(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2026) With increasing research covered by Daily News showing pesticides linked to epigenetic effects (alter gene expression), the mechanism has far-reaching implications for protecting health and the environment. It also raises issues related to the regulatory review process, which is inadequate in assessing this mechanism. Since the discovery of DNA, a principle called the “central dogma” has dominated genetics. This dogma states that genetic processes are a one-way street: only changes to DNA in germ cells (eggs and sperm) trigger processes in RNA and then proteins to effect changes in tissues and cells throughout the body. Any suggestion that environmental exposures, for example, could alter gene expression except in the first, exposed generation, was dismissed as “Lamarckian” and unscientific. And only changes to genes themselves could be inherited. The theory of epigenetics began developing in the 1950s, and it gradually became clear that gene expression was modifiable by external factors. Cells do have numerous ways of choreographing genes, determining which ones are turned on and off at which times and in which places. In fact, this choreography is absolutely necessary for the development of an individual from pre-conception through fertilization and the progress of an embryo to […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 1, 2026) In the face of U.S. government inaction, the California state Assembly last week passed legislation to phase out existing agricultural uses and ban new uses of PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) pesticides. The legislation, AB 1603, which accurately defines PFAS pesticides in accordance with international standards, does allow continued residential, school and park, playing field, and community PFAS pesticide use (including mosquito spraying). The bill now moves on to the state Senate. While advocates say the bill is an important step forward, they point out that the legislation is one of many examples that compromises public and environmental health, as pesticide-associated cancer, degenerative diseases, multigenerational effects, and ecosystem decline escalate. This attack on health and the environment is happening at the same time that organic agriculture and land management prohibits the use of PFAS pesticides and all the petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers with profitable and cost-effective practices. The California victory paves the way for state action as regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refuse to act on clear scientific findings identifying devastating health and environmental threats. In this context, the bill serves as a call for all states to push for this type of legislation […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 21, 2026) An important study by cancer researchers in Barcelona, Spain at once shows a path forward in illuminating the long-term, multi-generational, health damage from pesticide exposures and demonstrates how extraordinarily dilatory U.S. agricultural regulators are in protecting public health. The study, “Epigenetic fingerprints link early-onset colon and rectal cancer to pesticide exposure,” found a robust association between methylation markers (for gene expression associated with cancer) and exposure to a number of pesticides, with the herbicide picloram having the strongest link. Other pesticides with strong associations include the weedkillers atrazine, glyphosate, nicosulfuron, and insecticide esfenvalerate. Colon cancer is expected to double, and rectal cancer to quadruple, in this young age group by 2030. This sharp contrast between age groups suggests that environmental exposures, rather than strictly genetics, are involved. The authors are concerned with the alarming rise in early onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) not only in the highly developed world but also in less-industrialized countries. This increase appears to be connected with age cohorts and the differences in lifestyle and environmental exposures between older and younger cohorts. According to a commentary on the study by researchers from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in the U.S., the incidence of colorectal […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 18, 2026) As the studies continue to mount on the adverse effects of exposure to low levels of organophosphate insecticides, the calls for banning the chemicals are growing. Beyond Pesticides announced an action to “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.” There are alternatives to these chemicals that support productive and profitable farming operations. Defying the often-repeated claim that organophosphate pesticide effects occur only at high doses, a recent study by researchers at University of California, San Diego, and the Fundación Cimas del Ecuador in Quito, Ecuador, establishes for the first time the pattern of adverse developmental effects that low-level exposure has on healthy neurological and brain development in children. It is firmly established that widely used organophosphate pesticides in food production and other sites 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), particularly in neuromuscular junctions in the brain. Organophosphates are nerve agents, originally developed by the German company IG Farben (a […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 11, 2026) As studies stack up on adverse synergistic effects of chemical mixtures, serious deficiencies in the regulatory review of pesticides have come into sharp focus. As the hazards are shown to escalate and the regulatory review process is shown to fall short, public health advocates are telling Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Health and Human Services that they must consider the effects of pesticides in the context in which they are used and with reference to the organic alternative.  