(Beyond Pesticides, July 23, 2026) The unintended consequences of pesticide dependency once again emerge as new research out of University of California, Davis finds sublethal adverse effects to sturgeon fish exposed to the widely used insecticide bifenthrin in their natural habitats. A study published in Environmental Research concludes that “sublethal bifenthrin exposure impairs locomotion and motor coordination” in Green and White Sturgeon populations. These findings are important given that bifenthrin, a synthetic pyrethroid, is one of the most popular mosquito control pesticides, and it is broadly used for insects in homes, gardens, and agriculture. The preponderance of scientific evidence—in addition to lax chemical company accountability for hazard warnings resulting from the Monsanto v. Durnell Supreme Court ruling in June—continues to galvanize concerned individuals, including decisionmakers, researchers, and organizations nationwide who are advocating for alternatives to the chemical-intensive practices.

Because of acute toxicity to fish and aquatic organisms, the bifenthrin label contains a strict warning: “This pesticide is extremely toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. To protect the environment, do not allow pesticide to enter or run off into storm drains, drainage ditches, gutters or surface waters.” Because pesticides applied for mosquito control and others are used to move off of the target site, these findings raise significant policy issues associated with their use. Regarding mosquito control, Penn State University writes, “Despite careful application, sometimes pesticides move from the target and contaminate adjacent areas, including creeks, streams, and other water bodies. Unfortunately, pyrethroids break down more slowly in water, especially where there is less sunlight, and persist for much longer in aquatic sediments. This increases harmful impacts on non-target organisms when residue enters waterways.”

Methodology and Main Findings

The researchers of this study build on a previous study published in 2025 (see here) by including temperature as a variable. The goal was to determine whether two closely related sturgeon species interact similarly under cumulative environmental stressors (heat and pesticides) or whether their physiology drives differentiated vulnerability. Three days after hatching, larvae were exposed to four increasing degrees of bifenthrin (0/control, 10 nanograms/liter, 100 ng/L, and 500 ng/L) as well as three temperatures (12, 15, and 18 degrees centigrade), followed by a 28 percent recovery period. The study includes two replicate tanks per treatment, with 65 Green or 100 White Sturgeon larvae per tank to assess survival, growth, and mortality; separately, there were individual exposures on 12 dishes per treatment (one larva per plate) to assess potential neurobehavioral impacts. To assess neurobehavioral health, the researchers tested for the enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity.

The two additional main findings include:

• Bifenthrin Impacts Post-Exposure Survival. Bifenthrin significantly affects survival mainly at the colder end for both species; however, the researchers note that these two species are adapting differently in the same shared ecosystem.
• Bifenthrin Impacts on Neurobehavioral Health. Across both species, bifenthrin exposure is attributable to decreased locomotor activity, motor coordination, and neural processing.

Previous Coverage

Bifenthrin and similar synthetic pyrethroid insecticides have been associated with a wide array of adverse health effects on various species and habitats, as documented in the peer-reviewed literature. For example, a study published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry following a mass mortality event of approximately 200 monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus plexippus) in Pacific Grove, California, “three pyrethroid insecticides—bifenthrin, cypermethrin, and permethrin—were consistently detected at or near each chemical’s lethal dose (LD50).” LC50, or Lethal Concentration 50%, values represent the concentrations of chemicals lethal to 50% of a test population. (See Daily News here.)

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

The issue of pesticide resistance has also been a recurring theme. A study published in PLOS One documents Aedes aegypti mosquito resistance to synthetic pyrethroids permethrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, and deltamethrin in study sites in Córdoba, Colombia. Aedes aegypti is a common mosquito species that can carry the EEE virus and others. (See Daily News here.) A study published in Pest Management Science finds that resistance to insecticides like pyrethroids is challenging attempts to control the mosquito Aedes aegypti (Ae. aegypti), the primary transmitter (vector) of dengue fever. While this study takes place in Bangladesh, resistance to biocides—whether to antibiotics, antimicrobials, or pesticides—is growing globally. Prevention of disease outbreaks is threatened by reliance on chemical biocides to which pathogens and their vectors develop resistance. In fact, resistance is predicted by elementary population genetics, and the speed of its evolution is directly related to the toxicity—that is, the strength of selection pressure—and inversely related to the generation length of the organism. (See PAY articles here and here, a PBS article here.) (See Daily News here.)

The issue of pesticide drift on aquatic ecosystems and organisms continues to emerge in scientific literature. In a study published in Aquatic Toxicology, researchers in Brazil determined that the cumulative toxicity of acetamiprid (a neonicotinoid insecticide) and cyanobacteria (photosynthetic microbes that can produce toxins) has a synergistic effect on the health of aquatic water fleas, or Daphnia. 1:1 mixture of cyanobacteria and acetamiprid is synergistic and kills all D. similis organisms, whereas for D.laevis, “this occurred at 1:1 and 2:1 proportions.” As the abstract points out, “These results demonstrate that the interaction between acetamiprid and cyanobacteria can lead to enhanced toxicity in zooplankton, underscoring the importance of assessing multiple stressors and their interactive effects in aquatic ecosystems, as single-exposure assessments may fail to capture the full scope of ecological risks.” (See Daily News here.) In a literature review published in Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, researchers assessed 27 peer-reviewed studies conducted between 2011 and 2025 on the adverse impacts of insecticides, including neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, organophosphates, chlorpyrifos, and fipronil. Across agricultural and suburban environments, pesticides were detected in the majority (88 percent) of samples. (See Daily News here.) Published in Environmental Pollution, the study authors analyze insect species with complex life cycles “with an aquatic phase as larvae and a terrestrial phase as winged adults when they serve as prey for many aerial insectivores, such as bats and birds.” As the researchers explain, these insects act as vectors, transferring pesticides from water bodies into terrestrial food webs. As a result of studying feces from birds and bats that prey on these insects, the authors find residues of 16 current-use pesticides, two legacy compounds, and six metabolites (breakdown products). (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

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

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

One way you can take action is by telling your Governor and Mayor to ensure ecological management of mosquitoes by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten mosquito predators.

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

Source: Environmental Research

(Beyond Pesticides, July 22, 2026) A study of aquatic macroinvertebrates, including insects in their nymph and larval stages, snails, worms, crayfish, and clams, finds that pesticide exposure leads to biodiversity declines. Published in Environment International, this research also finds that multiple stressors and chemical mixtures increase ecosystem effects. “The individual and interactive impacts of pesticide contamination and other environmental stressors on freshwater macroinvertebrates remain insufficiently quantified under real-world, multi-stressor conditions,” the authors note. This research addresses that gap, identifying pesticide pollution as a threat to aquatic organisms and ecosystem functioning.

In studying the Wei River Basin, one of the most intensively managed agricultural and urban regions in China, the data reveals that “pesticides contributed more than 40% to both [Alpha] α-diversity loss (species richness) and [Beta] β-diversity nestedness [hierarchical interconnectedness], exceeding the combined effect of the other factors that were considered.” Additional results, such as interactive effects between pesticides and land use, show that during the dry season there is “a 2.1-fold increase in functional sensitivity and a 56% rise in interaction contributions.” Ecological harm thresholds are also highest for the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid, followed by the herbicides hexazinone, atrazine, and simazine.

Study Importance

Freshwater ecosystems, such as lakes, rivers, streams, reservoirs, and wetlands, are crucial habitats for numerous species. These areas also provide nutrient cycling and supply additional essential ecosystem services for food, water, and energy resources. “Global freshwater ecosystems are subject to multiple, often synergistic, pressures from anthropogenic activities and climate change, potentially causing biodiversity losses and impaired ecological functioning,” the researchers state. They continue, “Among these pressures, chemical pollution—particularly pesticide contamination—in certain landscapes is likely to be one of the more important stressors.”

Research shows that in agriculture-dominated landscapes, pesticides are a widely recognized anthropogenic stressor, disrupting aquatic ecosystem structure and functioning with cascading impacts. Additional scientific literature (see here, here, and here) finds adverse effects on macroinvertebrates from insecticide exposure. Natural ecosystems are exposed to multiple environmental drivers, including but not limited to climate change, human land use intensity, hydrology alterations, and chemical pollution. The combined effects of multiple stressors can be additive or synergistic, causing greater damage to organisms and the environment when encountered simultaneously.

“Traditional ecological risk assessments typically rely upon single-pollutant, single-species laboratory tests, which may underrepresent the ecological consequences of stressor interactions under field conditions,” the authors state. Understanding the effects of pesticide mixtures, as well as pesticides and other stressors, is crucial to protecting all organisms. Macroinvertebrates, in particular, are valuable bioindicators as they are sensitive to habitat and water quality changes.

Methodology and Results

The aim of the study is to:

“(1) quantitatively assess the relative contributions of pesticide contamination and co-occurring environmental stressors (including water quality, hydrology, and land use) to patterns of macroinvertebrate taxonomic and functional diversity;

(2) examine whether interactive or modulatory relationships exist between pesticide stress and other environmental stressors, with particular attention to how hydrological seasonality influences the strength and pathways of these effects;

(3) identify community-level ecological thresholds along pesticide toxicity gradients, in order to improve the ecological relevance of pesticide risk assessment under realistic, multi-stressor conditions.”

