(Beyond Pesticides, April 7, 2026) In the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, a study of gestational (during pregnancy) exposure to the neonicotinoid insecticide thiacloprid shows epigenetic effects (alterations in genes without altering underlying DNA) within prostate tissues. To analyze the role of gene expression in subsequent generations after initial thiacloprid exposure, the authors exposed pregnant outbred Swiss mice to the insecticide in order to assess the offspring for multiple generations. As a result, the researchers from the Université de Rennes in France state, “Our study revealed that exposure to thiacloprid induces [cell] proliferation and is associated with epigenetic alterations in the sperm of genes important for prostate development.” Increased cell proliferation in the prostate can cause the development of conditions such as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), and lead to prostate cancer.

The study also finds elevated levels of specific biomarkers within the prostates of both the first and third generations, including phosphorylated histone H3, a marker crucial for cell division. Hox gene expression in both generations was also impacted, which plays a role in prostate development, based on the altered DNA methylation (abnormal changes) in the sperm of the analyzed mice.

“In this study, we aimed to reveal the effects of thiacloprid on prostate morphology and to gain insight into the epigenetic mechanisms involved in the regulation of genes important for prostate functioning and development using a mouse model,” the authors say. They continue, “Although the mouse prostate is anatomically and histologically different from the human prostate, there is extensive evidence that the genetic lesions in human prostate cancer can lead to neoplasia in the murine prostate, suggesting that there is a common conserved mechanism of prostate pathology development.”

Study Importance

A wide body of science, that continues to grow, connects the intensive use of neonicotinoids to adverse health effects in a multitude of organisms. Most notably, dramatic declines in bees and other pollinators are linked to neonicotinoids and neonicotinoid-treated seeds. (See What the Science Shows on Biodiversity for more information on the effect of pesticides on pollinators and other beneficial organisms.)

As the current study authors point out, neonicotinoids in Europe were banned in 2018 but continue to be detected in the environment and contaminate organisms. For instance, studies find that thiacloprid is detected in aquatic invertebrates in the Danube River, as well as in honey samples, years after the ban. (See research here, here, and here.) Birds in Europe, such as the house sparrow Passer domesticus, have detectable neonicotinoid residues in their feathers. Residues in farmland birds, including gray partridges and Montagu’s harrier chicks, also show the persistence of neonicotinoids in nature.

Additional studies find thiacloprid in mammals. One study finds levels of thiacloprid in the urine of domesticated dogs and cats, while another shows residues in the hair of small mammals. A human biomonitoring study finds urinary neonicotinoids and their metabolites correlated with oxidative stress biomarkers. This widespread and persistent presence of neonicotinoids in organisms, particularly where their use has been banned, shows the long-lasting effects that need to be taken into consideration prior to permitting the release of hazardous or potentially harmful chemicals into the environment.

Methodology and Results

In this study, multiple generations of Swiss mice are assessed for potential changes in gene expression within the prostate with exposure to thiacloprid. The control mice and the pregnant mice with neonicotinoid exposure represent the F0 generation, while their immediate offspring are F1. The researchers further describe, “Both control and exposed F1 generation males were crossed with non-related, untreated females to obtain the F2 generation. Both control and exposed male progeny of F2 were crossed with non-related, untreated females to obtain the F3 generation.”

For the F0 mice that were exposed to thiacloprid, this occurred over 10 days during the embryonic period based on the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL), the lowest concentration of a substance in which adverse alterations of morphology or function occur. As the authors point out, “The chosen dose was approximately four times lower than the LOAEL established by the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] for thiacloprid for mice” and “~5 times lower than the human equivalent LOAEL dose established by the EPA.” The entire experiment, from the F0 generation to the F3 generation, was performed twice.

The results of the study show some epigenetic effects in both the F1 and F3 generations, while other effects are only noted in the F1 generation despite the persistence of epigenetic markers. The researchers explain, saying: “[I]t is likely that gestational exposure to thiacloprid induces some alterations in the F1 generation, causing an increase in proliferation, based on analysis of markers. However, the effects were not detected in F3, suggesting that most of the effects induced in F1 were not transgenerational but intergenerational.”

Other effects show variation between the generations. “We also noted that alterations in our studies in F1 and F3 epigenetic marks had opposite effects,” the authors state. They continue: “We cannot simply explain this phenomenon; we suggest that some unknown mechanisms compensate for the previously induced epigenetic alterations in F3 males. Similar opposite effects were observed in our previous study in prostates exposed to chlordecone. We suggest that compensatory effects could be promoted during fertilization.” This variation requires further research to elucidate the mechanisms at play, but continues to expand the current knowledge regarding the effects of neonicotinoids through solely laboratory-based transgenerational exposure and without any direct exposure as would be encountered in the environment.

Gestational exposure to thiacloprid increases epithelial hyperplasia in the anterior prostate in the F1 generation, as well as elevates the expression of mitosis. As the researchers share, additional study results include:

• “We detected increased levels of the mitosis marker PHH3 in the prostate of F1 and F3, and the expression of the oncogenesis (cancer-causing) marker Ki-67 was significantly increased in directly exposed F1 but not in F3 males.
• The expression of genes encoding transcription factors, hormones, and chromatin factors was altered in both the F1 and F3 anterior prostates.
• We observed that gene expression and histone H3K4me3 occupancy at promoters of Hox and several transcriptional factors were consistently changed in similar directions in exposed mice.
• Compared with changes in gene expression, alterations in DNA methylation at the promoters of prostate development genes were observed in F1 and F3, mainly in opposite directions.
• The H3K4me3 global level increased in both generations, which could be due to an increased level of mitosis resulting from a significantly increased level of PHH3, a marker of mitosis, in F1 and F3.
• The DNA methylation of several genes essential for prostate development was altered. Notably, the analysis of markers (Ki-67, PHH3, and HDAC1) showed the effects in F1 but not in F3. However, there are some alterations in Hox genes (gene expression, histone H3K4me3 occupancy, sperm DNA methylation level) and in some other factors, such as HDAC1, suggesting that certain alterations could be persistent and possibly impact the prostate at a later age in F3 animals.”

Previous Research

In a prior study, the study authors show that gestational exposure to thiacloprid induces transgenerational alterations in the male reproductive system. That research led to the current study to identify specific impacts of thiacloprid exposure on the prostate. One study links thiacloprid exposure to a reduction in testosterone in the blood serum of F3 males. Additional scientific literature (see here and here)also connects thiacloprid exposure to toxicity within the thyroid glands of mice, where it “induces alterations in thyroid gland morphology and interferes with the production of thyroid hormones.” (See Daily News coverage on thiacloprid here.)

Other research connects other neonicotinoids to prostate effects. “Specifically, it has been determined that the neonicotinoid imidacloprid (IMI) is toxic to human prostate epithelial cells and induces apoptosis [cell death] and oxidative stress,” the researchers note. (See here.) Another study shows that “IMI exposure affected the weight of the prostates and led to a decrease in testosterone levels.” (See Daily News coverage on neonicotinoids and prostate effects here and here.)

Recent research published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology (CRT) and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), as shared in a Daily News piece entitled Studies Find Genetic and Epigenetic Effects from Pesticide Exposure, Threatening Future Generations, documents the genetic and epigenetic effects to pesticide-exposed groups through early-life exposure and from transgenerational inheritance (passed down through generations). These studies highlight the complex nature of mechanisms of toxicity, as well as the various pesticide exposure routes that begin even prior to conception. Through a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on “DNA damage, cytogenetic damage, DNA methylation, or gene expression outcomes associated with prenatal and early childhood pesticide exposure,” the CRT authors link genotoxic mechanisms and epigenetic alterations to adverse health outcomes while the PNAS study shows pesticide-induced epigenetic alterations in mammals across 20 generations that “suggest the maternal and paternal lineages can both induce and inherit epigenetic alterations that influence disease (e.g., kidney, testis, ovary, prostate) incidence, reproductive health (e.g., parturition, infertility), and overall fitness generationally.”

The Organic Solution

As an alternative to neonicotinoid insecticides like thiacloprid, Beyond Pesticides advocates for the precautionary approach of organic agricultural and land management practices. Buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment, which protects all organisms within it. To learn more about the numerous health and environmental benefits of organic systems, see here and here.

Make The Safer Choice by learning how to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides. ManageSafe™ also helps to identify the organic management practices and compatible control options for pests in the home and garden. For more information on alternatives, see the factsheet Managing Pests Safely Without Neonicotinoids: For Homes, Schools, and Other Indoor/Outdoor Areas, created through the BEE Protective project.

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

Source:

Dali, O. et al. (2026) Intergenerational Effects of Neonicotinoid Thiacloprid in Murine Prostate Tissue Are Associated with Epigenetic Alterations in Homeobox Hox Genes, International Journal of Molecular Sciences. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/27/7/2921.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2026) While mosquito season is not yet here, Beyond Pesticides has launched an action to remind people and policy makers that mosquito management requires the enhancing of natural ecosystems, including bird populations, in communities and residential areas to reduce the population of these biting insects. The campaign draws on the science showing that an unbalanced ecosystem eliminates some of the most attractive and helpful allies in mosquito management—birds. Incorporating the awareness of healthy ecosystems in communities and yards into local and state policies and practices is a critical pest management tool.

The action calls on Governors and Mayors to ensure ecological management of mosquitoes by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten mosquito predators.

An article, “The Ecological Impact of Pesticides on Non-Target Organisms in Agricultural Ecosystems” (2024), captures the importance of land management and habitat to protect a a balance of organisms, including bird populations. The authors, in the context of agroecosystems but generally applicable, write: “Pesticide exposure reduces ecosystem resilience, changes community dynamics, and accelerates population reductions in a variety of organisms, including predatory arthropods, bees, and butterflies. Furthermore, bird populations—which are essential to agroecosystems—face a variety of difficulties as a result of habitat degradation, food chain disruptions, and reproductive impairments brought on by pesticides. Pesticides are harmful in ways that go beyond killing; they affect the physiology and behaviour of creatures that are not intended targets.”