A recent study in Toxics reviewed the current literature on pesticides, microplastics, or metal exposure in combination with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates, finding that PFAS can modify, including intensify, the toxicity of co-occurring pollutants.   A commentary in Frontiers in Toxicology, by  Maricel Maffini, PhD, and Laura Vandenberg, PhD,  notes, “Current approaches also rely on the assumption that testing chemicals one at a time is appropriate to understand how chemicals act under real-world conditions. Numerous mixture studies, including ones that demonstrated cumulative effects, have disproven this assumption.”   As noted by the naturalist, writer, and conservationist John Muir, known as the “Father of the National Parks,” and those before and after him, including the English poet John Donne, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 28, 2026) In Chemical Research in Toxicology, researchers from the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in 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 these compounds are encountered in mixtures in real-world settings, the resulting interaction can have additive or synergistic effects that risk assessments fail to adequately capture. 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 program continue to assess chemicals in isolation.” Importance and Background Environmental toxicants are ubiquitous throughout nature and within all organisms. In humans, these compounds can accumulate, referred to as ‘Body Burden’, which encompasses numerous chemicals such as pesticide mixtures. “Critically, organisms are rarely exposed to a single chemical in isolation,” the researchers note. “Rather, they continuously encounter complex mixtures of contaminants whose combined effects may differ substantially from those predicted by examining each substance individually.” As the authors explain, regulatory agencies underestimate […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2026) In advance of opening U.S. Supreme Court arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell, Beyond Pesticides joined an amicus brief filed yesterday and led by Center for Food Safety (CFS), which challenges 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. The chemical company giant, along with the broader chemical and agribusiness industry, argues that they should be given immunity from litigation because their products are registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a claim that is disputed in detail in the amicus brief. Groups joining the brief include Consumer Federation of America, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP), Rural Coalition, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Center for Biological Diversity, Beyond Pesticides, and Food & Water Watch.  Click to access the 17 additional amicus briefs filed in support of the respondents: Stand for Health Freedom; The American Association for Justice and Public Justice; Children’s Health Defense; 36 State Legislators; The Local Government Legal Center, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and International Municipal Lawyers Association; Former EPA Officials and Environmental Protection Network; Philip Landrigan, MD, MSc, Lianne Sheppard, PhD, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2026) A statement decrying chemical company secrecy was released today by over 200 grassroots, health, farm, farmworker, environmental, and consumer groups, socially responsible corporations, over 340 citizens from 46 states, and international partners. The statement, released before the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow reaches the final deadline for submission of amicus briefs in a case in which Bayer/Monsanto argues, with support of the Trump administration, that it should not be required to disclose on its product labels the potential hazards of its pesticide products. Oral arguments in the case will be heard on April 27, with a decision anticipated in June. Decades of law 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 is attempting to reverse years of case law and billions of dollars in jury verdicts and future cases 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. Chemical Industry State Campaign The chemical industry last year launched a multi-pronged campaign to establish immunity from litigation by those who have […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2026) Through today, organizations, institutions, and corporations can sign on to a public statement calling for chemical companies to continue to be held liable for harming but not warning people who use their pesticide products. The statement, joined by grassroots, health, farm, farmworker, environmental and consumer groups, and socially responsible corporations, will be released tomorrow—just as U.S. Supreme Court begins on April 1 considering Monsanto/Bayer’s claim that the company is not responsible for failing to warn those whose cancer was found by a jury trial to be caused by its weed killer glyphosate (RoundupTM). Groups can sign on to the statement by 5:00pm (Eastern) by clicking here. In the case before the U.S. Supreme Court case, Monsanto v. Durnell, Monsanto/Bayer is seeking to overturn over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements and stop future litigation on their failure to warn about the potential cancer effects of glyphosate/RoundupTM. If Monsanto/Bayer wins, chemical