The Wei River is the largest tributary of the Yellow River, where the basin “provides an ideal model system for examining the interactive effects of pesticide pollution and land use on stream macroinvertebrate communities across contrasting hydrological seasons” due to intensive agricultural activities and strong anthropogenic pressures in the area. Thirty-nine sites were chosen across the Wei River Basin and were sampled in both September 2023 (normal season) and April 2024 (dry season). This includes 25 riverine sites (along the banks of rivers or streams) and 14 tributary confluence sites. Samples of both water and macroinvertebrates were collected.

Water samples were then analyzed for 49 commonly used and representative pesticides, including carbamates (CAs), neonicotinoids (NEOs), triazines (TRIs), and organophosphates (OPPs), and macroinvertebrates were identified. The results show that all “49 pesticides were detected, including 11 CAs, 9 NEOs, 14 OPPs, and 15 TRIs.” The authors continue, saying: “At least one pesticide was detected at each sampling site, while 10 pesticides showed detection frequencies exceeding 90% (92.5-100.0%) on average across both sampling periods, comprising 5 NEOs, 4 TRIs, and 1 CAs. Imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and atrazine achieved 100% detection rates at all sampling sites during both sampling periods.”

Additional noteworthy results include:

• Overall pesticide contamination levels are higher during the dry season than the normal season.
• The dry season displays more complex and extensive interactions, “particularly the combinations of ‘Pesticides × Landuse’ and ‘Pesticides × WQ (water quality).’”
• “A total of 257 macroinvertebrate species were identified across the two sampling, belonging to 7 classes, 20 orders, 65 families, and 150 genera, with 127 species recorded during the normal season and 182 species during the dry season.”
• Imidacloprid has the highest ecological risk level across both hydrological seasons. Hexazinone, atrazine, and simazine also exhibit high risks, as they share a common mode of action by inhibiting “primary producers and thereby indirectly affecting food resources and oxygen supply for higher trophic levels, including macroinvertebrates.”
• Simazine “may exert disproportionately strong ecological pressure relative to its measured concentrations.”

These results highlight how different pesticide types influence macroinvertebrate communities, threatening overall biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. The adverse ecological impacts of pesticide pollution on community structure can also be greater when experienced with other environmental stressors. In summary, the researchers state: “The research found that pesticide pollution plays a dominant role among the multiple stressors reviewed in the study for this water basin in 2023-2024, with ecological effects exhibiting significant seasonal dependency. This suggests that beyond traditional risk assessments, ecological functional indicators and sensitive response critical points should be further incorporated to enhance the precision of risk identification and the ecological relevance of management.”

Previous Coverage

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

In a literature review published in Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, researchers assessed 27 peer-reviewed studies conducted between 2011 and 2025 on the adverse impacts of insecticides, including neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, organophosphates, chlorpyrifos, and fipronil. Across agricultural and suburban environments, pesticides are detected in the majority (88 percent) of samples. This review builds on the continuous flow of science that highlights the adverse impacts of synthetic pesticide dependency on ecosystems and wildlife that are essential to global biodiversity. (See Literature Review Unpacks Synergistic and Cumulative Pesticide Impacts on Aquatic Life.) Another literature review, published in Toxics and covered in Daily News Literature Review Documents Enhanced Toxicity of Chemical Mixtures in Aquatic Organisms with PFAS Exposure, finds that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) can heighten the risks to exposed organisms from environmental contaminants. Mixtures of these compounds can negatively impact the nervous, cardiovascular, immune, and reproductive systems, particularly in aquatic organisms, and threaten overall biodiversity.

The impacts of pesticide contamination are not isolated to aquatic ecosystems. As water bodies continue to be contaminated by pesticides and fertilizers used in chemical-intensive agriculture, international researchers find increasing threats to both aquatic and terrestrial food webs with insect transmission of pesticide residues from water to land. Published in Environmental Pollution, the study authors analyze insect species with complex life cycles “with an aquatic phase as larvae and a terrestrial phase as winged adults when they serve as prey for many aerial insectivores, such as bats and birds.” As the researchers explain, these insects act as vectors, transferring pesticides from water bodies into terrestrial food webs. As a result of studying feces from birds and bats that prey on these insects, the authors find residues of 16 current-use pesticides, two legacy compounds, and six metabolites (breakdown products). (See Daily News here.)

Another study of the effects of flooding on aquatic-terrestrial pesticide transfer, published in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, finds heightened risks to riparian zone ecosystems as flooding frequency continues to increase with climate change. Riparian zones, recognized as biodiversity hotspots, “are increasingly subjected to various stressors, including chemical contaminants such as pesticides,” the authors state. As transportation of these compounds can occur not only through surface runoff but through flooding events, the frequency and duration of floods can greatly impact the cumulative effects of pesticides on soil health and organisms within ecosystems.

The Organic Solution

Now is the time to act to protect all species—from aquatic organisms and pollinators to wildlife and humans. In order to safeguard the environment and public health, a wide-scale transition to organic practices is needed. To avoid the use of harmful chemicals, Beyond Pesticides recommends choosing certified organic products whenever possible. Through the Eating with a Conscience database, you can select from over 90 different common crops you regularly consume and learn about the organic difference from their conventional, chemical-intensive counterparts. See Buying Organic Products (on a budget!) and Grow Your Own Organic Food for more information.

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 with Action of the Week.

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

Source:

Fang, J. et al. (2026) Pesticides override other stressors to drive stream macroinvertebrate diversity loss: unraveling interactive effects and ecological thresholds, Environment International. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412026003685.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 21, 2026) A literature review in Current Opinion in Endocrine and Metabolic Research highlights research connecting pesticide exposure to thyroid hormone alterations and thyroid carcinogenesis (cancer). Studies find that exposure to pesticides, whether through occupational, residential, or dietary routes, can lead to endocrine disruption, thyroid dysfunction, and neoplasia (tumor development). “With agriculture playing an essential role in meeting worldwide demands for food and fuel, it is not only important to continue to study both acute and chronic effects of pesticide exposure on thyroid function, both environmental and occupational, but it is also important to explore the impact on multi-organ systems and transgenerational toxicity,” the authors, from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, state.

According to the American Thyroid Association, an estimated 20 million Americans currently have some form of thyroid disease, with more than 12% of the U.S. population expected to develop a condition during their lifetime. Women also face disproportionate risks, as they are five to eight times more likely than men to have thyroid problems. During her lifetime, one in eight women will develop a thyroid disorder. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology explains that the thyroid gland, while relatively small, plays a large role in influencing the function of important organs, including the heart, brain, liver, kidneys, and skin. “The thyroid creates two hormones—triiodothyronine (T3) and thyroxine (T4)—that travel throughout your body to regulate blood pressure, body temperature, heart rate, metabolism and how the body reacts to other hormones,” they describe. Impacts on thyroid function thus have cascading effects throughout the body.

Background

Pesticide exposure can occur directly or indirectly, in the home or workplace or by encountering persistent pesticides present in the air, food supply, soil, or water. Many pesticides are also identified as endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which are any synthetic or natural compounds that hinder endocrine system functions and create harmful effects on organisms. These chemicals can impact the thyroid gland, which is vital in producing hormones and affects body functions.

The Endocrine Society’s Second Scientific Statement on EDCs identifies specific herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides as endocrine disruptors that can impact thyroid functioning. This is “likely due to the structural similarities between thyroid hormones and some EDCs.” Previous research has also connected specific pesticide exposures and thyroid carcinogenesis, highlighting the need to remove exposure routes to these harmful chemicals.

Literature Review Results

In reviewing recent scientific literature, focusing primarily on epidemiologic associations and in vivo studies in the last two to five years, the authors analyzed 15 articles related to pesticide exposure and thyroid function. The results include:

Epidemiological Studies on Thyroid Function

• One study, which conducts a meta-analysis of nine other studies, finds a significant association between occupational exposure to organochlorines, organophosphates, pyrethroids, and herbicides with hypothyroidism.
• A study in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, using the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 2007-2008 data with 1434 participants, compares single and mixed organophosphate exposures with thyroid hormone levels. The results show that organophosphate metabolites, including dimethylphosphate (DMP), diethylphosphate (DEP), dimethylthiophosphate (DMTP), diethylthiophosphate (DETP), and dimethyldithiophosphate (DMDTP), are associated with significantly decreased FT3 (free triiodothyronine) levels.
• In a retrospective cross-sectional study of pyrethroid and herbicide exposure and thyroid function alterations, a cohort of 60 hospitalized patients with pyrethroid poisoning “was found to have a significant decrease in FT4 [Free Thyroxine], TT4 [Total Thyroxine], Tg Ab [Thyroglobulin Antibody], and TPO Ab [Thyroid Peroxidase Antibody] compared to 60 healthy control participants.”
• Another cross-sectional study, published in Environmental Research, investigates 144 environmental pollutants, including pesticides, and their effects on thyroid function. The results highlight certain organochlorines, organophosphates, and herbicides that are associated with significant decreases in hormone levels.