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

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

On the other hand, insectivorous birds are threatened directly by pesticide use and indirectly by the loss of their prey. In 1962, Rachel Carson drew attention to the poisoning of songbirds in her book Silent Spring. Despite restrictions on the organochlorines used in 1962, over three billion birds, or 29% of 1970s numbers, have been lost in North America over the last 50 years. Research shows that 57% of bird species are in decline, and mosquito-eating birds lead the list. Ninety percent of all declines were within 12 bird families that include sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, larks, swallows, nightjars, swifts, finches, flycatchers, starlings, and thrushes. Only waterfowl and wetland bird species show any increase. 

Meanwhile, the world is experiencing an insect apocalypse. Recent research has found dramatic drops in overall insect abundance, with leading entomologists identifying steep declines in insect populations. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor of 60 over the past 40 years—there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined more than 75% over the last 29 years, according to research published by European scientists.  

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

On a personal level, you can nurture a safe haven for birds and other mosquito predators. And remember, there are safer personal repellents. See How To Repel Mosquitoes Safely. Spread the word to your neighbors on safer mosquito management with Beyond Pesticides’ doorknob hanger, Manage Mosquitoes This Season without Toxic Chemicals. 

Urge your state and community to adopt biodiversity conservation principles that include ecological mosquito management practices. 

Beyond Pesticides suggests that people Tell their Governor and Mayor to ensure ecological management of mosquitoes by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten mosquito predators.  

Letter to the Governor:
It is time to prepare for mosquito season, which is upon us, and avoid the use of pesticides to kill them. Not only is spraying flying mosquitoes the most ineffective way to prevent mosquito problems, but it is also counterproductive because it eliminates some of our most attractive and helpful allies—birds. Most songbirds eat insects at some stage of their life. Many birds who eat seeds or nectar feed insects to their young, including flying insects that may be bothersome—like mosquitoes or flies. Altogether, birds consume as many as 20 quadrillion individual insects, totaling 400-500 million metric tons, per year.

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

On the other hand, insectivorous birds are threatened directly and indirectly by pesticide use. In 1962, Rachel Carson drew attention to the poisoning of songbirds in her book Silent Spring. Despite restrictions on the organochlorines used in 1962, North America has lost 29%—over three billion birds—in the last 50 years. Research shows that 57% of bird species are in decline, and mosquito-eating birds lead the list. Ninety percent of all declines were within 12 bird families that include sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, larks, swallows, nightjars, swifts, finches, flycatchers, starlings, and thrushes. Please note the overlap with mosquito-eating birds. Only waterfowl and wetland bird species show any increase.

Meanwhile, the world is experiencing an insect apocalypse. Leading entomologists find steep declines in insect populations. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor of 60 over the past 40 years—there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined more than 75% over the last 29 years, according to research published by European scientists.

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

The use of pesticides that threaten birds and others who consume mosquitoes is not consistent with ecological management of mosquitoes.

Please eliminate the use of pesticides that imperil birds, other mosquito predators, and their insect food supply. Please adopt biodiversity conservation goals that include: (1) ecological mosquito management including measures that recognize the benefit of preventive strategies, which establish source reduction programs that manage breeding sites on public lands and educate on the management of private lands, employ programs for larval management with biological controls, and eliminate the use of toxic pesticides; (2) prohibition of systemic insecticides and treated seeds, including neonicotinoids; and (3) land management on public lands–including hospitals, higher education institutions, schools, and parks—using regenerative organic principles and organic certified practices and products, to transition to a viable organic system that prioritizes long-term health of the public, ecology, and economy.

Thank you.

Letter to the Mayor:
It is time to prepare for mosquito season, which is upon us, and avoid the use of pesticides to kill them. Not only is spraying flying mosquitoes the most ineffective way to prevent mosquito problems, but it is also counterproductive because it eliminates some of our most attractive and helpful allies—birds. Most songbirds eat insects at some stage of their life. Many birds who eat seeds or nectar feed insects to their young, including flying insects that may be bothersome—like mosquitoes or flies. Altogether, birds consume as many as 20 quadrillion individual insects, totaling 400-500 million metric tons, per year.   

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

On the other hand, insectivorous birds are threatened directly and indirectly by pesticide use. In 1962, Rachel Carson drew attention to the poisoning of songbirds in her book Silent Spring. Despite restrictions on the organochlorines used in 1962, North America has lost 29%—over three billion birds—in the last 50 years. Research shows that 57% of bird species are in decline, and mosquito-eating birds lead the list. Ninety percent of all declines were within 12 bird families that include sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, larks, swallows, nightjars, swifts, finches, flycatchers, starlings, and thrushes. Please note the overlap with mosquito-eating birds. Only waterfowl and wetland bird species show any increase.  

Meanwhile, the world is experiencing an insect apocalypse. Leading entomologists find steep declines in insect populations. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor of 60 over the past 40 years—there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined more than 75% over the last 29 years, according to research published by European scientists.  

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

The use of pesticides that threaten birds and others who consume mosquitoes is not consistent with ecological management of mosquitoes.  

Please eliminate the use in our city of pesticides that imperil birds, other mosquito predators, and their insect food supply. Please adopt biodiversity conservation goals that include: (1) ecological mosquito management including measures that recognize the benefit of preventive strategies, which establish source reduction programs that manage breeding sites on public lands and educate on the management of private lands, employ programs for larval management with biological controls, and eliminate the use of toxic pesticides; (2) prohibition of systemic insecticides and treated seeds, including neonicotinoids; and (3) land management on public lands–including hospitals, higher education institutions, schools, and parks–using regenerative organic principles and organic certified practices and products, to transition to a viable organic system that prioritizes long-term health of the public, ecology, and economy.  

Thank you. 

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2026) A literature review published in Chemico-Biological Interactions links pyrethroid insecticide exposure to cardiac dysfunction. Through a systematic review and meta-analysis of previous research through July 2025, the authors find emerging evidence that indicates pyrethroids induce adverse cardiovascular effects through pathways of inflammation, oxidative stress, and myocardial injury (damage to the heart muscle). “The meta-analytic findings of this study offer the first comprehensive overview of the cardiotoxic effects of pyrethroids, encompassing electrophysiological, biochemical, inflammatory, and redox disturbances,” the researchers state. “Together, these findings indicate that pyrethroids disrupt cardiac electrical stability and induce cytotoxic [killing or damaging cells], inflammatory, and oxidative damage.”

Study Importance

Scientific literature connecting various classes of pesticides to adverse health effects continues to mount, with synthetic pyrethroids emerging as a class of increasing concern. Due to their broad spectrum of activity, pyrethroids are extensively used in agriculture and land management but can persist in the environment and can cause neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular health implications. (See here and here.) In particular, pyrethroid exposure is associated with increased risks of developing cardiovascular disease. (See studies here, here, here, and here.)

“Cardiac electrical activity is regulated by mechanisms that are highly sensitive to oxidative stress and inflammation, which can disrupt electrophysiological stability and contribute to arrhythmogenesis [the process of developing abnormal heart rhythms],” the authors write. Due to this sensitivity, studying the effects of pyrethroid pesticide exposure gives insight regarding how electrophysiological alterations are induced and can lead to cardiac dysfunction. The researchers continue, saying, “As oxidative and inflammatory pathways are known modulators of cardiac excitability and conduction, secondary analyses focused on redox balance, inflammatory markers, and biochemical markers of cardiac injury to better understand the potential mechanisms involved were conducted.”

Methodology and Results

In performing a literature review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the authors searched for studies across the Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed databases using a combination of keywords, including heart disease, electrophysiology, and pyrethroids. After reviewing all results through this targeted strategy, eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, fifteen of which were included in the meta-analysis.

The authors note: “The primary outcome focused on assessing alterations in the cardiac and cardiomyocyte electrophysiological and mechanical parameters, such as action potential, heart and cardiomyocyte contractility and ionic currents, and a secondary outcome was to investigate conditions that potentially influence cardiac electrophysiological parameters, i.e., inflammation and redox state. Biochemical indicators of myocardial damage were also assessed.”

The studies include investigations of various aspects of cardiac electrophysiology, including action potential duration, sodium current, and parameters related to cardiac contractility, as well as biochemical markers of cardiac injury, inflammatory markers such as cytokines, and the activity of antioxidant enzymes. The pyrethroid active ingredients in the studies encompass deltamethrin, beta-cyfluthrin, tefluthrin, fenpropathrin, cypermethrin, tetramethrin, and permethrin.

The results show that these pyrethroids induce cardiac dysfunction through altered electrophysiological effects, biochemical markers, inflammatory responses, and oxidative stress, among others. Notable findings include:

• Pyrethroid exposure significantly prolongs the action potential duration within cardiac muscles and significantly affects the force of contraction coefficient, both of which modulate cardiac output.
• In multiple studies, significant oxidative imbalance is noted with pyrethroid exposure. Both biomarkers and enzyme levels show alterations that can indicate oxidative injury and lead to inflammatory and cytotoxic effects.
• “Cardiac-specific biochemical markers were consistently altered across the studies. Notably, troponin I and creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) levels were elevated following pyrethroid exposure, reflecting direct myocardial injury. Some studies also reported nonspecific markers of cytotoxicity.”
• Altered gene expressions and chronic inflammation “can destabilize conduction and repolarization, increasing the likelihood of arrhythmic events.” (See study here.)
• “Given the role of inflammation in modulating cardiac excitability and promoting arrhythmogenesis, inflammatory mediators were evaluated in several studies.” Many levels “were consistently upregulated in response to pyrethroid exposure… Additionally, increased activity of nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells was observed, a key transcription factor that regulates inflammatory gene expression.”

Many of these effects are connected. “From a mechanistic standpoint, inflammation and oxidative stress are closely intertwined, the researchers explain. They continue: “Moreover, oxidative stress can activate inflammatory signaling cascades and modulate the function of ion channels through oxidative modifications, further exacerbating electrical dysfunction… These converging lines of evidence – electrophysiological derangements, structural cytotoxicity, inflammation, and oxidative stress – highlight the multifactorial nature of pyrethroid-induced cardiotoxicity. Each of these mechanisms interacts synergistically: for example, oxidative stress promotes inflammation, which in turn can disrupt ion channel expression and function, leading to arrhythmogenesis and mechanical impairment.”

