They did not include literature “if they were not relevant to the U.S. organic fruit and vegetable systems, failed to distinguish between organic and conventional production, or were incomplete or duplicates across platforms.” This report was funded in part by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); no other external funding was declared. Researchers declared no conflicts of interest.

Previous Coverage

There is significant additional research that has emerged in the years since 2021 that highlights the opportunities for organic markets within and outside of the U.S., as well as additional clarity on their environmental and health impacts.

For example, a study published this year in Scientific Reports highlights the benefits of organic agriculture compared with different farming systems over five years across four crops (maize, tomato, faba bean, and potato). “Soil carbon sequestration is a long-term storage of carbon in soil, which represents 70% of the carbon in land,” the authors note. “Therefore, the main aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the agricultural practice systems on the soil carbon sequestration and properties, productivity, water consumption, soil carbon sequestration, CO₂ emission and cost of some crops.” As a result, the experiment reveals that, compared to chemical-intensive farming, organic methods enhance soil properties, reduce water consumption, provide higher yields and higher soil carbon sequestration, reduce CO₂ emissions, and achieve the highest total net profit for all four crops after five years. (See Daily News here.)

In another 2026 study published in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, researchers from France find pesticide-free fields promote carabid beetles and spiders, generalist arthropod predators that consume slugs, aphids, and mites, that in turn support healthy, organic systems. The study findings highlight the importance of utilizing farming practices that promote biodiversity and foster natural enemy populations as a pest management strategy. (See Daily News here.)

A groundbreaking study published in 2025 in the Journal of Environmental Quality, led by researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), reports that a 4-year organically managed corn-soybean-oat system reduces nitrogen (N) loads by 50 percent with corn and soybean yields “equivalent to or higher than conventional [chemical-intensive] in most years.” The findings from a 7-year study comparing nitrate loss in organic and chemical-intensive management found that organically managed perennial pasture reduces nitrogen loads significantly. The study, which focused on nitrate pollution in agriculture that harms biodiversity, threatens waterways, drinking water, and public health, and releases nitrous oxide (an extremely potent greenhouse gas), was conducted at USDA’s National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment.

The researchers highlight the four main conclusions of their 7-year study:

• “Four-year organic rotation reduced N loads by 50% compared to conventional corn–soybean.
• Diversified rotation and annual precipitation accounted for 55% of the variability in N drainage losses.
• Organic corn yields were similar to or higher than conventional in 4 of 7 years.
• Organic soybean yields were similar to or higher than conventional in 6 of 7 years.”

The authors believe that these findings support “the adoption of organic systems in tile-drained regions to enhance water quality without compromising productivity,” and yield critical benefits for the future of American agriculture, health, and the environment. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

In a press release published on December 10, 2025, USDA announced the creation of “a $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program to help American farmers adopt practices that improve soil health, enhance water quality, and boost long-term productivity, all while strengthening America’s food and fiber supply.” The agency specifically ties the program to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA), diverting resources that could be used to support organic transition and phase out pesticides that are clearly defined as prohibited by USDA’s National Organic Program under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), but allowed in regenerative agriculture programs. Regenerative agriculture, embraced by major food companies, has been identified by Beyond Pesticides and many organizations as greenwashing because it typically allows wide use of weed killers and other petrochemical pesticides and is not defined as a transition to organic practices and compatible products. (See here.)

You can continue to stay apprised of the most pressing developments on various issues and campaigns by signing up for Weekly News Update and Action of the Week — including a call to tell your governor to adopt policies that support organic land management and ecological balance. Farm Bill negotiations are ramping up, with calls ongoing to tell your members of Congress to advocate for the removal of Farm Bill Title X, Subtitle C, Part 1, which contains attacks on foundational protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment—and vote against the Farm Bill if those provisions are not removed.

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

Source: Prairie View A&M University

(Beyond Pesticides, February 26, 2026) 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 study highlights the disproportionate risks of pesticides to farmworkers, focusing on women, as it compares exposed and unexposed populations and breast cancer tumor/disease characteristics.