In Vivo Studies on Thyroid Function

• Thyroid hormone homeostasis is disrupted with pesticide exposures, as shown in research with zebrafish. One study that systematically reviews 42 studies “showed multiple insecticides and herbicides exposures were associated with different thyroid hormone alterations in zebrafish including increased T3 and T4 as well as decreased T4 levels.”
• A study in Environmental Science & Technology finds alter thyroid gene expressions in tadpoles with exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos, showing how pesticides can disrupt thyroid hormone dependent development.
• A study of glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) exposure links these chemicals to an increased risk of thyroid dysfunction in farmers. In investigating “the impact of GBH exposure on HPT axis in male rats from postnatal days into adult life,” the study finds “GBH exposure was significantly associated with increased T4, increased TSH receptor [receptor for thyroid hormone] transcription, decreased follicular diameter, and decreased Dio2, Thra1, and Thra2 [enzymes and receptors critical to thyroid hormone system] transcript expressions in the hypothalamus.”

Thyroid Neoplasia

• A 20-year follow-up study of the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) cohort, “a prospective cohort of private pesticide applicators, their spouses, and commercial applicators in Iowa and North Carolina who have self-reported pesticide exposure data as well as longitudinal disease follow-up,” shows significantly increased relative standardized incidence ratios (RSIR) for thyroid cancer in AHS participants compared to the general population.
• A separate study using males with occupational pesticide exposure within the AHS finds “a significant association between self-reported usage of the fungicide metalaxyl and all thyroid cancers, and papillary thyroid cancer specifically.” The study also reports a significant association between the organochlorine insecticide lindane and all thyroid cancers.
• A case control study with data from the California Cancer Registry analyzes the association between residential exposure to 29 different pesticides in the 20 years prior to thyroid cancer diagnosis. “When evaluating 2,067 exposed individuals and 1,003 controls, they report significant associations between [the herbicides] paraquat, glyphosate, and oxyfluorfen.”
• In Frontiers in Endocrinology, researchers connect pesticide exposure to epigenetic alterations that contribute to carcinogenesis. The study “evaluated the impact of several OCs [organochlorines] on tumor suppressor gene methylation [turning gene function off] and found significantly higher TSHR promoter methylation in papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) patients as compared to benign thyroid nodules and significantly lower P16 methylation in PTC patients compared to benign thyroid nodules.”

Previous Coverage

Daily News, titled Literature Review Finds Heightened Risks for Thyroid Cancer in Women with Pesticide Exposure, examines a study in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety that finds a sex-specific relationship between pesticide exposure and thyroid cancer, with heightened risks for women. “This study aimed to elucidate the relationship between pesticide exposure and TC [thyroid cancer], focusing on insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides,” the authors state. In considering scientific literature on thyroid cancer and pesticide exposure by pesticide type to extract data and statistically analyze the link between exposure and risk of thyroid cancer, the results indicate a positive association between exposure to insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides and thyroid cancer, with the sex-based analysis revealing the risk of thyroid cancer is higher in females.

Another literature review, published in Endocrines, amasses hundreds of studies on EDCs that showcase adverse effects on growth, development, reproduction, and metabolism. The authors, a team of scientists and academics from Brazil, shed light on the link between EDC use and thyroid dysfunction, leading to increasingly prevalent illnesses and deadly diseases. “Several EDCs have been classified as thyroid disruptors, impairing thyroid hormone [TH] production, synthesis, metabolism, transport, and/or actions,” the researchers state. They continue: “[S]tudies have correlated th[e] rise in thyroid dysfunctions and cancers with increased exposure to EDCs. Although many EDCs are linked to thyroid dysfunction, this review focuses on the deleterious effects of plasticizers, organochlorine pesticides, and per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances on thyroid function. These contaminants are commonly found in food, water, and everyday products.” (See Daily News Study Links Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals to Thyroid Dysfunction with Grave Health Effects.)

Additional Daily News coverage on thyroid dysfunction and disease can be found here. To learn more about thyroid cancer, and all other types of cancer that can be linked to pesticide exposure, visit the Pesticide-Induced Diseases database on cancer here.

Moving Forward

Join a national action: Ask EPA and Congress to immediately implement the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, considering all data concerning endocrine disruption, and deny registration or reregistration of pesticides without sufficient data to demonstrate no unreasonable adverse endocrine risk. 

Beyond Pesticides’ mission is to provide healthy air, water, land, and food for current and future generations by eliminating all petrochemical pesticides, including EDCs, and synthetic fertilizers by 2032. Beyond Pesticides also advocates for a precautionary approach in how land is managed, with organic agriculture and land management as the answer.

You can support this holistic solution by educating yourself through the Daily News Blog and the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, as well as buying or growing organic food. For more information on why organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source:

Lin, J. and Goldner, W. (2026) The impact of pesticide exposure on thyroid function and neoplasia, Current Opinion in Endocrine and Metabolic Research. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2451965025000249.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 20, 2026) Despite the threat of biodiversity collapse on the horizon, the Trump administration last week dramatically weakened the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by redefining the word “harm”—one of the key mitigation measures in slowing the spiraling decline of species diversity, necessary to sustain life. On July 14, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively “the Services”) changed their regulations with the express intention of eliminating protection from actions that impair habitat of wildlife. A nationwide action is asking Congress to restore Endangered Species Act protections.

Scientific warning of biodiversity decline has been led by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). In The global assessment report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, published in 2019, IPBES wrote:

• “Human actions threaten more species with global extinction now than ever before.
  An average of around 25 per cent of species in assessed animal and plant groups are threatened, suggesting that around 1 million species already face extinction, many within decades, unless action is taken to reduce the intensity of drivers of biodiversity loss. Without such action, there will be a further acceleration in the global rate of species extinction, which is already at least tens to hundreds of times higher than it has averaged over the past 10 million years.”

The Services’ action is directly opposed to the purposes of ESA, “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.”  

ESA prohibits taking any threatened or endangered species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States. ESA defines taking: “The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Harm” is not defined in the statute but had been defined in the regulations as: ‘Harm in the definition of ‘take’ in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.”  

By removing the definition of “harm” in the regulations, the Trump administration allows actions to go forward that will degrade habitat to the extent that some species may have nowhere to live. Such habitat degradation may take many forms. Development, agriculture, and dredging have resulted in listing of the Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) as a threatened species. Loss of mature and old growth forests to logging reduces nesting opportunities and provides for invasion of predatory species that could result in the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), now listed as threatened, becoming endangered. Pesticide use harms the threatened Monarch butterflies (Danaus Plexippus) directly through pest control—reactive insect control (sprayed insecticides) and prophylactic insect control (neonicotinoid-treated and Bt-genetically modified seeds), but also by eliminating the sole source  of food for developing Monarch caterpillars, milkweed. 

But the implications of the rescission go beyond habitat. As stated by Sandra Snodgrass and Amelia Yowell, commenting for the law firm Holland and Hart, “By limiting ‘take’ to affirmative acts directed immediately and intentionally against an animal or animals, the Services appear to be eliminating the need for incidental take coverage for virtually all proposed actions that will directly kill or injure ESA-listed species. Because, for instance, pipelines, transmission lines, mines, housing developments, highways, and timber sales, do not involve affirmative acts directed immediately and intentionally against animals, any death or injury caused by these projects—such as through collision, crushing, or exposure to hazardous materials—may not be deemed to be ‘take’ under the final rule.” 

As soon as the final rule was published, nine environmental organizations represented by Earthjustice sued the Trump administration asking for declaratory and injunctive relief, asking that the court declare that the Services violated ESA, NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), and the APA (Administrative Procedure Act) when they issued the rescission; vacate the rescission; reinstate the harm rules previously set forth at 50 C.F.R. §§17.3 and 222.102; enjoin FWS and NMFS from applying the rescission and require them to apply, utilize, and follow the harm rules previously in force; and grant restraining orders and/or preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to ensure that threatened and endangered species and their habitat do not suffer irreparable harm pending resolution of the suit. “Preventing harm to wildlife by protecting where they live, eat, and sleep is the foundation of the Endangered Species Act,” said Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles. “The Trump administration repeal violates the core purpose of the statute and decades of legal precedent, including from the U.S. Supreme Court. Now more than ever, imperiled species from salmon to marbled murrelets to grizzly bears need habitat protection to survive and recover.”

While the courts consider this case, Congress must weigh in and make it clear that the Trump administration is violating the clear purpose of ESA. 

Those interested in taking action can Tell Congress to restore Endangered Species Act protections.

Letter to U.S. Congress
On July 14, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (“the Services”) changed their regulations to rescind the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). They did so with the express intention of eliminating protection from actions that impair the habitat of wildlife. This action is directly opposed to the purposes of ESA, “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.” 

ESA prohibits taking any threatened or endangered species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States. ESA defines taking: “The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Harm” is not defined in the statute but had been defined in the regulations as: ‘Harm in the definition of ‘take’ in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” 

By removing the definition of “harm” in the regulations, the Trump administration allows actions to go forward that will degrade habitat to the extent that some species may have nowhere to live. Such habitat degradation may take many forms. Development, agriculture, and dredging have resulted in listing of the Streaked Horned Lark (as a threatened species). Loss of mature and old growth forests to logging reduces nesting opportunities and provides for invasion of predatory species that could result in the Marbled Murrelet, now listed as threatened, becoming endangered. Pesticide use harms the threatened Monarch butterflies directly through pest control– reactive insect control (sprayed insecticides), and prophylactic insect control (neonicotinoid-treated and Bt-genetically modified seeds), but also by eliminating the sole source of food for developing Monarch caterpillars, milkweed.