Previous Research

Biomonitoring studies show that high urinary levels of pyrethroid metabolites are associated with alterations that lead to the development of cardiovascular disease. (See studies here and here.) The cytotoxicity noted in these studies, which occurs as a result of mitochondrial dysfunction, membrane destabilization, and increased oxidative burden, indicates not only electrophysiological changes but also structural damage and loss of cellular integrity. “When combined with electrical instability, such injury likely heightens the risk of acute cardiac events, including arrhythmias and contractile failure, particularly in individuals with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions,” the authors write.

Additional research links pesticide exposure to a “significantly increased risk of death in individuals with cardiovascular disease, such as coronary heart disease.” (See here and here.) Other studies find increased risks of stroke, myocardial infarction, hypertension, and arrhythmias in patients with elevated levels of biochemical markers of pyrethroid exposure. (See here and here.)

Aside from pyrethroids, other classes of pesticides are linked to cardiac dysfunction. One study published in Cardiovascular Toxicology finds significant associations between Gulf War deployment-related toxic chemical exposure hazards and various adverse health outcomes, including heightened risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVDs), such as “heart attack, coronary heart disease, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and peripheral vascular disease.” The study identifies a significant association between ASCVDs in surveyed veterans who reported over 31 days of exposure to chemical and biological agents. (See Daily News here.)

A study published in Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology finds that “higher pesticide exposure was significantly associated with elevated blood pressure and greater risks of hypertension.” More specifically, “[t]he results indicated that exposure to PNP [para-nitrophenol/parathion] and 2,4-D may contribute to an increased risk of hypertension.” According to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), roughly half of U.S. adults have hypertension, which can lead to increased risk for stroke and heart disease, two of the top causes of mortality in the nation. (See more here.)

An editorial in Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy finds that triazole fungicides pose a significant risk of cardiotoxicity with “growing concerns regarding their safety for human health, especially in long-term exposure,” the authors state. After analyzing the known mechanisms of cardiotoxicity of triazole pesticides in mammals, they conclude that “the most effective approach to mitigating triazole-induced cardiotoxicity lies in prevention.” (See Daily News here.)

The Organic Solution

Eliminating exposure to petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, such as with an organic diet, mitigates disease risks including brain and nervous system disorders, cancer, endocrine disruption, and cardiovascular disease (CVD). A study in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology finds that organic food consumption lowers the risk of developing ASCVD. This study adds to the ever-growing body of science that has linked pesticide exposure to negative effects on cardiovascular health for many decades. The findings reinforce scientific understanding that heart disease is preventable and eliminating toxics in diet can play an important role in reducing a major public health threat. (See Daily News here.)

Beyond Pesticides has extensively covered the health benefits of an organic diet and organic systems. As shared in recent coverage, titled Benefits of U.S. Organic Production Highlighted in Evidence-Based Research that Supports an Expedited Transition, a study of organic agricultural systems from 1960 to 2021 concludes that “the outlook for U.S. organic fruit and vegetables is encouraging, supported by expanding consumer demand, government support, and improved conditions for international trade.” Another study finds that adopting a fully organic diet can reduce pesticide levels in urine within just two weeks “by an average of 98.6%” and facilitate faster DNA damage repair relative to a diet of food grown with chemical-intensive practices. (See here.)

Start by Eating with a Conscience and choosing organic food to protect not only health but the environment. Beyond Pesticides’ offers tips on Buying Organic Products (on a budget!) or you can Grow Your Own Organic Food. You can also make The Safer Choice and avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides to protect you and your family.

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

Source:

Durço, A. et al. (2026) Pyrethroid-induced cardiac Dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical evidence, Chemico-Biological Interactions. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009279726001389.

(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, Christopher Portier, PhD, Dennis Weisenburger, MD, and Bruce P. Lanphear, MD, MPH; Veterans of Foreign Wars; Public Citizen; United States Senator Cory Booker; Heartland Health Research Alliance; Farmworker Justice, Farmworker Association of Florida, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Migrant Clinicians Network, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, and Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network; Texas, Florida and Ohio; Farmer and Farmworker Groups; New Mexico and Seventeen Other States; Naomi Oreskes and Alexander A. Kaurov; and, Roundup and Paraquat MDL Leadership. Plus, please see the original brief and supplement brief of respondent John L. Durnell.

Over 200 groups signed on to a joint statement endorsing the underlying principles and legal standards in the amicus brief being filed today. Please see Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards. 

In support of the positions taken in the amicus, over 200 grassroots, health, farm, farmworker, environmental, and consumer groups, socially responsible corporations, over 340 citizens from 46 states, and international partners signed on to a statement calling for policymakers to uphold chemical company liability for harming but not warning people who use their pesticide products.

Given deregulation and the dismantling of federal agency programs, advocates say chemical and allied industry campaigns in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress threaten to undermine the foundational rights of pesticide injury victims to seek restitution for harms caused by manufacturers’ products. Chief among the issues documented in the amicus brief are the numerous inadequacies of the pesticide registration standards and process of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which oversees minimum label warnings and language proposed by the registrants (chemical companies). (See here and here.) The brief critiques serious deficiencies in the regulatory review process, court findings vacating EPA’s decisions as flawed, and EPA-approved product labels that chemical companies use to hide pesticide effects that are known or should have been known to the chemical manufacturers.

Core Arguments in the Amicus Brief

Argument One: Monsanto Relies Heavily on EPA’s Glyphosate Registration Review while Ignoring that the Review Was Held Unlawful, Contrary to Core Cancer Science Standards, and Vacated by the Court.

This section of the brief can be separated into four main sub-arguments:

1. EPA has been irreconcilably inconsistent in its cancer-causing classification for glyphosate;
2. EPA has improperly written off the results of animal carcinogenicity studies;
3. EPA ignored its own expert scientific advisory panels as it related to following the agency’s own Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; and,
4. EPA was compelled to correct its own cancer risk assessment violations after the federal court’s vacating of the 2020 Registration Review.

In the brief, CFS points out that “Monsanto relies—over and over again—on EPA’s 2020 glyphosate registration review decision and the 2017 ‘not likely’ cancer classification on which that registration was based.” A three-judge panel of federal appeals court justices, Judges Friedland and Wallace of the Ninth Circuit and Judge Boggs of the Sixth Circuit, “held EPA’s human health risk assessment was fundamentally flawed in its substance, as well as contrary to law and violative of well-settled cancer science standards.” In this context, the amicus brief critiques their arguments, as follows:

Response 1: In the first response to Bayer/Monsanto’s argument, the brief calls out the inconsistent decisions that EPA has taken in its designation of glyphosate as “not likely to cause cancer.” EPA relied on its 2005 Cancer Guidelines to inform the 2020 registration decision, as well as its 2017 human health risk assessment and its 2017 Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential (“Cancer Paper”). In the Cancer Paper, EPA determined that “the association between glyphosate exposure and risk of [non-Hodgkin Lymphoma] cannot be determined based on the available evidence.” This contradicts the Cancer Guidelines classification of “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” since it only applies when the data “is robust” enough to back up the position that there is “no basis for human hazard concern.”

Response 2: The second response highlights EPA’s clash with its own Cancer Guidelines by discounting “all tumors observed in animal studies as not being ‘treatment-related’ by improperly tipping the scales in favor of glyphosate” on four counts. The first count references the use of “historical-control data” in which EPA selectively chose data to “discount studies indicating that glyphosate my cause tumors” even though the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) responsible for reviewing the 2017 Cancer Paper concluded that there were “numerous instances in which historical-control data could add weight to tumor findings, but EPA never used the data in that manner.” The second count highlights “EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the SAP had pointed out to EPA that its draft assessments had improperly discounted tumor incidents only because they were not statistically significant in pairwise comparison tests, ‘when those same tumor incidences were apparently statistically significant using trend tests.’” The third count highlights EPA’s disregard of tumor results in lab animals with higher doses of glyphosate, where EPA once again violated its own Cancer Guidelines by “claiming that the tumor results were ‘not considered relevant to human health risk assessment based on the currently registered use pattern’” even though the agency is charged to “first identify carcinogenic effects and mode of action, so that later steps can determine the risk of cancer based on human exposure levels.” The fourth count spotlights that “EPA improperly relied on a purported ‘limit dose’ of 1,000 mg/kg/day, that neither the Cancer Guidelines nor EPA’s Health Effects Test Guidelines supported.” The SAP also arrived at a similar conclusion.

Response 3: The third response, which was already alluded to in some of the previous analysis, posits that “the registration decision ‘fails to abide by the [Cancer] Guidelines,’ despite EPA’s repeated invocation of them.”

Response 4: The fourth response highlights the serious nature in which EPA’s 2020 Registration Review is in federal court. In this context, it is important to note that “EPA has not made a court-upheld carcinogenicity determination for over thirty-three years,” going back to its 1993 Reregistration Eligibility Decision. 

For additional analysis, please see the previous Daily News here and here.

Argument Two: Monsanto’s Undue Influence Tainted EPA’s Assessment

There are several examples of pesticide industry interference with the regulatory system, specifically regarding EPA’s registration review process for active ingredients, like glyphosate. The brief highlights a 2021 report by The Intercept, The Department of Yes, as well as a 2019 investigative piece by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) and Carey Gillam, Monsanto Exec Reveals $17 Million Budget For Anti-IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer], Pro-Glyphosate Efforts, highlighting some examples of the decades-long pattern of regulatory corruption. These are just examples of various other reporting and investigations that highlight the following takeaways:

• “Ghostwriting purportedly independent scientific papers;
• enlisting EPA officials in charge of the registration review to undermine the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) “probably carcinogenic to humans” cancer risk determination and achieve “not likely to be carcinogenic” and “no risks to human health” determinations from EPA;
• working to “kill” or suppress other independent scientific research; and
• extraordinary broad efforts to influence the public and media discourse.”