One of the study authors, Carolina Panis, PhD, discussed her earlier research at the Beyond Pesticides’ 42^nd National Forum Series, The Pesticide Threat to Environmental Health: Advancing Holistic Solutions Aligned with Nature. In her previous work, Pesticide exposure and increased breast cancer risk in women population studies, Dr. Panis documents a number of pesticides that “can increase the risk of BC [breast cancer] development through various mutagenic [genetic mutations] and nonmutagenic mechanisms and can act directly as carcinogens or indirectly as biochemical modifiers and hormonal deregulators. The underlying mechanisms include endocrine disruption; genotoxicity; epigenetic changes [changes to gene function without changing DNA]; enhanced cell migration, invasion, and…” more. Dr. Panis and other researchers at the Forum support community-level understanding of the science and its relationship to debilitating and deadly disease patterns associated with toxic chemical exposure, so that people close to home and around the globe can effectively advocate for the necessary changes that are within reach. (See the recording here.)

Scientific literature documents how areas with an abundance of chemical-intensive agriculture, such as Brazil, experience increased adverse health and environmental effects. As the current study states: “Despite evidence on the negative impact of pesticides on human health, the country stands out among the top three pesticide consumers globally. The implications of this scenario on rural workers health, particularly women, is completely neglected, resulting in chronic illness such as breast cancer.”

The authors continue, “To our knowledge, this is the first study that uses the described methodology [below] to predict the relationship of variables related to breast cancer severity in a population categorized according to their pesticide exposure profile.” As a result, the research highlights the link between occupational pesticide exposure and the occurrence of breast tumors with more aggressive clinicopathological (combining clinic and laboratory) findings. This includes “an increased frequency of disease recurrence, chemoresistance, death, and predominance of the molecular subtype Luminal B,” an aggressive, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) type of breast cancer.

Study Importance and Background

As the researchers point out, pesticide use in agriculture started with, and continues to be used, with the stated justification of increased food production for the growing world population, despite scientific literature that continues to showcase the acute and chronic consequences of their application and the availability of sustainable, productive, and profitable alternatives. Many pesticides are known endocrine disruptors, able to “influence the development of tumors in the female reproductive system, increase aromatase activity and estrogen production, reduce fertility, augment estrogen production, increase androgen availability, competitively bind to estrogen cell receptors, enhance proliferation of estrogen-sensitive cells, and inhibit corticosterone synthesis in the adrenal cortex.”

Elevated risk of pesticide-induced breast cancer is associated with “various mutagenic and nonmutagenic mechanisms, acting either directly as carcinogens or indirectly as biochemical modifiers and hormonal disruptors,” the authors state. “The underlying mechanisms include endocrine disruption, genotoxicity, epigenetic [environmentally-driven heritable changes] alterations, enhanced cell migration, invasion, and stemness, angiogenesis [forming new capillary blood vessels], and tumor growth, among others.”

Beyond Pesticides has extensively covered breast cancer and other common diseases, as documented in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database and through the Daily News Blog. In an article from last year, titled Pesticides Harming Immune Cell Function Linked to Elevated Breast Cancer Rate in Young Women, a study in Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology documents elevated rates of breast cancer in women with occupational pesticide exposure. This study was also of Brazilian women who were either occupationally or domestically exposed to pesticides and includes Dr. Panis as an author. (See additional Daily News on breast cancer here.)

In analyzing the Southeastern region of northern Paraná, Brazil in the study, the researchers reference three herbicides as the most prevalent, writing: “[The study] population is subject to considerable pesticide exposure, especially glyphosate, atrazine, and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic (2,4-D), which are widely used in soybean, corn, and wheat monocultures in the region… Additionally, women occupationally exposed to areas where glyphosate, atrazine, and 2,4-D are predominantly used have a higher risk of developing breast cancer.” (See study here.)

The weed killer glyphosate has long been tied to adverse effects, including endocrine disruption, one of the mechanisms that can cause breast cancer. Research shows that in breast cancer cells, glyphosate exposure “leads to altered expression of cell proliferation-related genes, and dysregulation of key genes involved in tumor aggressiveness and metastasis [spread of cancer cells].” (See Daily News coverage on glyphosate here.)

