(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, March 2, 2026) In advance of deliberations on the Farm Bill tomorrow, March 3, in the Agriculture Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, opposition to the GOP-proposed legislation has been widely expressed by farm, environmental, consumer, and social justice organizations. The bill, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567, is a dramatic departure from previous Farm Bills going back to the first one in 1933, which began a process of integrated policy to address family farmers’ sustainability, land conservation, energy, climate, and food security. Discarding the traditional bipartisan process used to draft the Farm Bill, the Republican leadership has instead proposed a measure that has garnered across-the-board disapproval, except from those representing the vested interests of chemical companies and agribusiness. In order to uphold fundamental protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment, a campaign has emerged to urge U.S. Representatives to support Rep. Pingree’s Protect Our Health Amendment (removes Sections 10205-10207), move to strike Sections 10201-10204 and 102011, and support the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act provisions. Without a comprehensive overhaul, this campaign is urging a vote against the Farm Bill. Central to the GOP Farm Bill, released by the chair of the U.S. House Agriculture […]

(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, December 1, 2025) A week before Thanksgiving, and the honoring of critical habitats that support life, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced proposed revisions to the rules implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that environmentalists say will severely weaken the nation’s foundational environmental law. Passed with bipartisan support in 1973, as an update to earlier related statutes, the law establishes a prohibition “on ‘take’ of a species, the requirement that all federal agencies ensure that the actions they carry out will not jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, and the drafting and implementation of recovery plans for at risk species,” according to the National Agricultural Law Center.” See ESA current regulations. FWS and NMFS describe their proposals as a strengthening of the rules implementing ESA, explaining that they “remove regulatory barriers that hinder responsible resource development and economic growth, including expanded oil exploration. However, environmentalists explain that the proposals undermine the basic protections provided threatened and endangered species and narrow the definition of critical habitats. ESA grows out of a history of respect for the earth that is captured in the Thanksgiving Address (the Ohen:ton Karihwatehkwen) […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 16, 2025) As reported in the Daily News on August 28, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it “will hold a public webinar [today], September 16, 2025, at 2:00 PM ET to provide information on the ecological runoff/erosion and spray drift mitigation measures that can be used to protect endangered species from pesticides.” This follows closely behind an earlier announcement of a newly released Pesticide App for Label Mitigations (PALM) mobile tool to assist in implementing these mitigation measures. Despite boasting that the PALM tool is a “one-stop shop” for farmers to use EPA’s mitigation menu, which the agency claims helps to protect nontarget species, environmental critics say that self-directed mitigation without a rigorous reporting and enforcement apparatus fails to meet the level of protection that is necessary under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As Beyond Pesticides has often reported, mitigation measures are not enforced through recordkeeping, inspections, and certification, and require no accountability from farmers and pesticide applicators. At the same time, EPA assumes compliance with mitigation measures as the basis for meeting statutory standards of reasonable risk from harmful chemicals, despite documented health and environmental harm. As a Daily News article earlier this […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2025) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on August 12, 2025, released a statement, “EPA Announces Action to Protect Endangered Species from Insecticide Methomyl,” in which the agency announced label changes for methomyl, a carbamate insecticide, with mitigation measures that are being criticized as allowing great risks to biodiversity and human health. The label changes, following the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) final biological opinion issued on January 1, 2024, actually establish mitigation measures to be determined by applicators using the Bulletins Live! Two website prior to use. EPA claims that this grower determined action will meet the standards of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by “reduc[ing] runoff and spray drift from treated areas into species’ habitats.” However, the process does not include monitoring and oversight to determine whether the rigorous standards of ESA are being met. The agency says that mitigation tracking is “at the field or farm level,” but it is not required to be submitted to the agency. EPA announced on August 20 that it is holding a 90-minute public webinar on September 16, 2025, at 2:00 PM ET to provide information on the ecological runoff/erosion and spray drift mitigation measures that can […]

Image: Art Page submission from Carol Moyer, “Monarch Butterfly Sideways with Closed Wings.“ (Beyond Pesticides, December 20, 2024) On December 12, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) opened a public comment period on its proposal to list the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) as a threatened species and to designate critical habitats for the species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Under the proposal, the designated habitats would span approximately 4,395 acres throughout overwintering sites in coastal California. The public comment period will be open until March 12, 2025. These suggested protections call attention to the role of chemical-intensive agriculture in affecting populations of pollinators and other beneficial organisms. George Kimbrell, legal director at the Center for Food Safety, shares in a press release that the “monarch listing decision is a landmark victory 10 years in the making. It is also a damning precedent, revealing the driving role of pesticides and industrial agriculture in the ongoing extinction crisis… But the job isn’t done: Monarchs still face an onslaught of pesticides. The Service must do what science and the law require and promptly finalize protection for monarchs.” In the docket, FWS states, “Under the Act, a species warrants listing if […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 13, 2024) In October, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the registration applications of BASF Corporation and Mitsui Chemicals Crop & Life Solutions, Inc. for the use of different formulations of the L-isomer of glufosinate (also known as “L-glufosinate” and “glufosinate-P”) as new active herbicidal ingredients. This decision marks one of the first times that EPA has employed its new Herbicide  Strategy Framework to determine the level of mitigation necessary to protect listed species and critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Glufosinate is an organophosphate, with known neurotoxic, reproductive/developmental effects, toxic to aquatic life, and mobile in soils (see Beyond Pesticides Gateway). Scientists