The brief also references the 2025 retraction of what was once considered a landmark study on glyphosate used to refute its links to cancer-causing effects. Beyond Pesticides covered the significance of this retraction in the context of public record and related investigations into EPA corruption in a previous Daily News, Scientific Deception by Monsanto/Bayer on Display with Retraction of Landmark Glyphosate Safety Study. The study was revealed as being ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, with the data based only on unpublished studies from Monsanto, ignoring data from studies that more thoroughly evaluated chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity. The recent retraction “came years after internal corporate documents first revealed in 2017 that Monsanto employees were heavily involved in drafting the paper,” which is one of several examples in which researchers and journalists have exposed “the many ways Monsanto manipulated the scientific record, influenced regulatory agencies, interfered in the peer-review process and used deceptive tactics to shape how regulators and the public view glyphosate,” Stacy Malkan of USRTK writes. This builds on a 2022 report, Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide, exposing not only Bayer/Monsanto malfeasance in its “promotion” of its glyphosate-based herbicide products, including the notorious Roundup®, but also, the broader landscape of corporate efforts to white- or green-wash products that companies know are harmful to people and the environment. (See Daily News here.)

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

• “At least $9.19 million on federal lobbying in [2025]”;
• “16 key administration officials with ties to Bayer’s lobbying or legal network. Bayer and its lobbyists have access to people in power at the White House, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and even those in high level positions closest to Trump”;
• “45 people registered to lobby for Bayer under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and at least 13 outside lobby firms – seven of which are now among the highest-paid firms in D.C”; and,
• “More than 30 senior officials at lobby firms retained by Bayer have direct ties to Trump, having worked in one or both of his administrations or political campaigns.”

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

Argument Three: EPA’s Current Treatment of Pesticide Product Labels and Cancer Risk

This section of the brief can be isolated into two main sub-arguments:

1. EPA approves carcinogenic pesticides without cancer warnings on their product labels; and
2. Cancer risk assessments are not addressed by the vast majority of pesticide product labels.

On the first count, the brief highlights two recent analyses of EPA’s registration process, finding “EPA frequently approves potentially carcinogenic pesticides, but virtually never provides cancer warnings for users.” The first analysis conducted by CFS found that out of the 570 active ingredients (the ingredient in the formulation that manufacturers claim targets the organism) tested for carcinogenic potential since 1985, over one-third (35%) EPA classified as “possible human carcinogens”/ “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” (127) or as “probable/likely” human carcinogens,” while the labels do reflect this information for the most part. In a second review at the pesticide product level conducted by Center for Biological Diversity, there was a review of “more than 93,000 historic and currently approved pesticide labels for all active, so-called ‘end-use’ pesticide products currently available.” Cancer warnings appeared on “only 242 of the 22,147 pesticide labels (1 percent) that contain an ingredient the agency has designated as having ‘possible’ or “suggestive’ evidence of carcinogenic potential.” For pesticide products EPA designated as “probable” or “likely” carcinogenic to humans, only 69 of 4,919 product labels had cancer warnings.

For the second count, the brief underscores that “EPA only conducts scientific assessments of toxicity, including carcinogenicity, at the active ingredient level.” It continues: “EPA’s approval of registrant-drafted pesticide product labels does not include a cancer risk assessment, let alone any ‘findings’ by EPA of cancer safety.” Since the registrant is charged with supplying EPA with relevant information for label changes, it is important to note that EPA does not ask for a cancer warning nor “evaluates whether one is warranted.” EPA relies on existing data from the underlying registration to make its determinations, which in this case is the 1993 registration eligibility document.

Argument Four: EPA’s Pesticide Risk Review Is Neither Rigorous nor Continuous, Contrary to Monsanto’s Claims

This section of the brief can be isolated into three main sub-arguments:

1. “Conditional” registrations underscore a gaping hole in the pesticide registration review process;
2. Regardless of conditional or unconditional, there are major gaps in the risk assessment process in terms of testing whole formulation, failure to assess dermal exposure, consideration of acute versus chronic harms, and waivers of “required” studies, among others; and,
3. EPA’s enforcement failure, delay, and inaction, particularly on glyphosate and other active ingredients.

In terms of the first count of this argument, the latest analysis publicly available is from a Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2013, which found that, “EPA staff have misused the term ’conditional registration,’ incorrectly classifying pesticide registrations as conditional when, for example, they require a label change, which is not a basis in statute for a conditional registration.” The Natural Resources Defense Council (2013) found that “as many as 65 percent of more than 16,000 pesticides were first approved for the market using this [conditional registration] loophole.” Both reports indicate that the actual number of conditional registrations is difficult to gauge. The brief continues: “While EPA claims to be improving these systems, its product registration database shows that from 2011 to 2023, 49% of EPA-issued product registrations were still conditional.” What was meant to be the exception has become the norm, undermining trust in the rigor of the registration review process more broadly.

The second count delves into a variety of issues with the pesticide registration review process, which can be explored further in depth starting on page 32 of the brief. Beyond Pesticides has covered gaps in the registration review process extensively, including requirements that EPA conduct a registration review of all pesticide active ingredients every 15 years. As Beyond Pesticides has stated, EPA’s rationale for registration review—that “science is constantly evolving, and new scientific information can come to light at any time and change our understanding of potential effects from pesticides,”—should guide the agency in its decisions, especially when previous decisions have depended on limited actual data, data waiver request rationales, and purported absence of new data or adverse incidents reported. 

While Beyond Pesticides advocates for the allowance of substances compatible with organic standards that are protective of human health, biodiversity, and healthy ecosystems, it urges EPA to establish rigorous standards in its registration review of all materials. Currently, there is not only an absence of consideration for alternatives when reviewing pesticide active ingredients but also a lack of full consideration for endocrine disruption, endangered species, chemically sensitive populations, “inert” ingredients, aggregate and cumulative risks, and synergistic effects, just to name a few. (See more on regulatory deficiencies and EPA failures here and here.)

Scientists and advocates have long asked EPA to evaluate and regulate full formulations of pesticides, and their mixtures, instead of assessing active ingredients singularly. As the body of knowledge evolves, so must the systems for assessments that are meant to inform decisions that have a wide impact on human and ecosystem health, advocates say. The complex interactions among pesticide mixtures are not fully understood but represent a significant threat to human health. EPA fails to adequately regulate mixtures of chemicals to which organisms are exposed in the real world and risk assessments continue to be highly criticized as inadequately addressing the full range of adverse effects that put human health and the health of all organisms at risk. For more information, see Daily News Human Health Disregarded with Obsolete Regulations and Risk Management, Researchers Find.

The third count, simply put, highlights that EPA has failed to abide by its own standards in terms of reviewing pesticides every 15 years to determine whether they are still in compliance with FIFRA. “Despite its first approval in 1974, and a drastic increase in use and critical scientific evidence since 1993, EPA has yet to complete even one (lawful) registration review for the most widely used pesticide on the planet,” says the amicus brief. The amicus also references various other active ingredients that have failed to undergo full reviews, including dicamba, 2,4-D, and carbaryl. Monsanto claims that registrants are charged with reporting adverse effects of their registered products; however, “that does not include a warning trigger or even label review. This duty is only as useful as what the registrants choose to submit and includes no affirmative mechanism to update labeling.”

Over the lifetime of EPA’s existence, the agency has only canceled between 37 and 40 active ingredients, with EPA only issuing emergency suspensions twice in its history (the herbicides Dacthal (DCPA) in 2024 and 2,4,5-T, one of the building blocks of chemical weapon Agent Orange, in 1979). See Daily News here for further details on the significance of the Dacthal suspension.

The Chemical Manufacturer Controls the Label, Ultimately

Despite having information on pesticide carcinogenicity, EPA does not require, under its minimum standards of disclosure on the pesticide product label, anything other than warnings of acute or shorter-term effects of pesticides and related mitigation measures like personal protective equipment. This means that more comprehensive label warnings must be requested by the chemical manufacturer registering the pesticide that knows or should know of the longer-term effects. The brief states: “Contrary to Monsanto’s misrepresentations, EPA’s approval of registrant-drafted pesticide product labels does not include a cancer risk assessment, let alone any ‘findings’ by EPA of cancer safety. They simply refer back to the underlying registration decision (here, from 33+ years ago). Under EPA’s regulations, registrants effectively control the label, not EPA, and if they don’t ask for a cancer warning, EPA never evaluates whether one is warranted.”

Call to Action

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

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

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

Source: CFS et al. Amicus Brief

(Beyond Pesticides, April 1, 2026) Researchers at the University of Washington and members of the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board published a commentary piece in Clinical Therapeutics highlighting the growing inadequacy of state-level regulatory safeguards for pesticide contamination of cannabis products. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is unable to assess pesticide residues, nor is it permitted to set tolerance limits under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), because, according to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), cannabis is a Schedule 1 narcotic, meaning there is “no accepted medical use.” As a result, EPA cannot conduct a full assessment of pesticide exposure associated with inhalation, ingestion, and dermal (skin) adsorption. There is an ongoing rescheduling process that was proposed in 2024 and followed up with an executive order in late 2025 to transition cannabis toward Schedule III status, suggesting that there would be an opening for EPA to promulgate rulemaking to support state-level regulations if it were to move forward.

An analysis of active legislation in state legislatures for the 2026 session highlights the concerns—at least 14 states (including Connecticut, California, Georgia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) had bills to modify or introduce systems for monitoring and assessing pesticide residues in medical and/or recreational cannabis.

Farmers, public health and environmental advocates, and medical cannabis users continue to call for a transition to organic cannabis production to ensure that consumers are not victimized with long-term health effects associated with pesticide poisoning via multiple exposure pathways, including inhalation, ingestion, and dermal. Medical cannabis users are an at-risk subpopulation who are prescribed the product for an adverse health effect or chronic health conditions, which emphasizes the importance of regulations that require a cumulative risk assessment that aggregates dietary and nondietary exposure, including any residues in the cannabis. Without this assessment, as required by law, Beyond Pesticides has told states that allowing anything other than organic cannabis production practices puts users at serious risk from pesticide exposure.

Background and Review

The study provides a lay-of-the-land for state-level regulations on pesticides as of February 2026, highlighting the risk of adverse health effects associated with pesticide exposure for medical cannabis consumers, and including recommendations for policy, medical, and research priorities in this area. Since this analysis was not developed solely for academic purposes, it relies on a partnership with “researchers at the regulatory agency that oversees enforcement and rules of cannabis pesticide use; a microbiologist at the health agency which administers the Medical Cannabis Program; a chemist at the agriculture agency that oversees pesticide testing and the accreditation of the cannabis testing laboratories; and an established Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) working as a primary care physician and clinical instructor at the University of Washington.”