The implications of the rescission go beyond habitat. As stated by Sandra Snodgrass and Amelia Yowell of the law firm Holland and Hart, “By limiting ‘take’ to affirmative acts directed immediately and intentionally against an animal or animals, the Services appear to be eliminating the need for incidental take coverage for virtually all proposed actions that will directly kill or injure ESA-listed species. Because, for instance, pipelines, transmission lines, mines, housing developments, highways, and timber sales, do not involve affirmative acts directed immediately and intentionally against animals, any death or injury caused by these projects—such as through collision, crushing, or exposure to hazardous materials—may not be deemed to be ‘take’ under the final rule.”

As soon as the final rule was published, nine environmental organizations represented by Earthjustice sued the Trump administration asking for declaratory and injunctive relief, asking that the court undo the damage caused by the rescission. “Preventing harm to wildlife by protecting where they live, eat, and sleep is the foundation of the Endangered Species Act,” said Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles. “The Trump administration repeal violates the core purpose of the statute and decades of legal precedent, including from the U.S. Supreme Court. Now more than ever, imperiled species from salmon to marbled murrelets to grizzly bears need habitat protection to survive and recover.”

While the courts consider this case, I ask you to act to reinstate the definition of harm by including it in ESA. 

Thank you.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 17, 2026) It is now well established that frequent exchange of signaling between the brain and the gut is a crucial feature of human mental and physical health. External chemicals introduced through the digestive system affect the gut microbiome, which in turn influences the brain. Perhaps the most ubiquitous and pernicious bad actor in the large cast of pesticides shown to disrupt the gut-brain axis is the weed killer glyphosate. A team from the University of Cork in Ireland has published an innovative study whose results, while subtle, reaffirm that pesticides, and glyphosate in particular, affect behaviors in mice that are important for social relations, learning, and reproduction.

Numerous pesticides disrupting the gut-brain axis are implicated in immune disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, diabetes, autism spectrum disorder, and many other diseases. See Beyond Pesticides’ Gut-Brain-Axis Archives for more detail. Because of the mounting awareness of the gut-brain axis, a renewed focus in psychiatry on the behavioral consequences of exposure to environmental chemicals is emerging.

The study, published in the June 16 issue of Molecular Psychiatry, finds that the accepted reference dose of glyphosate affects male mice, increasing anxiety and altering social interactions, while female mice mostly move around less than the controls and show few changes in social behavior. The complexity of this study and the measurement tools used capture the subtle effects that are necessary to measure, but typically missed by regulatory review, when assessing the delicate balance that makes up the body’s chemistry.

The researchers conclude that “exposure to glyphosate at tested doses is sufficient to disrupt behavior and shift the gut microbial community….the glyphosate-remodeled microbiota specifically mediated the social behavioral disturbances, but not anxiety-like phenotypes, suggesting a primary role of the gut microbiota in these effects. Together, these results position the gut microbiota as a mechanistic link between environmentally relevant glyphosate exposure and altered social behavior, complementing prior association studies and extending them by demonstrating causality.”

The researchers note that while the experimental doses might not dramatically disrupt gut microbiota functions, the modestness of observed trends in the presence of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, which are important producers of the short-chain fatty acids fundamental to health gut-brain communication “should not be interpreted as reassuring,” because even at that scale such disruptions could have “profound consequences for host neurobehavioral processes.”

Methodology
The experiment exposed four groups of mice (a control group and three dosage cohorts) to glyphosate in their drinking water for seven weeks and then put the mice through a standard battery of tests that reflect the animals’ responses to various stimuli, including exploration of closed and open spaces, openness to social interactions with familiar and unknown mice, forced swimming (response to stress), and marble burying (stereotypical behavior).

The lowest glyphosate dose in the study is the European Food Safety Authority’s acceptable daily intake of glyphosate, derived from the European Union’s No Observed Adverse Effect Level. The two higher doses represent 10 and 100-times that dose. After the seven-week administration period, the mice were sacrificed and a complex series of analyses conducted, including RNA and DNA from the mice’s fecal matter, transcriptomic mRNA sequencing (capturing the precise RNA messaging), and gut microbiome profiling. The researchers compare within-sample (such as an individual or related group) species microbial species richness and evenness of distribution (alpha diversity) and the same factors between individuals or groups (beta diversity). Lastly, the researchers take a second group of untreated mice, administer antibiotics to reduce their native microbiomes, and transplant fecal matter from the groups of treated mice. The various genetic analyses are then compared between the fecal samples from the original experimental group and the group treated by fecal transfer.

Findings
The results are far more subtle than the typical results of large-dose toxicological protocols. For example, there were no treatment-dependent changes in body weight gain; females showed slight differences in the amounts of water they drank; in males, spleens were smaller in the middle dose group. Corticosteroid levels during the stress test were the same across all treatment groups and between the sexes.

In the dose group corresponding to the regulatory limit, males preferred to interact with a mouse they were related to than with an inanimate object. The researchers interpret this behavior to indicate “a disrupted social novelty preference due to glyphosate exposure.” In the test involving a mouse placed in an open square space, the low- and high-treatment males stayed out of the center and covered less territory, indicating heightened anxiety; but in the plus-shaped maze, they exhibited normal behavior.

The researchers also examined gene transcription in the amygdala, associated with emotional equilibrium, and found altered regulation in all three dosage groups, with the high-dose showing the largest number of alterations, and these were consistent with the observed male behaviors.

In the male microbiomes, there were no significant differences in alpha diversity across treatment groups, but in beta diversity, between-group differences in community composition was “significantly altered.” Lactobacillus strains increased and Shigella dysenteriae strains decreased. Other changes in community composition included small increases and decreases in strains that produce important short-chain fatty acids, crucial for proper gut-brain communication.

In the female mice, the most notable change was “a decrease in locomotion only in the high-dose group,” with no other behavior changes, although the researchers note that the control group did not behave quite as expected, so these results are ambiguous. In the social behavior tests, only the females in the medium-dose group were interested in unfamiliar mice. With respect to the female microbiome, no change was observed in alpha diversity, but in the beta analysis, two strains, Methylobacterium radiotolerans and Asanoa ferruginea) increased significantly at high doses and one other strain decreased across medium and high doses.

The analysis of the fecal transplant groups’ microbiota similarly saw no changes in the usual measures, but in the males the social behaviors did transfer. This was the only measure that appeared to be replicated in the mice receiving the glyphosate-altered microbiomes. The authors did not speculate on the possible causes of the differences in responses between the sexes, but further research may indicate the mechanisms by which males’ social behaviors are affected by pesticides’ effects on their microbiomes.

And while the changes in the gut microbiome were not sharply dramatic, they suggest that the overall community reorganization, rather than rises or falls in specific strains or species, is affected by glyphosate exposure. The authors suggest “cross-protection and cross-sensitization among microbial members” may change the community’s “collective metabolic and functional capacity.” These, in turn, “can result in loss or gain of function at the ecosystem level” and that such “community-level reorganization may be influencing host neurobehavioral processes.”

Ecological Psychiatry
The term “ecological psychiatry” was introduced in the late 1970s by the American Psychiatric Association, according to a 2019 comment by Ukrainian researchers in Clinical Neuropsychiatry. They noted that it took 20 years for the idea to develop before interest declined in the late 1990s, but they suggested “the time seems ripe for a revival of the ecopsychiatry/econeuropsychiatry concepts, as gene-environment interactions and epigenetic changes are considered crucial in our understanding of mechanisms of different psychopathology.”

The authors of the present study support the further development of ecological psychiatry to recognize the importance of the balance of biological influences on human mental health, and the increasing detrimental effects of xenobiotics, which can increase our susceptibility to neuropsychiatric disorders. One way to decrease that susceptibility is to go organic as much as possible in food consumption, gardening, landscaping, residential air quality, and other practices that expose people to pesticides.

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

Sources:

Towards ecological psychiatry: The herbicide glyphosate disrupts behavior through microbiota-gut-brain axis
Matsuzaki et al
Molecular Psychiatry 2026
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-026-03693-2

Gut-Brain-Axis Archives
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/tag/gut-brain-axis/

Study Elevates the Connection Between Pesticides, the Gut-Brain Axis, and Disease
Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2023
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2023/06/study-elevates-the-connection-between-pesticides-the-gut-brain-axis-and-disease/

Glyphosate Exposure Linked to Behavioral and Gut Health Concerns in New Studies
Beyond Pesticides, November 15, 2023
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2023/11/glyphosate-exposure-linked-to-behavioral-and-gut-health-concerns-in-new-studies/

Behind the Numbers Linking Pesticides to Neurological Disorders, the World’s Largest Source of Disability
Beyond Pesticides, July 29, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/07/behind-the-numbers-linking-pesticides-to-neurological-disorders-the-worlds-largest-source-of-disability/

Emerging role of the host microbiome in neuropsychiatric disorders: overview and future directions
Hashimoto
Molecular Psychiatry 2023
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-023-02287-6.pdf

ECOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY/NEUROPSYCHIATRY: IS IT THE RIGHT TIME FOR ITS REVIVAL?
Loganovsky et al.
Clinical Neuropsychiatry 2019
https://www.clinicalneuropsychiatry.org/download/ecological-psychiatry-neuropsychiatry-is-it-the-right-time-for-its-revival/

Sex dependent impact of Roundup on the rat gut microbiome.
Lozano et al.
Toxicol Rep. 2017
https://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Lozano-et-al.-Tox.Rep_.2017.pdf

The evidence of human exposure to glyphosate: a review
Gillezeau et al.
Environmental Health 2019
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6322310/

(Beyond Pesticides, July 16, 2026) In a study published in the British Ecological Society, researchers in Germany determined that flower strips and legume mixtures hold statistically significant benefits in terms of natural pest control. This comes as no surprise to organic farmers and landscapers, as well as public health and environmental advocates, who have witnessed the impact of transitioning to organic, regenerative, and agroecological land management practices and systems on the grounds of public health, biodiversity, and climate resilience.