Atrazine, a triazine herbicide, also exhibits endocrine-disrupting effects, with studies showing impacts to mammary glands and hormone levels. (See here and here.) “In breast cancer cells, atrazine alters protein expression and modulates antioxidant defense gene expression, promoting genomic instability and oxidative stress-induced damage, a recognized mechanism for breast cancer development and progression, also linked to immune deregulation in patients and inflammatory changes in normal mammary tissue in exposed women,” the authors note. (See Daily News coverage on atrazine here.)

Finally, the herbicide 2,4-D is associated with an increased risk of cancer, particularly mesothelioma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and endocrine disruption, along with many other adverse health effects including neurotoxicity, reproductive dysfunction, and developmental delays. (See Daily News coverage on 2,4-D here.)

This study highlights the growing trend of women in agriculture and the disproportionate risks they face. “[I]t has been estimated that women represent 43% of the world’s agricultural workforce,” the researchers state. They continue: “This trend has been observed in several regions of the world, such as in the European Union, where women represent 29% of rural workers, Brazil, where they represent 45%, and certain regions of Africa and Asia, where women’s representation can reach up to 60%. The feminization of agriculture may lead to an increase in the incidence of cancer in women.”

Methodology and Results

As a cross-sectional and quantitative exploratory study, this research uses clinicopathological data from medical records, along with interviews, to categorize women as exposed or unexposed to pesticides and analyze that relationship with breast cancer diagnoses and characteristics. The data comes from the Francisco Beltrão Cancer Hospital, where a total of 923 women, from May 2015 to April 2023, had images suggestive of breast lesions. From that total, 349 patients were selected for study analyses after a diagnosis of breast cancer was determined by a pathologist.

“To characterize exposure, we previously performed a 2-year study aiming to get detailed information about patients’ exposure profile,” the authors write. “To reach this goal, patients were invited to complete a comprehensive questionnaire with 61 questions covering their current and past occupational history.” This led to the categorization of the study population as either occupationally exposed (n = 208) or unexposed (n = 141) to pesticides.

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. “As pesticides are primarily absorbed through the skin, this chronic and prolonged exposure represents a significant contamination route, surpassing potential exposure from food or water sources.”

Noteworthy results of the study include:

• Exposed patients have a higher prevalence (32.83%) of the more aggressive Luminal B subtype of breast cancer.
• Pesticide exposure also leads to higher disease recurrence and chemoresistance as compared to unexposed individuals.
• “Breast cancer patients exposed to pesticides were also more likely to have distant metastases (1.4 times) and lymph node invasion (1.3 times) compared to patients not exposed.”
• Of the patients with occupational exposure, “8.25% were stratified as low risk for death and recurrence, 55.87% into intermediate risk, and 35.87% were classified as high risk… About 7% of the patients died, 9.36% of the patients had disease recurrence, and 18.97% of the patients developed chemoresistance.” The low mortality rate can be attributed to all patients in the study being in Stage II, which is considered an early stage and often curable.

In summary, the authors write: “Our data suggest that pesticide exposure may be linked to more aggressive forms of breast cancer, with worse prognoses including increased recurrence, chemoresistance, and metastasis… Given these findings, we reiterate the urgency of discussing and changing policies that regulate the use of pesticides and the need to screen exposed populations and those at risk of developing more aggressive diseases.”

Previous Research

As shown by the multitude of studies cited in the current study, there is a wide body of science connecting pesticide exposure to documented adverse health implications. Examples include:

• Immune dysregulation and inflammatory responses occur with pesticide exposure. (See here.)
• One study identifies “a predominance of intermediate risk for death and recurrence in women exposed to pesticides, characterized by the prevalence of Luminal B tumors in association intermediate size tumors (between 2 and 5 cm) and intermediate tumor grade.”
• Additional research (see here and here) reports immune deregulation that favors the development of more aggressive tumors and triggers “the higher frequency of distant metastases and recurrence observed in patients occupationally exposed to pesticides.”
• Another study of tumor samples from 158 patients finds that pesticide exposure is associated with pathogenic mutations, which suggests that pesticide exposure may impact cancer development, mutational burden, and disease progression.