Similar to EPA’s hamstrung authority to set “allowable levels of pesticide residues” for cannabis products (including medical cannabis), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are unable to track pesticide contamination due to its status as a Schedule I narcotic by the Department of Justice. In this context, state governments have leaned on EPA limits for other crops perceived as analogous to cannabis production or setting up a unique threshold system for each active ingredient, such as Oregon Health Authority’s four-stage criteria developed by health professionals in 2015: (1) general human toxicity, (2) analytical capability, (3) detection frequency in cannabis, and (4) pesticide availability. Several other states, including Washington, adopted this system, although the focus was limited to 59 active ingredients (out of over 1,200 active ingredients registered with EPA.)

Because of the multiple exposure patterns, including inhalation, of any pesticides used in cannabis production, establishing exposure patterns based on pesticide uses on other crops raises potential exposure assessment gaps. The authors acknowledge these research and policy gaps and the multiple exposure pathways specific to cannabis products, addressed in more detail in  the next section.) The researchers also cite the potential for byproducts from “combustion or heating” of cannabis. One peer-reviewed study they referenced includes myclobutanil, “a fungicide that decomposes into several toxic byproducts when heated, such as hydrogen cyanide.” The researchers cite various studies highlighting the disproportionate effects of pesticide contamination in medical cannabis among patients who are already immunocompromised. A study, published in Current Research in Toxicology, reviewed state-level data across 33 states and the District of Columbia on this intersection and found that “pesticides [were] detected in legal cannabis products had known neurotoxic, endocrine disrupting, or carcinogenic properties, raising concerns for medical cannabis patients with neurological diseases.”

There is also evidence, as published in Annals of Work Exposures and Health, that “medical cannabis products may have higher levels of pesticides than nonmedical products” based on Oregon medical cannabis and pesticide residue data, finding that “medical products had mean residual pesticide concentrations that were 3– 12 times higher than nonmedical products.”

The authors arrive at the following high-level conclusions in their commentary:

• Many state regulatory agencies, in the context of federal inaction, have set up pesticide residue testing for medical cannabis, however they lack “(1) cannabis-specific human health research to inform pesticide regulations and (2) the capacity to conduct their own pesticide health research, including research using products being sold in their state.”
• A national coalition must be formed to “share best practices and latest research, identify funding opportunities and areas for increasing efficiency and collaboration, and prioritize research efforts that would be most impactful to informing cannabis policymaking and regulatory decisions around pesticides.”
• With the explosion of medical cannabis legalization across the country, studies are needed to consider “the route of administration” (with consideration around burning/combustion), product type (flower, oil, edibles, etc.) to consider exposure pathway(s), and dosing (frequency and concentration of cannabinoids like THC).
• Health professionals, in research and practice, should assess “if people with qualifying health conditions for medical cannabis are at higher risk of exposure to pesticides as well as downstream adverse consequences of chronic exposure to those pesticides.” It is important to note that they recommend consideration of “risk of aggregate cumulative exposures that could come from exposure to multiple, similar, or different classes of pesticides from multiple routes since the health risks of pesticides are often accumulated over time from various sources.”

Previous Coverage

California became one of the first states in the country to establish a residue testing system for pesticides in 2018. (See Daily News here.) There are some experts concerned that the state has not gone far enough in protecting the public from harmful pesticides. Among them is Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. In particular, he says, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) calculation of allowable residues on ingestible products lacks a key scientific consideration. “If this were registered under a federal system, what the agency would have to do is perform an aggregate risk assessment for chemicals that have a common method of toxicity,” he notes in Into the Weeds: Regulating Pesticides in Cannabis, a research article in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Since 2015, Beyond Pesticides has laid out health, safety, and environmental concerns related to the contamination of cannabis by pesticides (and fertilizers) alongside the need to mandate an organic systems approach to cannabis production. Yet ten years later, it appears nationally that California state regulators were alone in 2021 in moving forward with state organic cannabis certification. There are other marketplace-based cannabis certification labels that require comparable organic certification practices (see Beyond Pesticides reporting here and here). For more information, please see past Pesticides and You reporting here and here.

Months after publishing a June 2024 study regarding concentrations of pesticides discovered in legal (and illegal) cannabis products in California, the Los Angeles Times released a follow-up exposé highlighting extensive pesticide contamination, including from “hidden” pesticides that regulators have not monitored. The authors conclude that in California’s legal weed market, over half of the available smoking products are found to contain hidden chemicals—toxic pesticides present in products but not regulated or monitored by state authorities.

The Los Angeles Times analyzed the results from state-licensed laboratory testing of more than 370 legal cannabis products, representing 86 brands. In addition to the 66 chemicals required under California’s mandatory screening requirements, as described below, the laboratories screened for more than 290 additional pesticides: in total, 79 toxic chemicals were found in the products tested, 45 of which tested positive in cannabis products specifically. All but one of these “hidden pesticides” are prohibited from use on cannabis plants due to failing to meet California’s “use criteria” (see here and here).

Limited research exists on the safety of these pesticides when burned and inhaled. While pesticides used in tobacco production is often used as a reference for allowing pesticide use in cannabis production, a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report over two decades ago flatly stated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not fully evaluate residues in inhaled tobacco smoke “because of the severity and quantity of health effects associated with the use of tobacco products themselves.” 

The contaminants discovered in cannabis in California include the following insecticides:

• chlorfenapyr 2,000 times over the EPA-permitted residue level and an insecticide that is not allowed for use in food or California cannabis;
• pymetrozine (839 times over the permitted residue level or EPA criteria), an insecticide not required for screening in California;
• trifloxystrobin (488 times over the permitted residue level or EPA criteria), a fungicide and known endocrine disruptor and developmental toxin;
• 2-phyenylphenol (268 times over the permitted residue level or EPA criteria), a fungicide, disinfectant, and carcinogen; and
• bifenazate (237 times over the permitted residue level or EPA criteria), a restricted-use miticide that is a questionable developmental and reproductive toxin and endocrine disruptor.

In the California black market of illegally sold cannabis, the Los Angeles Times article concludes that of the 16 products tested from unlicensed sellers, roughly half are contaminated above the legal limits. However, unregulated products are more likely to contain one or more of the 66 regulated chemicals, whereas regulated products are more likely to contain one or more “hidden” chemicals, for which there is no required screening.

The list of 66 pesticides on the state’s required screening list includes 21 Category I pesticides, which are banned for use on cannabis due to significant risk—any chemical detection results in a failed test. The 45 Category II pesticides have specific “action levels” for ingestible and inhalable products, where use is allowed under certain conditions if residue levels remain below the prescribed limits. For example, the insecticide bifenthrin, a possible human carcinogen, and acephate, a neurotoxic organophosphate insecticide widely banned around the world (see here). Note: the list of what is required for screening does not encompass all the chemicals that may legally be used on cannabis crops. (See Daily News here.)

The problem is not isolated to California. Marijuana regulators in the state of Washington issued administrative holds on at least 18 licenses due to pesticide-contaminated marijuana in 2023, forcing producers and processors to cease operations until now. This shutdown of legal marijuana businesses serves as a window into a broader historical backdrop of pesticide issues within the marijuana industry. Within Washington, pesticide concerns have been growing since a study in 2018 of legal marijuana farms in the state had 84.6% (of 26 samples) with significant quantities of pesticides, including insecticides, fungicides, miticides, and herbicides. Last year, a national study identified a list of contaminants in 36 states and the District of Columbia and found 551 pesticides in cannabis products.

For additional coverage on the history of pesticide and cannabis regulations in the U.S., please see the previous Pesticides and You article from 2015, Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options.

Call to Action

For decades, Beyond Pesticides has sounded the alarm about the highly-concentrated levels of pesticides in marijuana products, calling on state officials to require organic criteria for marijuana production and handling, especially in the context of medical marijuana.

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

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

Source: Clinical Therapeutics

(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 been harmed but not warned about pesticide product hazards. It has taken the strategy to 15 states to adopt legislation that provides immunity from litigation (prevailing in two and possibly a third), the U.S. Congress, and now the Supreme Court. For more information on the chemical industry’s state campaign for a liability shield, go to Failure-to-Warn Resource Guide.

Monsanto Supreme Court Brief
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 main arguments in the Monsanto brief include: “FIFRA Expressly Preempts Durnell’s Failure-To-Warn Claim”; “FIFRA Impliedly Preempts Durnell’s Failure To-Warn Claim”; and, “Preemption Of Durnell’s Claims Is Critical To American Agriculture And Innovation.” For more detailed analysis of Monsanto’s position, see Monsanto Brief Introduced as U.S. Supreme Court Considers Liability Immunity for Pesticide Manufacturers.

The Farm Bill
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. See Farm Bill Strips Protections from Pesticides for Farmers, Consumers, and the Environment.

Glyphosate Weed Killer Called a National Security Need
After President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950 and issued an Executive Order (EO), Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides, U.S. Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) stood up to say “no.” They introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (HR 7601) to undo the February 18 Executive Order, which is now being supported by a campaign to urge Congressional Representatives to cosponsor the bill. With the EO’s declaration that contains no supporting documentation or findings, the U.S. government is granting Bayer/Monsanto immunity from lawsuits for adverse health effects or damage associated with the production, transportation, use, and disposal of the weed killer glyphosate. See Bipartisan Bill Challenges Trump Giving Bayer/Monsanto Liability Immunity for Glyphosate Harm.

A History of Failure to Warn
Two analyses published on March 30, 2026 highlight the repeated failures of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to incorporate warnings on pesticide products for adverse health effects, such as cancer, even when the agency finds high risks. The analyses, authored by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and the Center for Biodiversity (CBD), were released in a press release entitled New Analyses: EPA Consistently Fails to Warn Public of Pesticide Cancer Risks. The analyses calls attention to the abundance of scientific evidence that links currently approved and legacy pesticide active ingredients to carcinogenic effects. (See analyses here and here.)