companies will be able to legally withhold information on their pesticide product hazards not required to be disclosed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Bayer/Monsanto wants to overturn decades of legal precedent, including a previous Supreme Court decision, which establishes EPA-required, minimum pesticide product label language, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2026) Biopesticides represent a kind of Utopian destination in the landscape of agricultural sustainability. If only they could ensure planetary harmony. A review of botanical biopesticides in the March 11 issue of Toxics raises important questions that require scrutiny and review under the pesticide registration process and when used in organic systems under the Organic Foods Production Act. The term biopesticide can be misleading, and any replacements for synthetic pesticides cannot be taken only on faith. As Beyond Pesticides has noted previously, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) definition of biopesticides—“derived from such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals”—is broad, vague, and used differently by different interests. EPA regulates biopesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in three categories: Substances that interfere with mating, such as insect sex pheromones, as well as various scented plant extracts that attract insect pests to traps; Microbial pesticides consisting of a microorganism (e.g., a bacterium, fungus, virus, or protozoan) as the active ingredient; and Plant-Incorporated-Protectants (PIPs), pesticidal substances that plants are genetically engineered to produce. The review by Sandra Petrovic, PhD, and Andreja Leskovac, PhD, of the University of Belgrade, highlights the need not to […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2026) An article in Microorganisms by researchers from the U.S., Israel, and Australia analyzes the adverse health and environmental effects of genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), specifically genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs). As the authors state, the prevalence of genetic engineering has “accelerated the creation and large-scale environmental release” of GMMs, which “present unique, long-term risks to human and environmental health.” One of the authors, André Leu, DSc, spoke at the first session of Beyond Pesticides’ National Forum Series: Forging a Future with Nature in 2023. (See recording here.) This review provides risk scenarios of GMMs, showing the threat to ecological systems, particularly within the soil, and human health. As GMMs are “biologically active, self-replicating entities capable of rapid mutation and global dispersal” they present greater risks, and current regulatory frameworks do not adequately assess their potential harm. Genetically altering microorganisms, the most complex and diverse systems in biology, and creating new gene combinations with unknown implications, “has the potential to disrupt the functions, diversity, interactions, and impacts of microbes and microbiomes,” the researchers note. They continue: “This puts human and environmental health at risk. Worst-case scenarios include the promotion of diseases, risks to species […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 16, 2026) On the brink of the first genetically engineered (GE) wheat to be introduced into the U.S. market, after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved it in August, 2024, groups are calling on Congress to instruct USDA to prohibit HB4 wheat and instruct EPA to prohibit the use of glufosinate herbicides on wheat. The herbicide on which the crop is dependent, glufosinate, is a highly toxic herbicide banned in the European Union because of its links to reproductive and developmental harm. The drought- and herbicide-tolerant wheat, known as HB4 GMO wheat, follows a long line of genetically engineered crops that have been allowed to be grown in the U.S., with Roundup ReadyTM (glyphosate-tolerant) soybeans being among the first crops allowed in 1996. While the introduction of this technology promised to reduce pesticide use (herbicides are included under the definition of pesticide), the exact opposite occurred, with the skyrocketing of herbicide use. (See Daily News review of a study by Charles Benbrook, PhD, “Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S.—the first sixteen years.”) The extraordinary increase in herbicide use associated with GE crops has been accompanied by an escalating increase in weed resistance […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2026) In a press release on March 10, 2026, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) cites independent test data on the herbicide indaziflam with detections of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the “forever chemicals” known for significant toxicity at low level exposure and high persistence. The product, Rejuvra™, is produced by Envu (a former division of Bayer) and “is being sprayed and considered for use across millions of acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Forest Service land.” Scientific literature connects indaziflam and PFAS with adverse effects to human, soil, and biodiversity health, raising serious concerns about their wide use in agriculture and general land management of lawns, parks, playing fields, ornamentals, fence lines, rights-of-way, rangeland, open space, and Christmas trees. Background As a pre-emergent weed killer used to kill annual grasses and unwanted broadleaf plants, the fluoroalkyltriazine herbicide is broadly labeled for use in residential areas, commercial ornamental and sod production, forestry, and mostly orchard crops. While indaziflam is considered a “selective” herbicide, it actually kills and prevents germination of a wide range of broad-leaved plants and grasses and comes close to being a soil sterilant.  Since the chemical is subject to drift […]