As part of the methodology to determine the contribution of flowering strips to insect management, “The area between the flowering strips received no insecticides, while the remaining outer part of the fields was treated according to usual farm management practices.”

Presumably this offered some control for contamination from neighboring fields treated with pesticides, which in other studies have been shown to result in harm to ecosystem services for managing insects. 

Methodology and Main Findings

The researchers conducted a replicated, randomized experimental design for this study methodology, based on 10 commercial sugar beet fields during the 2021 to 2022 season. The fields consisted of 5.8 hectares (ha) to 26 ha (approximately 14 to 64 acres, with a field size of 12.8 ha (or 31 acres). The fields were in three regions of Germany—six in Cologne-Bonn, two in the Lower Rhine, and two in southern Lower Saxony.

Each field consisted of three flower strips measuring 178 to 428 meters long and 6 meters wide; each flower strip, or “band” as the authors refer to them colloquially, was sown with one of five flower mixtures in five randomly divided segments of at least 30 meters. Two control areas were established alongside each strip: an untreated (no pesticide) area (INS-) and an insecticide-treated area (INS+). The flower strips were sown ahead of beet sowing in the following spring. Researchers state that no pesticides or fertilizers were applied within the flower strips, with areas between strips not sprayed with insecticides.

It is important to note that the exterior part of the field engaged in “conventional” management, which appears to signal that they were managed in a chemical-intensive manner. This could have impacted the results of this study.

There were four different types of flower strips, with three of the four building on a common basic mixture (BASE) including 35 percent common marigold, 25 percent cornflower, 25 percent red poppy, and 15 percent red clover. LEG strips incorporated the Fabaceae plant family, API added the Apiaceae family, and AST included the Asteraceae family. There was also a fifth “flower strip” treatment that included faba beans (BEAN), given the researcher’s hypothesis that they may “attract specialist natural enemies.” Plants were counted in one square meter squares in March 2022 to establish overwintering success and between May and June 2022 for flowering success. Researchers define “success” as one plant identified per band. Aphids on sugar beet plants were counted on a biweekly basis, with an average of five recordings on each of the 10 sites. Other plants were inspected adjacent to the two control fields as well. Through pitfall traps set within the band and three meters from all three bands and five mixtures described above, natural enemies were sampled on a biweekly basis between May 12 and June 9, 2022. After May 5, sampling was reduced to two bands per site for eight sites. Aphid predators were organized into Arachnida, Carabidae, Staphylinidae, Coccinellidae, Syrphidae, and Chrysopidae. Beneficial arthropods (Araneae, Cantharidae, coccinellid larvae/pupae/adults, Coleoptera, Heteroptera, parasitoid wasps, and syrphid larvae/adults) were captured on the beet plants using waterproof cameras. The yield of each site was measured between September 5 and 20, 2022; after accounting for human error, the final yield had 41 data points.

The main findings include the following:

• BEAN, LEG, & AST Significantly Reduced Black Aphids. Relative to untreated control fields, fields grown with faba beans or flower mixtures including the Asteraceae and Fabaceae plant families were shown to dramatically lower black aphid count.
• Flower and Legume Mixtures Impact Declines with Distance from Crops. For the basic mixture (BASE) and faba bean treatment (BEAN), the researchers proved their distance-decay hypothesis.
• Significant Relationship Between Beneficial Arthropod Abundance and Slower Aphid Population Growth. While only significant on four of the ten sites, researchers found “Aphid population growth declined significantly with increasing beneficial insect abundance.”
• Insecticides vs. Flower Strips Negligible Effect on Yields. “Our results demonstrate that replacing insecticides with flowering strips had no significant effect on sugar beet yield.” The researchers cite two sources (see here and here) identifying evidence of increased yields on fields with flower strips.

Previous Coverage

In a 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.  “In this study, we assessed the assemblages of emerging and circulating ground-dwelling carabids and spiders during four months in a continuous mosaic of pesticide-free winter-sown crops under contrasted tillage regimes (minimum vs. conventional tillage) and sown flower strips bordering fields,” the authors describe. They continue: “We detected clear patterns, with high in-field carabid and spider overwintering densities than in adjacent flower strips… Our results also demonstrate the key role of pesticide-free fields under minimum tillage, acting both as a high-quality overwintering site for some dominant carabid species and as a source habitat, as several predator species activity-density responded positively to the increased area of minimum tillage fields in the surroundings.” (See Daily News here.)

Organically managed flower strips make pollinators thrive in agricultural systems. In a study, German researchers compared 16 agricultural landscapes in Lower Saxony and northern Hesse that had different combinations of semi-natural habitat, organic practices, and annual and perennial flower strips. 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. The 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. The findings were reported in the Journal of Applied Ecology. The authors note that their results support the European Union’s Green Deal, which aims to reach 25% organic agriculture in Europe by 2030. (See Daily News here.) Please see the following Daily News for additional research on the impacts of organic versus non-organic farmland on honeybee health, Study Highlights Benefits of Organic Agriculture for Pollinator Health, Building on Existing Research.

Numerous publications have highlighted the benefits of incorporating legumes into intercropping and multicropping organic fields. 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.)

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). For example, regarding crop yield, and due to the improvement of soil properties with organic methods, the highest yield after the fifth season was with organic systems. “The maize yield increased by 6.97, 30.92 and 21.79% for conventional, organic and biodynamic, respectively, after five years,” the researchers report. They continue: “The tomato yield increased by 21.37, 65.89 and 54.48% for conventional, organic and biodynamic, respectively, while the faba bean yield increased by 30.47, 51.69 and 31.96% for conventional, organic and biodynamic, respectively, and the potato yield increased by 27.19, 38.50 and 44.85% for conventional, organic and biodynamic, respectively.” These results agree with previous findings as well. (See studies here, here, and here.) (See Daily News here.)

In the first session of the Beyond Pesticides 42^nd National Forum, The Pesticide Threat to Environmental Health: Advancing Holistic Solutions Aligned with Nature (see here for recording), expert researchers convened to discuss their research and implications for the cost savings associated with ecological pest management, including Danilo Russo, PhD, professor of ecology at the University of Naples Federico II, international leader in bat research, and coauthor of A Natural History of Bat Foraging: Evolution, Physiology, Ecology, Behavior, and Conservation. Dr. Russo has authored additional publications on the intersection of bat conservation and farmland protection in recent years that build on this sentiment. For example, a research study published in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment (2023) explores the concept of “bat-friendly” agricultural systems as an “ecological trap”—in other words, anthropogenic climate change can so fundamentally change the structure of ecosystems that wildlife (from bats to bears and everything in between) no longer can adequately “ assess habitat quality, luring them to poor habitats and reducing individual fitness.” This study examines European farmland and obstacles for habitat restoration for at-risk bat species on and bordering agricultural sites, with “the persistent and widespread use of pesticides” noted as a primary threat to ongoing and future conservation efforts. Organic farming is referenced as a mitigation strategy/solution as opposed to bat conservation areas being established near pesticide use. The authors write, “Luring bats to agricultural sites highly contaminated with pesticides or where they may encounter ecological traps associated with infrastructures could have detrimental impacts on a broad scale.” (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

For more peer-reviewed science on biodiversity impacts of synthetic and organic pest management, please visit What the Science Shows on Biodiversity.

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

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

Source: British Ecological Society

(Beyond Pesticides, July 15, 2026) Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey and Portland and Oregon State Universities, in a study reported in Marine Pollution Bulletin, find that pesticide exposure, including the herbicide atrazine and fungicide carbendazim, found in combination with the herbicide diuron in the environment, significantly impacts reproductive organ development in sea anemone (Anthopleura elegantissima), an important organism in the marine environment. “Sea anemone [is] any member of the invertebrate order Actiniaria (class Anthozoa, phylum Cnidaria), soft-bodied, primarily sedentary marine animals resembling flowers,” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, marine ecosystems store about 15 times more carbon emissions than terrestrial and soil ecosystems, while “oceans represent 95 percent of the [planet’s] biosphere.” Sea anemones are critical to protecting marine biodiversity by acting like microhabitats for small invertebrates such as opalescent nudibranchs and amphipods (beneficial crustaceans), serving as a food source for marine predators including sea stars and slugs, contributing to nutrient cycling by consuming passing crustaceans, among other benefits. (See here, here, here, and here.)

For example, sea anemones provide protection and nutrients to Red Sea clownfish (Amphiprion bicinctus), and in return these fish offer a nature-based solution to ventilation, nitrogen, and carbon to the host and its endosymbiotic zooxanthellae that researchers state is, at least in the context of nitrogen, “provide essentially the same level of physiological contribution” as synthetic nitrogen supplements. (See here.) The health of endosymbiotic zooxanthellae is critical in providing energy to their host species, including both sea anemones and coral reefs. (See here.) Sea anemones also provide habitat for diverse shrimp species (see here) and more broadly serve as a foundational species/facilitator for numerous dependent organisms. (See here and here).