CFS’ analysis “found that pesticides have been allowed on the market with a cancer risk as high as one in every 100 people exposed, a far greater level than the EPA’s benchmark of a one in a million chance of developing cancer” and that, “Over the last 40 years, the EPA has approved 200 active ingredients that are ‘likely’ or ‘possible’ carcinogens.” The report by CBD adds to this, finding that EPA includes cancer warnings “on only 69 of 4,919 pesticide labels (1.4%) containing an active ingredient that the agency has designated a ‘likely’ human carcinogen,” as well on “just 242 of the 22,147 pesticide labels (1.1%) that contain an ingredient the agency has designated as a ‘possible’ human carcinogen.”

Pesticide labels are meant to convey warnings about pesticide active ingredients yet fail to include a variety of adverse health effects that are shown in the wide body of peer-reviewed, scientific literature. Current pesticide labels do not adequately capture the data on human health and environmental effects of the actual products on the market. (See Daily News Study Finds Pesticide Product Labels Fail to Convey Toxic Effects to Consumers.) As the press release notes: “Both analyses found that the vast majority of cancer warnings on pesticides come from obligations under Proposition 65 in California, which requires warnings on products, including pesticides, that contain hazardous levels of chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm. However, most Americans are not adequately warned about products’ known cancer risks.”

Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards statement
The chemical industry is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse decades of jurisprudence and shield manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticide adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses. Briefs are due in the case by April 1, and oral arguments will be heard on April 27, with a decision anticipated in June.

The case before the Supreme Court, Monsanto v. Durnell, 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 product label. After years of litigation, Bayer/Monsanto has been held to account by juries for the cancer-causing effects of its weed killer glyphosate (Roundup^TM). While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not recognize glyphosate to be cancer-causing, the International Agency for Research on Cancer finds it to be “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Because Monsanto sought to hide behind a weak regulatory review process, juries have issued verdicts that held the company responsible for failing to warn of the chemical product’s potential adverse effects. The Durnell case resulted in a jury verdict (in 2023) of $1.25 million, while the total number of jury verdicts and settlements may amount to over $10 billion in liability if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts and over a hundred thousand additional plaintiffs make the same claim.  

The chemical industry is seeking liability immunity under federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), questioning whether compliance with that law, in the Court’s words, “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.” If successful, the Court would be overturning (reversing) its 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, 544 U.S. 431 (see analysis), which affirmed EPA’s approved label as minimum protection, without releasing manufacturers of the responsibility to seek approval for a label that exceeds EPA’s minimum. 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.” In an age of deregulation, the ability to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for warning of hazards is the keystone to minimum protection of public health. Accountability in the courts serves the interest of farmers, farmworkers, consumers, and those potentially exposed to pesticide products, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily. 

We, the undersigned, believe that the Supreme Court must affirm the current law that holds chemical manufacturers liable when they do not warn consumers on the product label about potential hazards associated with the use of their products. 

Signatories below:

ORGANIZATIONAL SIGN-ONS

100 Grannies for a Liveable Future, Iowa 
350 Bay Area Action, California 
A Voice For Choice Advocacy, California 
Acterra: Action for a Healthy Planet, California 
Aggie Perilli Communications International, Pennsylvania 
Alpenfire Orchards, LLC, Washington 
Agricultural Justice Project, New York 
Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Alaska 
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Maryland 
American Bird Conservancy, District of Columbia 
American Sustainable Business Network, District of Columbia 
Americlense Technologies, Massachusetts 
Angela’s Pure Salon & Spa, Florida 
Arkansas Valley Audubon Society, Colorado 
Athens County’s Future Action Network (ACFAN), Ohio 
Baltimore Real Estate Investors Association (REIA), Maryland 
Barnstable County Beekeepers Association, Massachusetts 
Bear Warriors United, Inc., Florida 
Bee Friendly Michigan, Michigan 
Bee Friendly Williamstown, Massachusetts 
Bee Kind Apiary, LLC, Hawai’i 
Beyond Pesticides, District of Columbia  
Bell Family Homestead, Michigan 
BloomHouse Earth School Warriors, Florida 
Boss Bodyworks, Texas 
Boston Area Beekeepers Association, Massachusetts 
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, California 
Cabbages & Kings Catering, Connecticut 
Californians for Pesticide Reform, California 
Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund, District of Columbia 
Carl H Ebert & Associates, Illinois 
Carolina Advocates for Climate, Health, and Equity, North Carolina 
Center for Environmental Health, California 
Center for Food Safety, District of Columbia 
Center for Progressive Reform, District of Columbia 
Champlain Valley Apiaries, Vermont
Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility, Maryland
Church Women United, New York 
Citizens for a Clean Black Lake, Washington 
Clean + Healthy, New York 
CleanEarth4Kids.org, California 
Clean Water Action, California 
Clear Creek Land & Livestock, Nebraska 
Community Alliance for Global Justice, Washington 
Community for Natural Play Surfaces, California 
Cumberland-Harpeth Audubon Society, Tennessee 
Desert Herbals, LLC, New Mexico 
Droughtscape LA, California 
Eden Foods, Michigan 
Ekō, California 
Elders Climate Action (ECA) Northern California Chapter, California 
Elders Climate Action [ECA] Southern California Chapter, California 
Energymugs, Nevada 
Environmental & Public Health Consulting, California 
Environmental Site Developers, Inc., Connecticut 
Everyday Advocates, Florida 
Families Advocating for Chemicals & Toxics Safety (FACTS), California 
Farmworker Association of Florida, Florida 
FITNALL, Tennessee 
Food and Water Watch, District of Columbia 
For a Better Bayou, Louisiana 
Forest Creek Studios, Oregon 
Friends of Cathedral Trees Sanctuary, Oregon 
Friends of the Earth, District of Columbia 
Frith Music, California 
Flying Rocks Farm, California 
Gardeners Without Borders, Florida 
Global Green Initiative, Michigan 
GMO Free Kaua’i, Hawai’i 
GMO Science, California 
GMO/Toxin Free USA, Connecticut 
Good Neighbor Community Builders, California 
Gordon Hill Farm, LLC, Montana 
Grassroots Environmental Education, New York 
Green America, District of Columbia 
Green Oakwood, Ohio 
Green Party of St. Louis, Missouri 
Green State Solutions, Iowa 
Grow Native Massachusetts, Massachusetts 
Grow Safe: Non-Toxic Missoula, Montana 
Hawai’i Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Hawai’i 
Hawai’i SEED, Hawai’i 
Hillhouse Farms, Virginia 
Institute for Responsible Technology, Iowa 
Intheshadowofthewolf, Connecticut 
Iowa Alliance for Responsible Agriculture, Iowa 
IPM Associates, Inc., Oregon 
James’ 1Solar, California 
Jared Schreck LLC, Pennsylvania 
Jazz SLAM, Florida 
Jefferson County Farmers & Neighbors, Inc., Iowa 
Jim Schulman, Architect, District of Columbia 
Josie Hill Rentals, California 
Jpritikin Industries, Inc., Oregon 
Latino Farmers & Ranchers International, Inc., Maryland 
Lawrence Bird Alliance, Kansas 
Learning Disabilities Association of America, Pennsylvania 
Lindsay Suter Architects, Connecticut 
Livingston Law Firm, Illinois 
Local Food Production Initiative, Alabama 
Los Angeles Climate Reality Project, California  
Los Gatos Almaden Pollinator Garden, California 
Los Jardines Institute, New Mexico 
LT Enterprises, Tennessee 
Maddog Farm, Massachusetts 
Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, Maine 
Marion Audubon Society, Kansas 
Maryland Children’s Environmental Health Coalition, Maryland 
Maryland Ornithological Society, Maryland 
Maryland Pesticide Education Network, Maryland 
Massachusetts Beekeepers Association, Inc., Massachusetts 
Massachusetts Pollinator Network, Massachusetts 
McDaniel Honey Farm, Maryland 
Mellon Farm, California 
Mercury Press Inc., California 
Mindflow Media, Tennessee 
Minnesota River Valley Audubon Chapter, Minnesota 
Missouri River Bird Observatory, Missouri 
Monroe Science Educational Services, Maryland 
Morningstar NEWS, Texas 
Mosquito Brigade, Florida 
Mothers Out Front, National, Massachusetts 
Natural Grocers, Colorado 
Naturalist For You, California 
Naturepedic Organic Mattresses, Ohio 
New Day Landmark Collective, Arkansas 
New Earth Home and Garden, Michigan 
Non Toxic Communities, New Hampshire 
Non Toxic Portsmouth, New Hampshire 
Norfolk County Beekeepers Association, Massachusetts 
Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Massachusetts 
Northeast Organic Farming Association, Interstate Council, New York 
Northeast Organic Farming Association, Massachusetts Chapter, Massachusetts 
Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire (NOFA-NH), New Hampshire 
Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey (NOFA NJ), New Jersey 
Northstar Nurseries, Washington 
Northwest Arkansas Audubon Society, Arkansas 
Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, Oregon 
Oasis Spiritual Coaching & Shamanic Healing, Pennsylvania 
Orange Grove Friends Meeting, Community Garden, California 
Pamela Hall Real Estate, LLC, Florida 
People Organized in Defense of Earth and Her Resources (PODER), Texas 
Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN), California 
Piermont Marsh Alliance, New York 
Piermont Pier Alliance New York 
Pikes Peak Permaculture, Colorado 
Plant-Based Advocates, California 
Pollinator Friendly Alliance, Minnesota 
Pollinator Stewardship Council, Colorado 
Portland Protectors, Maine 
People and Pollinators Action Network (PPAN), Colorado 
Progressive Action Coalition for Equity (PACE), Minnesota 
Project Reuse, Hawai’i 
Protect Our Pollinators, Connecticut 
Protect the Peninsula’s Future, Washington 
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Maryland 
Rachel Carson Council, Maryland 
Replenishing the Earth, Missouri 
Responsible Growth Management Coalition, Florida 
Re:wild Your Campus, Texas 
Russo Construction Company, California 
Saint Charles Borromeo Center for Homelessness & Healing, Oregon 
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, California 
San Francisco Forest Alliance, California 
SAS Holdings, LLC, Oregon 
Save the Park, California 
Seven Springs Farm Supply, Virginia 
Shenandoah Valley Faith and Climate, Virginia 
S.O. Bees, Washington 
Somewhere In Time, Florida 
Steve Savitz, Artist, New York 
St. Louis No Spray Coalition, Missouri 
Stockbridge Farmers Market, Massachusetts 
SS Enterprises, Montana 
St. Denis Studio, New York 
Stop Developing Florida, Florida 
Sudi McCollum Design, California 
Sumkina Bait Company, Georgia 
Sun-Up Farm, West Virginia 
Sustainability Solutions, Vermont 
Susie Q. Zoo, Inc., Florida 
SWFL Reset Center, Florida
T. Payne Farms, Illinois
The Kitteh Spa, Florida 
The Last Plastic Straw, California 
Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, Texas 
The Coming Clean network, Vermont 
The Paw Shop, Missouri 
Tonia Noelle Studio, Illinois 
Topanga Peace Alliance, California 
Toxic Free NC, North Carolina  
Treehouse Festival, California 
Vessel Project of Louisiana, Louisiana 
WE CAN U & ME, INC, Florida 
Web of Life Products, Colorado 
Wilco Justice Alliance, Texas 
Wildcreek Productions, California 
Wisconsin Organics, Wisconsin  
Wolfgang Metals Services, Pennsylvania 
Vanaheim Farm, Colorado 
Veggielution, California 
Vessel Project of Louisiana, Louisiana 
Yard Smart Marin, California 
Zapped Films LLC, Arizona 