have found that formulated glufosinate is generally more toxic to aquatic and terrestrial animals than the technical grade active ingredient. Manufacturers are introducing newer glufosinate products as alternatives for glyphosate-based herbicides, like Bayer/Monsanto’s ‘Roundup’ and dicamba. The Center for Biological Diversity notes in comments submitted to EPA on this decision, “L-glufosinate has the potential to be used on tens of millions acres of land every year given the crops EPA has proposed to register it on. The scale of potential use is far above most new active ingredients.” This first significant application […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 23, 2024) The stark contrast of two political parties emerged around this summer’s reporting of the Project 2025 blueprint—created by extreme right-wing conservatives—that proposes the gutting of environmental and public health policy and implementation. Many political observers say “Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project,” formally titled “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” will be embraced by a second Trump Administration, despite denials that are challenged by insiders as outright lies. While the public became aware of Project 2025 plans to gut the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and many other agencies, the Biden Administration was announcing the emergency ban (see also August 6 announcement), finalized yesterday, of the weed killer Dacthal, exercising an EPA authority that has not been used in 45 years since the banning of 2,4,5-T (50% of the mixture of Agent Orange). With this decision, EPA set an important precedent for proclaiming (i) an unacceptable harm, (ii) its inability to mitigate the pesticide’s hazards with typical risk mitigation measures, and (iii) the availability of alternatives that made the chemical unnecessary. In dramatic contrast, the Trump supporters behind Project 2025 are intent on politicizing science to undermine governmental structures and laws established to protect public health […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 12, 2024)  When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an emergency ban of the weed killer Dacthal (DCPA) last week, it said that there are no “practicable mitigation measures” to protect against identified hazards—a clear and honest assessment of the limits of pesticide product label changes and use restrictions. Now, the question is whether the same thinking can be applied across the EPA’s pesticide program, addressing the urgent need to protect biodiversity. In the Dacthal proclamation, EPA said it consulted with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on “alternatives to this pesticide,” and presumably determined that there were “alternative chemicals” that could be used in chemical-intensive agriculture—while not considering “alternatives to chemicals.” This is the framework that is understood to be EPA’s process that keeps pest management on a pesticide treadmill except in extremely rare cases (this being the second in nearly 40 years). It is also the framework that has led to catastrophic events or existential crises on biodiversity collapse, health threats, and the climate emergency. On biodiversity, the mix of diverse and intricate relationships of organisms in nature that are essential to the sustaining of life, EPA’s pesticide program, the Office of Pesticide Programs, has […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 18, 2024) As part of its update to the proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Endangered Species Act (ESA) Workplan, the agency held a public webinar on June 18, 2024, which provided an overview of the agency’s “Mitigation Menu Website” for “reducing pesticide exposure to nontarget species from agricultural crop uses.” [Check back to see webinar when posted by EPA.] After court decisions forced EPA to develop a strategy to meet its statutory responsibility to protect endangered species from pesticide use, the agency recognized that it is, in its own words, “unable to keep pace” with its legal obligations. Despite this acknowledgement, the agency said it would “provide flexibility to growers to choose mitigations that work best for their situation.” In this spirit, a range of people, including grower groups, gathered earlier in the year for a series of workshops in the Pacific Northwest to discuss possible mitigation measures. According to a report written by commercial beekeeper Steve Ellis (more background), concrete decisions were not reached at the workshops as participants recognized the complexities in crafting pesticide product label restrictions to protect endangered species. Mr. Ellis concluded: “If it’s so complex that it’s impossible, then no one […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 30, 2024) The House Agriculture Committee voted 33-21 on May 23 to move the Farm, Food, and National Security Act out of committee after a contentious markup and onslaught of amendments that undermine water health, soil health, and local democratic authority to protect people and the environment from toxic pesticide exposure. One of nearly sixty amendments introduced in the markup last week included the continuation of a decade-long attack on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit via Clean Water Act (CWA) for pesticide discharge. What was most illuminating however was not the passage of the bill itself, but Big Agriculture’s raucous approval. Advocates see pesticide industry and its allies’ support for what it is—the reliance on petrochemical-based pesticides leading to economic instability, ecosystem collapse, and the degradation of democratic institutions. With support for entrenched dependency on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, the committee’s bill requires taxpayers to pay through the government’s crop insurance program for escalating losses caused by chemical-intensive farming practices, contributing to yield losses that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) says are “natural causes such as drought, excessive moisture [e.g., floods], hail, wind, frost, insects, and disease. . .” However, the frequency of these […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 24, 2024) On April 16, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted an “update” to the Draft Herbicide Strategy Framework (Draft Herbicide Strategy Framework to Reduce Exposure of Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species and Designated Critical Habitats from the Use of Conventional Agricultural Herbicides) that was released last summer, weakening aspects of the agency’s efforts to “protect” endangered species from herbicide use. The update outlines three types of modifications to the Draft Strategy, including “simplifying” its approach, increasing growers’ “flexibility” when applying mitigation measures, and reducing the mitigation measures required in certain situations. By reducing the stringency of the Strategy, advocates are again questioning EPA’s commitment to fulfilling legal requirements under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or protecting endangered species and their habitats in the midst of an unprecedented rate of global extinction. ESA is celebrated as one of the most far-reaching conservation laws globally, credited with preventing the extinction of 99 percent of those species the government targets for protection, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). ESA establishes a framework to categorize species as “endangered” or “threatened,” granting them specific protections. Under ESA, EPA is required to consult with relevant agencies […]