This research builds on prior scientific analyses and findings that indicate the extent to which agrichemicals undermine keystone marine species and their ecosystems. In this context, public health and environmental advocates call for a transition to organic land management in response to the science on the adverse effects of petrochemical pesticides, documented deficiencies in the pesticide regulatory system, and multinational corporate influence, as evidenced by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Monsanto v. Durnell (June 2026). See Daily News, Supreme Court Gives Pesticide Makers Immunity from Litigation for Omitting Cancer Warning on Products.

Methodology and Main Findings

The researchers conducted an 8-week experiment in a laboratory setting, exposing 288 sea anemones to three pesticides detected in Oregon coastal waters—atrazine, carbendazim, and diuron. The anemones were collected from four colonies (two male and two female) in June, during a period when the organisms begin major development of reproductive organs.  

The study applied six pesticide treatments with four replicate tanks: control, atrazine alone, diuron alone, diuron and carbendazim, and a mixture of all three pesticides. The researchers focused on the diuron/carbendazim combination due to comparatively limited research on their impacts on marine invertebrates. In terms of dosing, pesticides were applied every 10 days following the changing of 20 percent of the water. In terms of pesticide concentrations, all of the tank concentrations are below chronic aquatic life benchmarks, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), due to solubility difficulties and human error. For further information on statistical analysis, please see Section 2.7 on page 5 of the study PDF.

The main findings fall into the following categories:

• Reproductive and Gonad Development. All pesticide treatments in this study significantly lowered gonad index (proxy variable for reproductive health) relative to the control tank, thus threatening long-term survival of the species. Diuron was the only treatment to have a marginal impact.
• Individual and Mixture Results. According to the study, “Pesticides significantly decreased gonad development in all treatments, having the most significant effect in individual treatments of atrazine, carbendazim, and the mixture of all three pesticides.”
• Mortality Attributed to Carbendazim Exposure. While the mortality rate was overall low relative to the total number of sea anemones (less than 2 percent, 5/288 mortalities). The authors attribute two of the deaths to carbendazim given that they took place in different tanks and colonies. This is a secondary finding for a study focused

Previous Coverage

There is an array of scientific literature documenting the pervasiveness of pesticide exposure in waterways and marine ecosystems, as well as adverse health effects on aquatic organisms.

In a literature review published in Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, researchers assess 27 peer-reviewed studies conducted between 2011 and 2025 on the adverse impacts of insecticides, including neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, organophosphates, chlorpyrifos, and fipronil. Across agricultural and suburban environments, pesticides are detected in the majority (88 percent) of samples across the selected studies. (See Daily News here.)

A global literature review of pesticide residues in marine seaweed, published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, highlights the widespread presence of pesticides in bioindicator species. As vital coastal primary producers, seaweed acts as a key indicator for regional pesticide contamination patterns. The bioaccumulation within seaweed species also threatens consumers, including humans, as the chemicals can biomagnify as they move through the food web. In addition to the support seaweed provides for ecosystems, they provide food sources for a multitude of organisms and is of growing socioeconomic importance. “This systematic review identifies, critically evaluates, and synthesizes recent global literature (2015–2024) on pesticide residues detected in seaweeds to delineate contamination patterns,” the authors state. The findings highlight the harmful impacts of petrochemical pesticides on multiple species. Many aquatic species rely on seaweed as a food source, including fish, sea urchins, crabs, snails, brittle stars, and marine mammals such as manatees and sea turtles. Even bacteria and filter feeders consume seaweed when it is decomposed. Birds and land mammals also consume seaweed, including humans who utilize seaweed in various food products due to its high nutritional value. (See Daily News here.) Documented for the first time, 15 currently used pesticides (CUPs) and four metabolites (breakdown or transformation products—TP) are found in the marine atmosphere over the Atlantic Ocean. Three legacy (banned) pesticides were also discovered. According to a recent study published in Environmental Pollution, researchers found empirical evidence for pesticide drift over remarkably long distances to remote environments. (See Daily News here.)

Legacy pesticide exposure continues to pollute, and ultimately undermine, ecosystem stability. A study in Environmental Science and Technology Letters, funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is the first to find halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) in deep ocean sediment and biota off the coast of California. The test area, known as the Southern California Bight (SCB), is home to historic offshore DDT waste dumping, with part of the SCB designated as a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund site. 49 HOCs were detected in the sediment and biota, many of which are DDT-related and not previously screened for. The presence of these “unmonitored compounds can significantly contribute to the contaminant body burden across a range of marine taxa,” the study states. (See Daily News here.)

A study of 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 alters 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 authors state. The study, a worldwide literature review conducted by researchers from India, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia, appears in Aquatic Toxicology. (See Daily News here.) 

In a study published in Aquatic Toxicology, researchers in Brazil determined that the cumulative toxicity of acetamiprid (a neonicotinoid insecticide) and cyanobacteria (photosynthetic microbes that can produce toxins) has a synergistic effect on the health of aquatic water fleas, or Daphnia. These findings paint a troubling picture for broader aquatic food webs, since they serve as a bridge species across trophic levels—being a primary consumer of plants and algae while also providing energy to secondary and tertiary consumers up the chain. The goal of this study is to examine the chronic impacts of singular and cumulative toxicity of acetamiprid and elevated levels of cyanobacterium (Raphidiopsis raciborskii strain LETC-CY-05), which is known to produce saxitoxin—a toxin that can contribute to “red tide” algal blooms, disrupting entire aquatic ecosystems if not properly managed. (See Daily News here.)

Toxic pesticides are also harming coral reefs. Large benthic foraminifera (LBF) are single-celled organisms found on reefs that face adverse metabolic impacts after exposure to the weed killer glyphosate, fungicide tebuconazole, and insecticide imidacloprid, according to a study published in Marine Pollution Bulletin. The study found that “even the lowest doses of the fungicide and herbicide caused irreparable damage to the foraminifera and their symbionts.” Beyond Pesticides reiterates our mission of banning toxic petrochemical pesticides by 2032, and that this goal applies to land and water exposure to pesticides. LBFs are typically used as bioindicators for coral health because they are found in substantial quantities and gathering data is not intrusive or damaging to reef health. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

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

To learn more on how to take action in the aftermath of Monsanto v. Durnell, please consult the following resource: Require Pesticide Product Manufacturers To Provide Warning Labels of Potential Effects like Cancer.

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

Source: Marine Pollution Bulletin

(Beyond Pesticides, July 14, 2026) “Around the world, children are born into a landscape where the doubling of pesticide use since 1990 has made these chemical substances ubiquitous in our soil and food,” said George Laryea-Adjei, PhD, UNICEF Global Program Division Director at the release of a new report—Underestimated and Overlooked: The Silent Impact of Pesticides on Children—published through an initiative of the United Nations Children’s Fund. He continued: “This report reveals a reality that is as urgent as it is ‘silent’: the profound impact of pesticides on the health and rights of the world’s most vulnerable citizens: children.”

Many important truths in this report speak to the advocates, public health professionals, and concerned families across the globe who are researching, writing, teaching, and advocating for public health and environmental protection from toxic chemicals. This report identifies the failure of existing regulatory structures to ensure basic protections and cites scientific evidence, investigative reporting, and litigation, concluding that synthetic pesticides are inconsistent with sustainability and human health.

Main Findings

This report was coauthored by UNICEF staff and numerous stakeholder groups, including nonprofits, regulators, and academic institutions. The authors cite numerous data sources, including existing peer-reviewed science, World Health Organization (WHO) and Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) sources, and PEST-CHEMGRIDS (global gridded maps of the top 20 crop-specific pesticide application rates from 2015 to 2025). Besides the report’s topline findings, concerns are identified in the following categories: Scale of Pesticide Use, Children’s Vulnerability, Health Effects, Scale of Exposure and Poisoning Data, and Pesticide Life-Cycle Management Gaps.

Topline Findings

• Shocking Biomonitoring Results. “80–90% of children in high-income countries have been exposed to pesticides, primarily from dietary exposure.”
• Proximity Exposure to Pesticides. “490 million children, including 124 million under 5, face potential exposure to agricultural pesticides.”
• Child Labor & Pesticide Exposure. “83.4 million children who work in agriculture are likely exposed to pesticides from direct spraying and drift. Agriculture accounts for 61% of all child labor.”
• Main Recommendations Focus on Risk Mitigation Rather Than Transition. Many of the recommendations operate under the assumption that the cost-benefit analysis and risk-centric approach to pesticide regulation is the only tenable pathway forward.