International 

Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren, Germany 
Conexiones Cimaticas, Mexico 
Corporate Europe Conservatory, Belgium 
Safe Food Matters, Inc., Canada  

Plus, 340 individual signatories from 46 states 

(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 (Roundup^TM).

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/Roundup^TM. 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, but does not release companies from their responsibility to disclose all potential adverse effects that it knows or should have known about.

Health and environmental advocates say that with weak federal pesticide law and ongoing deregulation and dismantling of regulatory agencies, accountability in the courts is the last backstop for warning people about pesticide product hazards—creating an important degree of accountability and safety.  
 
For background on the case, see Monsanto Brief Introduced as U.S. Supreme Court Considers Liability Immunity for Pesticide Manufacturers.  
 
Beyond Pesticides explains that the sign-on statement is being circulated to express a united front against the disregard that chemical companies supporting this case have for human life and a sustainable environment. While there are several amicus briefs being filed by various health, environmental, farm and farmworker groups, space to join those briefs is extremely limited due to the permitted word count. The signatories to the statement are expressing the need for a legal standard, which current law has provided, that holds chemical companies accountable and incentives the development of safer products. 
  
The invitation to sign on the statement is open to all  organizations, companies, and institutions that wish to join.  

Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Case in Monsanto v. Durnell
The chemical industry is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse decades of jurisprudence and shield manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticide adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses. Briefs are due in the case by April 1, and oral arguments will be heard on April 27, with a decision anticipated in June.

The case before the Supreme Court, Monsanto v. Durnell, 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 product label. After years of litigation, Bayer/Monsanto has been held to account for the cancer-causing effects of its weed killer glyphosate (Roundup^TM). While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not recognize glyphosate to be cancer-causing, the International Agency for Research on Cancer finds it to be “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Because Monsanto sought to hide behind a weak regulatory review process, juries have issued verdicts that held the company responsible for failing to warn of the chemical product’s potential adverse effects. The Durnell case resulted in a jury verdict (in 2023) of $1.25 million, while the total number of jury verdicts and settlements may amount to over $10 billion in liability if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts and over a hundred thousand additional plaintiffs make the same claim.  

The chemical industry is seeking liability immunity under federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), questioning whether compliance with that law, in the Court’s words, “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.” If successful, the Court would be overturning (reversing) its 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, 544 U.S. 431 (see analysis), which affirmed EPA’s approved label as minimum protection, without releasing manufacturers of the responsibility to seek approval for a label that exceeds EPA’s minimum. 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.” In an age of deregulation, the ability to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for warning of hazards is the keystone to minimum protection of public health. Accountability in the courts serves the interest of farmers, farmworkers, consumers, and those potentially exposed to pesticide products, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily. 

We, the undersigned, believe that the Supreme Court must affirm the current law that holds chemical manufacturers liable when they do not warn consumers on the product label about potential hazards associated with the use of their products.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2026) In a study of birth outcomes in Arizona, published in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, researchers find that preconception and prenatal exposure to certain carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids increases the risk of lower Apgar scores, a metric used to assess neonatal health at one minute and five minutes after birth. The results reveal that exposure to “several pesticide active ingredients at any point during preconception and/or pregnancy were associated with increased odds of low Apgar scores: the carbamates carbaryl and formetanate hydrochloride; the organophosphates diazinon and tribufos; and the pyrethroid cypermethrin.”

This multi-institutional study, led by the University of Arizona with researchers from Harvard Chan School of Public Health and UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, provides novel insights, as it incorporates pesticide exposure over a 15-year period both before conception and throughout pregnancy.

“To analyze associations of preconception and prenatal exposures to carbamate, organophosphate, and pyrethroid pesticide classes and 25 individual active ingredients with newborn Apgar scores to evaluate the relationship between these exposures and neonatal health,” the authors explain. They continue: “We used pesticide use registry and birth certificate data from 2006 to 2020, linked as part of the Arizona Pregnant Women’s Environmental and Reproductive Outcomes Study (Az-PEARS). Exposures were measured as binary variables and defined as living within 500 m of an agricultural pesticide application during preconception (T0, 90 days before conception) and each trimester (T1–T3).”

Additional positive associations between lower Apgar scores are noted for ethephon, phorate, and beta-cyfluthrin during T0, methomyl during T1, and esfenvalerate and fenpropathrin during T2. This highlights how residential proximity to agricultural pesticide exposure can threaten infant health, even prior to conception.

Study Background

While previous research connects pesticide exposures to adverse health effects, such as in the reproductive, endocrine, nervous, and immune systems of the human body and particularly in children, “[f]ew studies have investigated how ambient preconception and prenatal exposures to pesticide active ingredients affect neonatal health, despite the importance of studying sensitive windows of exposure.” Many studies of infant health include assessing biomarkers from birth cohort studies, which can determine gestational exposures to certain pesticide classes, but have results only within a narrow window of time. (See research here and here.)

In referencing maternal residential proximity to pesticide use with Apgar scores in infants, this shows the connection between pre-birth pesticide exposure and neonatal health. Apgar scores, with the highest value being ten, are calculated for newborns one minute after birth and then again five minutes after birth by evaluating characteristics that include skin color, heart rate, reflexes, muscle tone, and breathing. “Previous studies have demonstrated that this scoring system may have predictive value for short-term brain damage and survivability in preterm infants,” the researchers share. (See studies here, here, and here.) Additional research suggests that Apgar scores less than seven predict neurological disorders and respiratory distress.

Methodology and Results

The state of Arizona is one of only two states, along with California, that have a legislatively mandated public pesticide use registry (PUR) database for tracking of commercial and agricultural applications. “This study used the state of Arizona’s PUR, linked to Arizona birth certificates, to analyze the association of residential proximity during preconception and pregnancy to carbamate, organophosphate, and pyrethroid pesticide classes and their specific active ingredients agriculturally applied from 2006 to 2020, with newborn five-minute Apgar scores,” the authors state.

To connect the use of agricultural pesticides in areas near where the mothers lived (within 500 m), the PUR records were compared with geocoded birth certificates, provided by Arizona’s Department of Health Services, along with data from the Arizona Pregnant Women’s Environmental and Reproductive Outcomes Study (Az-PEARS). The total sample size for the study includes 1,141,806 newborns and assesses exposure to a total of 25 active ingredients within the carbamate, organophosphate, and pyrethroid pesticide classes.

The Apgar scores were obtained from birth certificates. While this included both Apgar scores for one minute and five minutes after birth, the study focuses on Apgar scores taken five minutes after birth as they are “stronger predictors of neonatal survival compared to the one-minute score.” The researchers continue, saying: “We examined pesticide exposures occurring at any point during preconception and/or pregnancy (T0–T3) as well as exposures during specific exposure periods. Each model included pesticide active ingredients with at least five newborns exposed either during preconception and/ or in utero and having a low five-minute Apgar score (<8).”

As a result, a total of 24,272 newborns had a five-minute Apgar score below eight. Prior to conception, 5567 mothers were exposed to a carbamate, 16,344 were exposed to an organophosphate, and 26,059 were exposed to a pyrethroid pesticide based on residential proximity to an agricultural source. “Significant associations were found for the carbamates carbaryl and formetanate hydrochloride, the organophosphates diazinon and phorate, and the pyrethroids cyfluthrin, esfenvalerate, and zeta-cypermethrin,” the authors report. This provides evidence that agricultural exposure before and during pregnancy is positively associated with lower Apgar scores and could threaten infant health.

Study Limitations

While this study provides crucial insights into a specific area of science that has not been extensively researched, there are a few drawbacks that the researchers recognize and point out. The methodology does not take exposure to multiple pesticides into account, which is a more accurate representation of how exposure occurs since pesticide mixtures are encountered as opposed to single active ingredients one at a time.

The authors also note: “The limitations of this study include that only carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids applied at rates that allowed for statistical analysis with sufficient power were analyzed; therefore, some pesticide active ingredients within these pesticide classes and other pesticide classes were not addressed. Due to a lack of available data, other sources of pesticide exposures outside of agricultural applications, such as residential use, occupational use, and dietary exposures, were not considered.”

In an interview with 19th News, one of the lead authors on the study, Melissa Furlong, PhD, assistant professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Arizona, adds: “This is just one metric of exposure to these pesticides, but it’s concerning because the general population is still exposed to these ingredients… The research would have implications for household use and for residues on fruits and vegetables.”

Previous Research

While there is limited scientific literature connecting preconception and prenatal pesticide exposure to lower Apgar scores, there is a wide body of science linking pesticide exposures to adverse health outcomes in infants. (See Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News coverage on infants and children, as well as the Pesticide-Induced Diseases: Birth/Fetal Effects resource.)