Moving Forward

As the study authors mention, there is an urgency for pesticide regulation that better protects human health, as well as the need to support exposed populations with disproportionate risks for adverse health implications such as breast cancer. For decades, Beyond Pesticides has documented the regulatory deficiencies of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and other regulatory bodies around the world. With the documented complexity of the pesticide threat to health and the environment that cannot be contained by regulatory mitigation measures, the transition to organic systems is critical as a holistic solution for ending pesticide dependency and contamination.

The widespread adoption of organic agriculture and land management practices eliminates the disproportionate risks to farmers, farmworkers, and their families from occupational exposure, as well as protects from pesticide drift and contamination in food, water, soil, and air. Learn more about how to take action and keep organic strong here and here, and support Beyond Pesticides’ mission of eliminating petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by 2032.

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

Source:

Cazagranda, I. et al. (2026) Hidden risks associated with occupational pesticide exposure in women with breast cancer: High frequency of the Luminal B molecular subtype and occurrence of poor prognostic features, PLOS ONE. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0339471.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 25, 2026) Residues of the weed killer glyphosate, which has been classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, have been routinely found in food products, and a recent state survey in Florida confirmed previous findings. The findings are well within the legal standards for allowable residues. So, why is the Trump administration, in invoking the Defense Production Act of 1950 by Executive Order and its immunity-from-lawsuits provision for glyphosate manufacturers, concerned about glyphosate residues in food and other nondietary exposure? Could it have something to do with the over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements on glyphosate exposure against the manufacturer Bayer/Monsanto, with tens of thousands of cases pending, and the robust independent, peer-reviewed scientific findings that link glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a host of other adverse health effects?

Nothing in the President’s executive order appears to meet the intent of the statute and its stated purpose to protect “the ability of the domestic industrial base to supply materials and services for the national defense and to prepare for and respond to military conflicts, natural or man-caused disasters, or acts of terrorism within the United States . . .” Without any supporting documentation or findings, the executive order states: “There is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides. Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity.  Given the profit margins growers currently face, any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.” Organic farmers and the companies in the $70 billion organic sector do not agree with this broad, unsupported statement in the executive order.

The Florida Department of Health, through its Healthy Florida First Initiative, released data on glyphosate residues in commonly purchased bread products found in grocery stores in the Sunshine State, but limits its discussion of hazards to heavy metals. All the residues detected are within tolerance levels (legally acceptable residues) set by the U.S. government. Allowable pesticide residues have been criticized by health and safety advocates for being set with incomplete data on exposure to chemical mixtures, synergistic effects, and serious adverse health effects, including endocrine disruption. 

Additionally, the Florida report has been criticized for the lack of disclosure of the underlying data and methods. A certified industrial hygienist told Food Safety Magazine saying that the state’s “reports do not contain any information about their methodology.” The study findings were released on the state’s website, Healthy Florida First website, and its Exposing Bread Toxins webpage.

Review of Healthy Florida First Initiative

In a press conference on February 6, Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL), First Lady Casey DeSantis, and Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Lapado “tested eight bread products across five national brands commonly available in Florida grocery stores.” They continue: “Glyphosate, a widely used herbicide commonly applied in agricultural production to control weeds, was detected in six of the eight bread products tested.” The brands and accompanying glyphosate residue levels for the six products include:

• Nature’s Own Butter Bread (190.23 ppb or  0.19023 ppm)
• Nature’s Own Perfectly Crafted White (132.34 ppb or 0.13234 ppm)
• Dave’s Killer Bread White Done Right (11.85 ppb or 0.01185 ppm)
• Dave’s Killer Bread 21 Whole Grain (10.38 ppb or 0.01038 ppm)
• Wonder Bread Classic White (173.19 ppb or 0.17219 ppm)
• Sara Lee Honey Wheat (191.04 ppb or 0.19104 ppm)

According to EPA regulations pursuant to 40 CFR 180.364, tolerances for glyphosate residues range depending on the food product. EPA Crop Group 15: Cereal Grains Group, which includes wheat, has a 30 parts per million (ppm) pesticide residue tolerance threshold for wheat, which is a significantly higher threshold than the 0.1-0.2 ppm for other products, such as peanuts, rice, or avocados, to name a few.