Scale of Pesticide Use

• Projected Doubling of Pesticide Production. “Following World War II, production of synthetic organic chemicals increased exponentially. In 2022, total pesticide use in agriculture was 3.7 million tons of active ingredients, having doubled since 1990.” (FAO, 2024)
• Total Global Pesticide Use Increases Dramatically. “According to FAO, from 2000 to 2022, total global pesticide use increased by 70 per cent to 3.7 million tons, with most of this increase occurring between 2000 and 2016.” (FAO, 2022)
• Agricultural Pesticides Dominate. “According to the World Bank Data Group, an estimated 85 per cent of the pesticides applied globally are used for agricultural purposes.” (Maggi et al. 2019)

Children’s Vulnerability

• Neuroblastoma Risks. “A recent meta-analysis of nine studies showed that neuroblastoma, the most common solid tumor seen in children under 1 year of age, is 1.6 times more likely with pre-conception/antenatal exposure to pesticides.” (Khan, Feulefack, and Sergi, 2022)
• Childhood Leukemia Risks. “A 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis showed a significantly increased risk of childhood leukemia, the most common pediatric cancer, with antenatal exposure to residential pesticides including indoor insecticides.” (Van Maele-Fabry, Gamet-Payrastre, & Lison, 2019)
• Forced Agricultural Labor Imposes Threats. “According to the most recent assessments for 2020, some 1.56 million children work on cocoa farms in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, where almost 60 per cent of the world’s cocoa is produced. Of these, 43 per cent engaged in dangerous activity, including the use of agrochemicals.” (S. Department of Labor, accessed 2025)
• Pesticides in the Big Apple. “In New York State in the United States, more pesticides were applied in the 1990s in the dense areas of New York City… than in the rural agricultural counties in the state. Chlorpyrifos was the most heavily used pesticide in 1997 in New York City.” (Landrigan et al. 1999; NYC Department of Planning, Accessed 2025)
• Pesticide Exposure Near Childcare Facilities. “In the United States, the first National Environmental Health Survey of Licensed Child Care Centers in 2006 found that approximately 63 per cent of the centers reported using pesticides and at least one pesticide was detected in over 89 per cent of the centers.” (Tulve et al. 2006)

Health Effects

• Neurodevelopmental Effects. “A 2019 systematic review of 50 studies done between 1973 and 2019 concluded that antenatal exposure to organophosphates contributes to neurodevelopmental disorders in toddlers, preschool and school-aged children.” (Sapbamrer and Hongsibsong, 2019)
• Genotoxic Effects. “A review of publications from 2007 to 2021 of studies performed in Latin America identified 11 papers investigating the genotoxic effects of pesticides in children.” (Zúñiga-Venegas et al., 2022) “Eight of these papers demonstrated an association between pesticide exposure and cytogenetic or DNA damage.”
• Cancer Risks. “A 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that postnatal and antenatal residential exposures to pesticides were associated with increased risk of childhood brain tumors.” (Van Maele-Fabry, Gamet-Payrastre, & Lison, 2017)
• Respiratory Effects. “In a 2020 systematic review, 15 of 19 studies (79 per cent) identified positive associations between exposure to agricultural pesticides in children and childhood respiratory and allergic effects, primarily asthma.” (Buralli, Dultra, & Ribeiro, 2020)
• Endocrine Effects. “There are over 1,000 synthetic chemicals, including certain pesticides, which are known or potential EDCs.” (Ghassabian et al., 2022)
• Birth Outcomes. “Urogenital anomalies, including hypospadias, cryptorchidism and others, were the most thoroughly investigated category of anomalies associated with exposure to pesticides.” (Kalliora et al., 2018)

Scale of Exposure & Poisoning Data

• World Health Organization (WHO) Mortality Data. WHO documents 375 global annual cases of fatal pesticide poisonings from 2017 onwards. “In 2021, a national report of India gives 178 fatal cases of accidental pesticide poisoning in children below 14 years and 583 cases in the age group of 14–17 years. This is six times the number of annual cases documented in WHO data for all countries together.” (National Crime Records Bureau, 2021)
• Biomonitoring Data. “Data from the poison centers in the United States for 2021 show a total of 32,535 pesticide exposure cases in children and adolescents. This would result in a rate of 39 per 100,000… If all countries had the same poisoning rate as the United States, that would mean about 1 million poisonings in children.”
• PEST-CHEMGRIDS modeling. “124 million children under the age of 5 (18.5 percent) and 490 million children and adolescents (18.8 percent) may face potential exposure to pesticide active ingredients.”
  • “This number represents only a crude proxy for a limited number of pesticides, which does not account for various exposure routes and environmental factors. Consequently, the relationship between pesticide application rates and the actual magnitude of human exposure or health risk remains uncertain and unmeasured.”

Pesticide Life-Cycle Management Gaps

• Lack of Essential Infrastructure. “As of 2019, only 47 per cent of WHO Member States had a poison center, with notable gaps in the African and Eastern Mediterranean regions and in small island states in the Western Pacific Region.” (WHO, 2021)
• Child Labor Constraints. “Nearly 138 million children – 59 million girls and 78 million boys – are in child labour, accounting for almost 8 per cent of all children globally… Agriculture accounts for the largest share of children in child labour, at 61 per cent globally.” (International Labor Organization and WHO, 2024)
• Insufficient Healthcare Access. “According to WHO, approximately half the world’s population lacks access to essential health care.” (WHO, 2025)

Previous Coverage

There is significant additional peer-reviewed literature on the impacts of pesticide exposure on children’s health. A review in the International Journal of Cancer links pesticide exposure, particularly in areas with high agricultural crop density, to increased risks for childhood cancers. The team of researchers from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and University of Nebraska Medical Center, in analyzing epidemiologic studies published between January 1980 and September 2022, says that their “scoping review affirms that a robust body of epidemiology literature already informs how parental and childhood exposure to environmental chemical exposures can be associated with children’s incidence of pediatric leukemia and brain cancer.” (See Daily News here.)

A study from Ecuador establishes for the first time the developmental pattern of nervous system toxicants—widely used in agriculture, mosquito control, and landscaping—on healthy neurological and brain development in children. It is firmly established that widely used organophosphate pesticides are severely toxic to a broad range of organisms. In what is known as their “classic” mechanism of action, they inhibit acetylcholinesterase (AChE), an enzyme that breaks down the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (ACh), including in neuromuscular junctions in the brain. Not enough AChE leads to a buildup of ACh in motor neurons. Organophosphates deplete AChE, and an acute dose can paralyze the heart and lung muscles, causing death. Chronic exposures are implicated in numerous neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management has detailed information on the organophosphates malathion, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and others. (See Daily News here.)

There is also the question of pesticide dependency and genetically modified organisms in agriculture. Published in Pediatrics by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the authors call attention to the widespread use of genetic engineering (GE) and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the U.S. food supply and the subsequent health risks for children and consumers. As the authors state: “Although GMO technology could be used to increase the micronutrient content of foods, this does not occur in the United States; instead, GMO technology has been used to make crops resistant to chemical herbicides. As a result, herbicide use has increased exponentially.” (See Daily News here.)

Adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in children 4–6 years old occur with reported maternal occupational exposure during pregnancy, as published in a study in PLOS One by researchers at Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences in Tanzania and the Centre for International Health at the University of Bergen in Norway. “Our results show that self-reported maternal exposure to pesticides through direct spraying during pregnancy was associated with lower scores in social-emotional and executive function domains among children,” the authors state. Additionally, the authors note that they found an association between social-emotional scores in children and weeding practices of their mothers during pregnancy, as well as reduced overall neurodevelopmental scores following direct maternal pesticide exposure. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

You will be notified of important actions each week by subscribing to the online Weekly News Update and Action of the Week! If you would like to review previous Actions of the Week that are still live, see the Action of the Week Archive.

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

To review our research library that tracks the independent peer-reviewed scientific literature on pesticides and public health, please visit the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, including relevant sections on children’s health.

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

Source: UNICEF (Children’s Environmental Health Collaborative)

(Beyond Pesticides, July 13, 2026) In the wake of the June U.S. Supreme Court decision proclaiming the safety of pesticides registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and rejecting the long-standing right of those harmed to hold chemical companies accountable for failing to warn of potential product hazards, the public is urging EPA to meet its statutory duty to test for the widespread adverse effects of endocrine disrupting pesticides. (See also here.) The endocrine system controls the development and functioning of organ systems, while pesticides that have endocrine disrupting effects are linked to cancer and a wide range of chronic adverse effects. Despite this, the 7-2 majority of Supreme Court justices finds, “EPA must evaluate a pesticide and its proposed label—and must determine that the proposed label includes all warnings necessary and adequate to protect human health and the environment, and is not false or misleading.” The court opinion goes on to say that EPA’s decision to allow the marketing of pesticide products is “prima facie” evidence of a complete and thorough review and determination of safety. In their dissent, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch said, in agreement with an amicus brief filed by former top EPA officials, pesticide registration is not “conclusive” evidence of safety. The action is asking EPA and Congress to immediately implement the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, considering all data concerning endocrine disruption, and deny registration or reregistration of pesticides without sufficient data to demonstrate no unreasonable adverse endocrine risk. 

After ongoing delays following the 1996 Congressional mandate to determine whether pesticides disrupt the endocrine system of humans and other organisms and legal victory in federal court in a case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California brought by the Center for Food Safety and a collection of agricultural workers’ organizations, farmers’ groups, and pesticide activists, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to fulfill the mandate given to it by Congress in 1996 to test all pesticides for their endocrine disrupting effects and regulate them accordingly.  

EPA is now implementing its long overdue Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program for pesticide active ingredients. It is imperative that EPA meets the mandates of the court settlement to collect data on and assess the effects of endocrine-disrupting pesticides over the next five years and to complete endocrine-disrupting assessments for 86 pesticides over the next 10 years. Moreover, EPA must ensure that no pesticide that it registers can cause endocrine disruption. 