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 9, 2026) Policy and toxicology are slated to collide as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers allowing the use of a PFAS pesticide by invoking an emergency waiver process in federal pesticide law. If authorized, EPA’s decision will permit the use of an unregistered pesticide under an emergency waiver provision—in this case an emergency caused by weed resistance to weed killers (herbicides) on the market. EPA is accepting public comments until March 16, 11:59pm EDT. Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to object to EPA approval by writing to EPA and Congress stating that herbicide resistance is not an emergency and PFAS chemicals must not be broadcast in the environment.  The pesticide that is being requested for use is a new not yet registered, herbicide tetflupyrolimet (TFP), which is a PFAS chemical according to the definition of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The fact that the chemical is not registered by EPA means that it has not been reviewed in accordance with all the safety assessments reviewed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The states applying for the exemptions under Section 18 of FIFRA—Missouri and Arkansas—claim that there is an emergency requiring the use of TFP because […]

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 25, 2026) Residues of the weed killer glyphosate, which has been classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, have been routinely found in food products, and a recent state survey in Florida confirmed previous findings. The findings are well within the legal standards for allowable residues. So, why is the Trump administration, in invoking the Defense Production Act of 1950 by Executive Order and its immunity-from-lawsuits provision for glyphosate manufacturers, concerned about glyphosate residues in food and other nondietary exposure? Could it have something to do with the over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements on glyphosate exposure against the manufacturer Bayer/Monsanto, with tens of thousands of cases pending, and the robust independent, peer-reviewed scientific findings that link glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a host of other adverse health effects? Nothing in the President’s executive order appears to meet the intent of the statute and its stated purpose to protect “the ability of the domestic industrial base to supply materials and services for the national defense and to prepare for and respond to military conflicts, natural or man-caused disasters, or acts of terrorism within the United States . . .” Without […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 23, 2026) Amid polarization in the U.S. Congress, key legal protections from pesticides will be revoked with passage of the GOP Farm Bill being debated March 3 in the House Agriculture Committee, despite a growing body of science that shows farmers, consumers, and the environment are facing escalating health and safety threats. In this context, grassroots efforts are underway asking Congressional representative to advocate for the removal of Farm Bill, Title X, Subtitle C, Part 1, which contains attacks on foundational protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment—and vote against the Farm Bill if those provisions are not removed. As provisions in the GOP Farm Bill (Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567) that slash protections from pesticides go to a vote in the Agriculture Committee, health and environmental advocates are calling for committee members to remove the weakening section—Section X, Subtitle C, Part 1, on “Regulatory Reform.” At a time when documented adverse effects from pesticide exposure are skyrocketing and sustainable practices have become widely available, the bill is being characterized as a wish-list for the chemical industry. Recent studies demonstrating connections between prenatal and postnatal exposure to pesticides and severe consequences […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 20, 2026) As pesticides’ adverse effects on human and ecosystem health stack up in the scientific literature, health and environmental groups are focused on striking an entire section of the Republican Farm Bill that will eliminate protections, which have been written into law for generations. The section is Section X, Subtitle C, Part 1 on “Regulatory Reform.” Threatened are policies intended to protect against the diseases and illnesses touching families and communities, including brain and nervous system disorders, birth abnormalities, cancer, developmental and learning disorders, immune and endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, among others. Wildlife, including mammals, bees and other pollinators, fish and other aquatic organisms, birds, and the biota within soil, are adversely affected with reproductive, neurological, endocrine-disruptive, and developmental anomalies, and cancers. (See Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.) With the urgent threat of a markup of the legislation scheduled to begin on March 3, attention shifted to a newly released Executive Order (EO) that could provide blanket legal protection for the manufacturer of the weed killer glyphosate, Bayer/Monsanto. By activating the Defense Production Act of 1950 and its immunity from lawsuits provision for glyphosate manufacturers, the