Criticism

There is concern from some that the Florida government’s approach to residue testing for pesticides, including from the bread industry and Florida-based toxicological and certified industrial hygienist Alex LeBeau, Ph.D, M.P.H., C.I.H. in an interview with Food Safety Magazine in the aftermath of the released results.

“Important data for interpreting and contextualizing the results, which the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) or the Governor’s office have not disclosed, include the sampling and testing parameters, the analytical methods used, the laboratory’s limits of detection (LODs), or the health thresholds and outcomes being referenced when declaring that the levels of a contaminant in products are ‘unsafe,’” reports Bailee Henderson, an author at the outlet, after speaking with toxicologists including LeBeau.

The North American Millers’ Association, in coordination with National Association of Wheat Growers and American Bakers Association, released a joint statement pushing back on the results:

“Our nation’s farmers, millers and bakers proudly serve families and communities as they champion safe, consistent, accessible and affordable bread. Food safety is the top priority for the grain we grow, the flour we mill and the bread we bake for all Americans. We appreciate Healthy Florida First’s stated purpose of improving the lives of Floridians. Unfortunately, their recent announcement needlessly scares consumers about trace levels of glyphosate that don’t present genuine risks. Glyphosate is regulated and continuously reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure levels are safe for all consumers, from adults to children.”

Previous Coverage

Despite the alleged controversy around the specifics of methodological approaches involved with the Healthy Florida First Initiative, there is a significant body of peer-reviewed, scientific literature that finds pesticide residues found in various common food products in the U.S. and abroad.

Friends of the Earth (FOE) released a report in 2019 showing pesticide residues in the food supply. The report, Toxic Secret, found store and name-brand foods produced and sold by the top four U.S. food retailers — Kroger (NYSE:KR), Walmart (NYSE: WMT), Costco (NYSE:COST) and Albertsons — contain residues of toxic pesticides linked to a range of serious health and environmental problems. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has been detected in popular foods, including “100% pure” honey, Doritos, Oreos, Goldfish, Ritz Crackers, German beers, California wines, and UK bread. (See Daily News here.) A separate report conducted by Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) in 2019 tested 20 common beers and wines sold in the United States and found glyphosate residues in all but one. (See Daily News here.)

The science on pesticide safety has been deeply politicized, given the controversy on glyphosate registration and litigation surrounding the active ingredient’s linkages to Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. What was once considered a landmark study concluding that the weed killer glyphosate did not cause cancer was retracted last week after it was revealed in lawsuit documents that the authors did not disclose their relationship with Monsanto/Bayer. The editor-in-chief, Martin van den Berg, PhD of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, who published the article 25 years ago, wrote in the journal, “Concerns were raised regarding the authorship of this paper, validity of the research findings in the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor and potential conflicts of interest of the authors.” (See Daily News here.)

The data in the latest annual U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) pesticide residue report, released in January 2026, continues to show a pattern of pesticide residues in the majority of food tested by USDA. Health advocates say low-level pesticide residues in the food supply within legal limits raise serious hazard concerns, while USDA, in its Pesticide Data Program–Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2024, points to controversial residue standards as a measure of safety. (See Daily News here.) According to a 2024 analysis by Consumer Reports, USDA has systematically failed to accurately portray the safety of some of the most commonly sold fruits and vegetables in the United States. A review of seven years of PDP data shows that 20% of the foods tested pose a “high risk” to the public, and 12 specific commodities are so dangerous that children or pregnant people should not eat more than one serving per day, according to Consumer Reports analysis.  (See Daily News here.) Meanwhile, over half of all food samples tested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) contain the residues of at least one pesticide, and one in ten samples have levels that violate legal limits established by EPA. (See Daily News here.)