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

EPA cannot develop a strategy for evaluating pesticides without understanding the history and status of endocrine disruption research, which are summarized in Beyond Pesticides’ comments on EPA’s 2023 proposal. Evidence that synthetic chemicals can mimic or otherwise interfere with natural hormones has existed for over half a century. Although early attention was given to estrogen mimics, it soon became apparent that the homeostatic function of the endocrine system—which regulates and balances physiological functions—can be disrupted at many sites and hormone systems.  

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

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

The Food Quality Production Act (FQPA) essentially amends FIFRA to ensure potential endocrine disrupting effects are considered in EPA risk assessments to fulfill the statutory mandate that a pesticide registration will not cause unreasonable adverse effects. This applies to humans and wildlife and to all pesticide chemicals as defined in FIFRA, including “all active and pesticide inert ingredients of such pesticide” (21 U.S.C. 231(q)(1)). The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) adds drinking water contaminants as well. 

In summary, the agency cannot limit EDSP to only humans and conventional pesticide active ingredients without violating the statutory requirements enumerated in FIFRA, FQPA, and SDWA. EPA should make use of all available scientifically relevant endocrine disruption research findings and also be wary of deviating from established international efforts for screening/testing endocrine disruptors that incorporate human and wildlife relevant studies. Recognizing that mammalian data inform potential endocrine disruption in other vertebrate taxa (avian, amphibian, fish) and vice versa, the agency should not decouple the mammalian from other vertebrate assays in EDSP screening.  There are more than 50 different ecological and mammalian assays included in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Conceptual Framework for screening/testing endocrine disrupting effects, and there are additional assays being developed for consideration as well. So, the agency should not limit the range or types of data to be used, but as FQPA prescribes use “appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information.” While currently required data may meet the needs of human risk assessment, it is inadequate to evaluate endocrine effects on wildlife species. Additionally, it is not the agency but pesticide registrants that have the burden to demonstrate with adequate data that their products will not pose unreasonable adverse effects, including the inherently presumed endocrine disrupting effects.  

The action is calling on Congress and EPA to immediately implement the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, considering all data concerning endocrine disruption, and deny registration or reregistration of pesticides without sufficient data to demonstrate no unreasonable adverse endocrine risk. 

Letter to EPA:
As EPA implements its long overdue Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program for pesticide active ingredients, it must meet the mandates of the court settlement to collect data on and assess the effects of endocrine-disrupting pesticides over the next five years and to complete endocrine-disrupting assessments for 86 pesticides over the next 10 years. Moreover, EPA must ensure that no pesticide can cause endocrine disruption. 

EPA’s strategy for evaluating pesticides requires understanding the history and status of endocrine disruption research. Evidence that synthetic chemicals can interfere with natural hormones has existed for over half a century. Although early attention was given to estrogen mimics, it was soon apparent that the homeostatic function of the endocrine system can be disrupted at many sites and hormone systems.  

Many authors have documented that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) may be pervasive in contaminating the ecosphere. A pandemic of endocrine-related disorders—attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, diabetes, obesity, childhood cancers, testicular cancer in young men, infertility, male dysgenesis syndrome, hypospadias, low sperm count, loss of semen volume and sperm quality, and increased risk of testicular and prostate cancer—may be related to EDCs.  

Endocrine pathways are largely conserved across species and thus are not species- or taxa- specific. Therefore, it is well understood that the ecological assays (the frog assay in particular) are often more sensitive and equally relevant to mammalian assays in determining whether a chemical can perturb and cause adverse endocrine outcomes in the human population and vice versa. 

In summary, EPA cannot limit EDSP to only humans and conventional pesticide active ingredients without violating the statutory requirements of FIFRA, FQPA, and SDWA. EPA must use all available scientifically relevant endocrine disruption research findings and avoid deviating from established international efforts that incorporate human and wildlife studies. Recognizing that mammalian data inform potential endocrine disruption in other vertebrates (avian, amphibian, fish) and vice versa, the agency should not decouple the mammalian from other vertebrate assays in EDSP screening. With more than 50 different ecological and mammalian assays included in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development Conceptual Framework for screening/testing endocrine disrupting effects and additional assays in development, EPA must not limit the range or types of data to be used, but as FQPA prescribes, use “appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information.” Currently required data may meet the needs of human risk assessment but is inadequate to evaluate endocrine effects on wildlife species.  

FQPA amends FIFRA to ensure potential endocrine disrupting effects are considered in risk assessments to fulfill the FIFRA mandate that pesticide use will not cause unreasonable adverse effects. This applies to humans and wildlife and to all pesticide chemicals as defined in FIFRA including all active and inert ingredients. Under FIFRA, a pesticide is presumed to pose an unreasonable risk until reliable data demonstrate otherwise. If EPA lacks the data and/or resources to fully evaluate endocrine risks to human health and wildlife, then the agency is obliged to suspend or deny any pesticide registration until the agency has sufficient data to demonstrate no unreasonable adverse endocrine risk.  

Thank you. 

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators: 
Please ensure that, as EPA implements its long overdue Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program for pesticide active ingredients, it meets the mandates of the court settlement to collect data on and assess the effects of endocrine-disrupting pesticides over the next five years and to complete endocrine-disrupting assessments for 86 pesticides over the next 10 years. Moreover, EPA must ensure that no pesticide can cause endocrine disruption. 

EPA’s strategy for evaluating pesticides requires understanding the history and status of endocrine disruption research. Evidence that synthetic chemicals can interfere with natural hormones has existed for over half a century. Although early attention was given to estrogen mimics, it was soon apparent that the homeostatic function of the endocrine system can be disrupted at many sites and hormone systems.  

Many authors have documented that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) may be pervasive in contaminating the ecosphere. A pandemic of endocrine-related disorders—attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, diabetes, obesity, childhood cancers, testicular cancer in young men, infertility, male dysgenesis syndrome, hypospadias, low sperm count, loss of semen volume and sperm quality, and increased risk of testicular and prostate cancer—may be related to EDCs.  

Endocrine pathways are largely conserved across species and thus are not species- or taxa- specific. Therefore, it is well understood that the ecological assays (the frog assay in particular) are often more sensitive and equally relevant to mammalian assays in determining whether a chemical can perturb and cause adverse endocrine outcomes in the human population and vice versa. 

In summary, EPA cannot limit EDSP to only humans and conventional pesticide active ingredients without violating the statutory requirements of FIFRA, FQPA, and SDWA. EPA must use all available scientifically relevant endocrine disruption research findings and avoid deviating from established international efforts that incorporate human and wildlife studies. Recognizing that mammalian data inform potential endocrine disruption in other vertebrates (avian, amphibian, fish) and vice versa, the agency should not decouple the mammalian from other vertebrate assays in EDSP screening. With more than 50 different ecological and mammalian assays included in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development Conceptual Framework for screening/testing endocrine disrupting effects and additional assays in development, EPA must not limit the range or types of data to be used, but as FQPA prescribes, use “appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information.” Currently required data may meet the needs of human risk assessment but is inadequate to evaluate endocrine effects on wildlife species.  

FQPA amends FIFRA to ensure potential endocrine disrupting effects are considered in risk assessments to fulfill the FIFRA mandate that pesticide use will not cause unreasonable adverse effects. This applies to humans and wildlife and to all pesticide chemicals as defined in FIFRA, including all active and inert ingredients. Under FIFRA, a pesticide is presumed to pose an unreasonable risk until reliable data demonstrate otherwise. If EPA lacks the data and/or resources to fully evaluate endocrine risks to human health and wildlife, then the agency is obliged to suspend or deny any pesticide registration until the agency has sufficient data to demonstrate no unreasonable adverse endocrine risk.  

Thank you.

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

Health Risks

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

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

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

EPA requires the following statements on all DEET product labels:

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

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

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

Safer Alternatives and Effectiveness

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take Action

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

Study Importance and Background

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

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

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

Methodology and Results

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

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

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

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

Previous Research

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

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

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

An Organic Solution

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

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

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

Take action to protect biodiversity and keep organic strong with a focus on the health of all organisms. Be part of the organic solution by becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides and stay informed with the Daily News Blog. Join the Parks for a Sustainable Future program as a Parks Advocate to transition your community to organic and make The Safer Choice to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides.

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study Importance

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

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

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

Methodology and Results

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

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

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

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

Previous Research

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

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

The Organic Solution

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

*** For more information, please see Beyond Pesticides’ page supporting a nationwide mobilization to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Monsanto v. Durnell and contact our team at [email protected]. 

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

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

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

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

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

Attacks on Public Health

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

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

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

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

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

Current Science

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

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

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

An Organic Future

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Scientific Literature Review

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

Residential Exposures

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

Notable research includes:

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

Proximity to Agriculture

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

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

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

Previous Coverage

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

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

A Holistic Future

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

Study Importance and Background

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

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

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

Methodology and Results

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

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

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

Previous Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Path Forward

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition,  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

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

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

Methodology and Main Findings

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

The study yields the following main findings:

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

Previous Coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

Source: Aquatic Toxicology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methodology and Main Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

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

Source: Environmental Challenges

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

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

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

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

Poison Pill Provisions in Senate GOP Bill

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

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

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

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

Poison Pill Provision To Monitor

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Senate GOP Farm Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.