administration could mandate production of glyphosate as a “national security” concern and provide […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 17, 2026) The Ranking Member of the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), issued a swift rebuke to the GOP 2026 Farm Bill text unveiled last Friday, saying it would be “’very difficult, if not impossible’ for her to back a GOP-led farm bill because it contains ‘poison pills’ and doesn’t do enough to aid struggling farmers,” according to Politico. She did not specifically point to the key controversial provisions that eliminate three core safeguards that are seen as critical to the health of farmers, consumers and the environment—judicial review of chemical manufacturers’ failure to warn about pesticide hazards, the democratic right of local governments in coordination with states to protect residents from pesticide use, and local site-specific action to ensure the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides. Beyond Pesticides responded with a nationwide action to Tell members of the U.S. House of Representatives to stop provisions in the Farm Bill that shield chemical companies from liability for the harm caused by their products, intrude on local communities’ democratic right to restrict pesticides, and eliminate pesticide restrictions governing clean water, environmental impacts, and endangered species; with a request to support […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 16, 2026) The chair of the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, in releasing the Republican 2026 Farm Bill draft last Friday afternoon, is challenging three core safeguards that are seen as critical to the health of farmers, consumers and the environment—judicial review of chemical manufacturers’ failure to warn about pesticide hazards, the democratic right of local governments in coordination with states to protect residents from pesticide use, and local site-specific action to ensure the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides. The draft Farm bill language in three separate sections: (i) prohibits lawsuits by farmers and consumers harmed by pesticides for which manufacturers failed to provide complete safety warnings (Section 10205); (ii) takes away the authority of local governments to protect residents and the local environment from pesticide use (Section 10206), and; (iii) repeals requirements in numerous federal statutes to protect against local pesticide contamination that could affect waterways, drinking water, federal projects, endangered species, migratory birds, and toxic waste (Section 10207). Beyond Pesticides responded with a nationwide action to Tell members of the U.S. House of Representatives to stop provisions in the Farm Bill that shield chemical companies from liability for the harm caused […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 12, 2026) Editor’s Note. This is a piece about improving risk assessments and a proposal that could offer a more realistic characterization of the harm associated with the complexities of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides notes that risk assessment methodology, unless it is considered in the context of a rigorous alternatives assessment, begins with the mostly false assumption that petrochemical pesticides are needed (or are essential) to achieve cost-effective pest management, agricultural productivity and profitability, and quality of life, when, in fact, this is not the case. Therefore, improved risk calculations—as the article being reviewed here proposes—while important to characterizing the harm and the unknown adverse effects associated with pesticide use, still impose some level of harm deemed by the government to be acceptable. Even worse, the adverse effects of exposure cannot be fully characterized because of uncertainties or a lack of data on harmful endpoints, as is the case currently with endocrine-disrupting pesticides not fully evaluated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), or other regulatory bodies. These pesticides are known to induce cancer, reproductive harm, infertility, biodiversity decline, and other life-threatening, often multigenerational, effects. The authors do recognize the serious […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 6, 2026) The United States, under Donald Trump’s direction, has withdrawn from 66 international organizations, the most important for health being the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. International organizations committed to the application of the best available science and policy development via consultation and consensus serve as a vital check against rampant personal and industry nest-feathering at the expense of global health. The Trump administration has removed this check while expanding his and his associates’ self-dealing and dismissing the critical interactions of crises such as climate change and synthetic chemicals. Although Trump announced this move on inauguration day last year, the completion of the process last week puts the stamp of finality on his total abandonment of public health. This in turn threatens the collapse of WHO—and even the U.N.—altogether, which has wide implications for agriculture, particularly pesticide policies, climate action (and inaction), and infectious disease monitoring, including vaccines and pandemic prevention. [See commentary: On Public and Environmental Health and Worldwide Collaboration.] Other U.N. environmental, health, and agricultural organizations on the list are groups focused on forest degradation, freshwater and oceans, mining, minerals, metals, and sustainable development, biodiversity, and ecosystem […]