A review article in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment (2025) highlights how the pesticides used in global crop production pose risks to ecosystems and human health through multiple pathways. As the authors note, “Once applied to crops, pesticides are transported through surface and groundwater flows, atmospheric dispersion, and wildlife migration.” Residues in food products, such as fruits and vegetables, as well as bioaccumulation within animals that are consumed as food, also threaten consumers around the world, particularly those relying on international trade. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

As a mounting number of scientific studies link pesticides to adverse health and environmental effects not evaluated under the EPA’s pesticide registration program, members of Congress are planning to introduce legislation that elevates the organic solution. To this end, Beyond Pesticides and allies are calling on U.S. Representatives and Senators to become a cosponsor of the Opportunities in Organic Act, which is expected to be reintroduced in early 2026 by U.S. Senator Peter Welch and U.S. Representative Jimmy Panetta.

Meanwhile, the GOP 2026 Farm Bill text, released on February 13, challenges three core safeguards that are seen as critical to the health of farmers, consumers and the environment—judicial review of chemical manufacturers’ failure to warn about pesticide hazards, the democratic right of local governments in coordination with states to protect residents from pesticide use, and local site-specific action to ensure the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides. A nationwide campaign has been launched to: Tell members of the U.S. House of Representatives to stop provisions in the Farm Bill that shield chemical companies from liability for the harm caused by their products, intrude on local communities’ democratic right to restrict pesticides, and eliminate pesticide restrictions governing clean water, environmental impacts, and endangered species. Ask them to support the transition to organic agricultural practices.

Through the Eating with a Conscience database, you can select from over 90 different common produce and veggies you regularly consume and learn about the organic difference from their conventional, chemical-intensive counterparts.

Additionally, you can sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Update to stay notified on ways you can take action to expand public investments and programs that expand organic land management, in agricultural contexts and on public green spaces, parks, and playing fields, to move beyond a reliance on synthetic materials.

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

Source: Florida Department of Health ; Food Safety Magazine

(Beyond Pesticides. February 24, 2026) Leukemia is the leading contributor to the clear rise in childhood cancer cases over the last few decades, and the general association of pesticide exposures with childhood leukemia is firmly established. Now, a new study is the first to assess the effect of pesticide exposures on the survival of children with leukemia. The study found a statistically significant link between residential rodenticide exposure and a higher risk in children of death from acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), 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. With proper treatment, about 80% of children diagnosed after age one with ALL can survive.

The study, by University of California, Berkeley epidemiologist Seema Desai and colleagues at several other California state universities, used data from the California Childhood Leukemia Study (CCLS), an ongoing population-based case-control study identifying genetic and environmental risks for the range of leukemias occurring in children. Beyond Pesticides covered a 2009 study using the CCLS that found elevated risk of ALL in children living near agricultural pesticide applications, along with a Georgetown University study finding an association between organophosphate exposure and ALL.

The California researchers did not identify specific chemicals, but analyzed pesticides by their uses in four categories, finding the hazard ratio (likelihood of death) ranked in descending order: rodenticides, flea control, insecticides, and herbicides. While the study also found links to other pesticides, the children exposed to rodenticides were significantly more likely to die.

The researchers analyzed data from extensive interviews with parents of children with ALL enrolled in the CCLS between 1995 and 2008 regarding residential use of insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides, and flea control products from preconception to within a year of the child’s diagnosis. The measured outcome was 5-year survival after diagnosis. Of the 807 cases recorded in that 12-year interval, 108 children died within five years.

The researchers also included race and ethnicity to identify potential sociodemographic disparities that might affect the outcome and duration of breastfeeding, as it is known to influence infant immune development. There is an environmental justice aspect to the results, although it raises further questions. Of the diagnosed children, 47% were Latinx, 35% were non-Latinx Whites, and the remainder were either Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, or of unknown background. However, the highest number of deaths was among non-Latinx Black children. This is consistent with evidence in the U.S. of a 15.3% rise in leukemia incidence among non-Hispanic Black children between 1975 and 2023 and a 9.9% increase among Hispanic children.

The children most likely to die also had the highest-risk type of ALL (the highest white blood cell count), were less likely to be breastfed, and were members of families with low educational attainment and low annual income. But Latinx households and those with the very lowest income and education were least likely to use pesticides. Thus, further demographic analysis with larger sample sizes would help to illuminate the populations at the highest risk from the use of synthetic chemicals to control rodents.

The authors observe that rodenticides have been linked to childhood leukemia risk by numerous population studies, and that mechanistic studies indicate rodenticides trigger oxidative stress and mitochondrial irregularities, which in turn can cause DNA strand breaks and chromosomal derangement. While these kinds of damage might be picked up in regulatory studies assessing genetic effects, ironically usually involving rodents, there are many subsequent consequences and additional exposures that are not currently of concern to regulators or pesticide manufacturers. For example, there may be epigenetic changes and immune system deregulation that add to the risk of childhood leukemia from early pesticide exposures. Research on adults with ALL also exposed to pesticides has shown changes in blood and bone marrow similar to those induced by radiation or chemotherapy treatments. This suggests that pesticide exposure may make children’s prognoses and survival worse because these types of damage are harder to treat, the authors note. “Overall,” they write, “epidemiological and biological data support the role of certain pesticides in both the development and prognosis of leukemias.” The study was published in the March 2025 issue of Cancers.

Rodents are a major problem in many residential areas, but pesticides are not the only—and far from the ideal—way to deal with them. Public health policies could influence the design, construction, and maintenance of housing to deter rodent colonization. In addition, there are steps residents can take that do not involve incurring risks to themselves, their children, their pets, and wildlife. See Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management and ManageSafe. (See also Beyond Pesticides’ comments on EPA’s rodenticide biological evaluation and registration review.) Political action is also possible: the city of Newbury, Massachusetts, voted to ban second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides on private property in August 2024; see our Daily News Brief here, which details how state and local governments have jousted over who has sovereignty over pesticides, with states usually winning. Some states have taken some protective steps; the State of Massachusetts discourages these cruel rodenticides, and the California Ecosystems Protection Act became law in 2020, restricting the use of such products. Most of these political efforts have come from wildlife conservation activists, but humans undoubtedly also benefit.

Pesticide use, particularly given the Trump administration’s industry-favoring policies, is likely to continue to rise sharply. Not surprisingly given this, the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) predicts new cancer cases to rise 67.4% by 2030. See Beyond Pesticides’ extensive information on leukemia in our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

One of the most painful ironies of industrial promotion of pesticides to protect our children and pets is that those pesticides pose significant risks to the very things we want to not only survive, but thrive. It is time to detach the spurious association between health and pesticides and expose the deflections and disinformation industry produces. Going organic and pushing back against the further deregulation of poisonous chemicals is the best way to protect humans and ecosystems.

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

Sources:

Pre- and Postnatal Exposures to Residential Pesticides and Survival of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Desai et al.
Cancers 2025
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/6/978

Residential Proximity to Agricultural Pesticide Applications and Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Rull et al.
Environ Res. 2009
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19700145/

Safe Rodent Control: Real-Life Solutions
Center for Biological Diversity
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/Safe-Rodent-Control/rodent-control-solutions.html

SAFE RODENT CONTROL
Living Rodent Free While Safeguarding Wildlife, Families, and Pets
Center for Biological Diversity
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/Safe-Rodent-Control/index.html

Childhood Leukemia Linked to Pesticides Used in Vineyards
Beyond Pesticides, November 1, 2023
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2023/11/childhood-leukemia-linked-to-pesticides-used-in-vineyards/

Children Living Near Agricultural Pesticide Use Have Higher Cancer Rate
Beyond Pesticides, September 29, 2009
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2009/09/children-living-near-agricultural-pesticide-use-have-higher-cancer-rate/

In Utero and Childhood Pesticide Exposure Increases Childhood Cancer Risk
Beyond Pesticides, September 1, 2021
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/09/in-utero-and-childhood-pesticide-exposure-increases-childhood-cancer-risk/

Leukemia
Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database
Beyond Pesticides
https://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/pesticide-induced-diseases-database/search-the-database?cat24=24&catcount=1&searchlogic=OR&searchbutton=SEARCH

Association between Residential Proximity to Viticultural Areas and Childhood Acute Leukemia
Risk in Mainland France: GEOCAP Case-Control Study, 2006-2013
Mancini et al.
Environmental Health Perspectives 2023
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37850750/