Cited within the current study, this includes:

• Studies (see here and here) link preconception exposure to organochlorines and pyrethroids to the development of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
• “[P]reconception exposures to certain carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids are associated with stillbirth, which may be a response to neurological or other damage in the early prenatal period.” (See here.)
• Higher urinary levels of diethyldithiophosphate, a metabolite (breakdown product) of many organophosphate pesticides, can impact Apgar scores taken one minute and five minutes after birth. (See studies here and here.)
• Infants born to women with lower acetylcholinesterase (AChE) levels, who live in rural areas of Egypt, have lower Apgar scores taken at one minute and five minutes compared to infants born to women with normal AChE levels. (See here.)
• “Several epidemiological studies of prenatal carbamate, organophosphate, and pyrethroid pesticide exposures have found associations with neurological and behavioral outcomes… This includes an association with developmental delays, ASD, and reductions in full-scale Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and verbal comprehension scores.” (See research here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Beyond Pesticides’ Resources

Learn more about the Hazards of Pesticides for Children’s Health and why Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix. Preconception, prenatal, and the first few years of life are critical windows of exposure, known as “windows of vulnerability”, that can lead to life-long adverse health effects. The Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database facilitates access to epidemiologic and laboratory studies based on real-world exposure scenarios that link numerous categories of public health effects to pesticides while the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management provides information on specific pesticide active ingredients, as well as alternatives.

Make The Safer Choice and avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides to protect you and your family. Start by Eating with a Conscience and choosing organic food to protect not only health but the environment. Beyond Pesticides’ offers tips on Buying Organic Products (on a budget!) or you can Grow Your Own Organic Food.

Be part of the organic solution by helping to transition to a pesticide-free world. Support Beyond Pesticides’ mission by becoming a member or giving today!

Call to Action

Beyond Pesticides is inviting organizations, corporations, and institutions to sign-on to the attached statement on the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case in which 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/Roundup^TM. If Monsanto/Bayer wins, chemical companies will be able to legally withhold information on their pesticide product hazards.

With weak federal pesticide law, and ongoing deregulation and dismantling of regulatory agencies, accountability in the courts is the last backstop for warning people about pesticide product hazards—creating an important degree of accountability and safety.

For background on the case, please see Monsanto Brief Introduced as U.S. Supreme Court Considers Liability Immunity for Pesticide Manufacturers.

Beyond Pesticides is circulating this joint statement to express a united front against the disregard that chemical companies supporting this case have for human life and a sustainable environment. While there are several amicus briefs being filed by various groups, space to join those briefs is extremely limited due to the permitted word count. As an alternative and to amplify our voice, Beyond Pesticides will distribute this sign-on document to the media.

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

Source:

Yang, A. et al. (2026) Residential proximity to agricultural pesticide exposures during preconception and pregnancy and associations with Apgar scores in the Az-PEAR study (2006–2020), Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-026-00849-8.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2026) A review of pesticide exposure from a family member working in agriculture (“take-home” residues) finds that pesticide levels in the home are elevated between 2.6- and 3.7-times. This and other nonoccupational exposure data from homes are drawn from the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) prospective study of cancer and other health outcomes in a cohort of licensed pesticide applicators and their spouses from Iowa and North Carolina. Between 1993 and 1997, with follow-up between 1999 and 2021, AHS tracks occupational and nonoccupational exposure and subsequent health effects from pesticide exposure. The current study, published in Environmental Advances, reexamines a quantitative analysis on nontarget, “active-ingredient-specific” exposure to pesticides from multiple pathways—applying new criteria to AHS spousal exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos and the herbicide atrazine. The three pesticide exposure pathways include take-home, agricultural drift, and residential use.

Building on a 2019 study, researchers consider data from additional studies published between 2019 and 2024, “providing support that all three pathways contribute to pesticide exposure.” More importantly, the updated estimates of nontarget exposure to chlorpyrifos and atrazine are overall strengthened by the incorporation of new data, highlighting the pervasive nature of pesticides in the environment.

The secondary “take-home” exposure pattern highlighted in this study is not typically addressed in policy governing pesticide registration and the underlying risk assessments conducted under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). While FFDCA, in setting tolerances or allowable residues in food, requires a cumulative risk assessment for dietary and nondietary exposure to pesticides that have a common mechanism of toxicity (e.g., nervous system effects initiated by the inhibition of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase), take-home exposure is not included in the exposure calculus.

Methodology and Results

The goal of the original study, according to the authors (which include one of the lead authors, Nicole Deziel, PhD, of Yale School of Public Health, across both studies), was to develop “a data-driven algorithm for AHS spouses to estimate nonoccupational, active ingredient-specific, cumulative exposure in units of intensity-weighted days from multiple pathways.” The researchers use the same search terms to identify relevant peer-reviewed literature and systematic reviews from March 2015 to December 2024 to expand their review. They evaluate pesticide exposure measurement data based on indoor dust samples across the three pathways.

The algorithm was designed to assess relative differences (RDs) in the ratios of pesticide concentrations across different exposure scenarios. For example, RDs for agricultural drift exposure assess the ratio of pesticide concentrations between homes with or without occupational exposure to a spouse or household member. For more details, please see the Methods section, including the subsection on “Exposure database” starting on the second page of the study. The authors adjusted the algorithm in six ways to strengthen the relative weight of multiple exposure pathways for non-occupational exposure:

1. The relative weights of each pathway are redefined as incremental exposure above background levels of pollution, as this is more in alignment with the unfortunate reality that we live in a polluted world at its baseline;
2. Exposure inside the home environment is considered as a factor across the three exposure pathways, adding a more realistic representation of relative exposure intensity;
3. Exposure estimates are more accurate and specific now that the researchers use pesticide-specific median application days rather than generic numbers;
4. The increase in background data from nine to nineteen studies led to changes in the relative weight of each pathway in terms of exposure;
5. Information on known-use confirms specific uses of pesticides and assists in developing more accurate weights among exposure pathways; and
6. Pathways equations for take-home and agricultural drift now include frequency of use and years of exposure, with residential pathway adjusted similarly in terms of baseline level of pollution and time weighting.

“In summary, our updated literature review and meta-analyses allowed us to refine the non-occupational pesticide algorithm based on additional findings from the past decade to better characterize relative exposure rankings of cumulative exposure for our study population,” the authors write in concluding the article. They continue: “The resulting metrics will help us advance our knowledge of the health risks, including female-specific cancer outcomes, that non-occupational pesticide exposures pose to AHS spouses.”

In terms of take-home exposure results from this study, researchers find that there are 3.7 x higher pesticide levels in exposed households compared to the 2.6 x higher levels initially determined in 2019. In other words, this pathway is the most substantial contributor to nonoccupational exposure across the three pathways when applying chlorpyrifos-specific data to the algorithm. For agricultural exposure results, RDs increased as the distance from the field to the household increased, with 4.2 x higher pesticide levels when a specific pesticide is confirmed. In other words, the further the distance from fields, the lower the pesticide levels. For residential use exposure results, specific pesticide use data contributes to increased levels by a factor of 3.1. However, residential use exposure is generally less than agricultural use exposure pathways, although the authors note that the effect size depends heavily on which pesticide is used. Please see Tables 2-4 for additional information on the relative differences in exposure pathways based on the results of this study.

Previous Coverage

There are significant additional studies relying on AHS data that continue to sound the alarm on the widespread adverse health outcomes faced by communities exposed to pesticides.

For example, research study results “show greater diabetes risk” from exposure to organochlorine, organophosphate, and carbamate insecticides, phenoxy and other herbicides, and the fumigant carbon tetrachloride/disulfide exposure. A study, published in Environment International, evaluates nearly 4,000 diabetes cases drawn from AHS follow-up surveys between 1999 and 2021. Researchers find evidence of an association between 18 pesticide active ingredients and diabetes. These include two phenoxy herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4,5-TP, and seven organochlorine insecticides (DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, heptachlor, toxaphene, and lindane). (See Daily News here.) A novel study, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology in 2025, is the largest investigation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in women to date, finding evidence of heightened risks when exposed to insecticides through AHS data collected from over 400 eligible women. “With nearly 10 additional years of follow-up and more than 3-times as many cases than previous AHS reports on RA in spouses, this study of incident RA provides robust evidence that some insecticides may increase RA risk among women,” the study authors say. (See Daily News here.)

• Exposure to weed killer glyphosate induces oxidative stress in the body, a key biomarker known to heighten an individual’s risk of cancer, according to research published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute by a team of scientists from the National Institutes of Health. The findings, which track study participants’ past use of glyphosate and exposure levels through urine, are particularly concerning in light of recent data showing that four out of five (81.6%) U.S. residents have detectable levels of glyphosate in their bodies. To better understand the risk borne by farmers, applicators, and the general public, researchers studied a cohort of individuals enrolled in the Biomarkers of Exposure and Effect in Agriculture (BEEA) study, part of the long-running AHS, which tracks how agricultural, lifestyle, and genetic factors affect the health of farming communities. A total of 369 BEEA participants took part, and four subgroups were established, determined by their reported glyphosate use. (See Daily News here.) In 2019, a different team of U.S. scientists based at University of California, Berkeley, University of Washington, Seattle, and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, published a meta-analysis of studies on glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH), concluding that the evidence “suggests a compelling link between exposures to GBH and increased risk of NHL [non-Hodgkin lymphoma],” corroborating findings by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (See Daily News here and here.)

There are additional studies beyond AHS data that also raise concerns. Researchers at the University of Caxias do Sul (Brazil) identify 29 peer-reviewed scientific studies with statistically significant findings that tie pesticide use to cancer diagnoses. The literature review is published in Saúde Debate. This collection and analysis of clinical trials, as well as epidemiologic, case-control, and experimental studies—from the United States, Brazil, India, France, Egypt, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Italy, and Spain—add to the hundreds of peer-reviewed independent analyses connecting synthetic chemical dependency in food production and land management with mounting public health concerns. (See Daily News here.) Use of the herbicide dicamba increases humans’ risk of various acute and chronic cancers, according to research published in the International Journal of Epidemiology by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2020. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

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

Having a pest problem and want to go for the least-toxic solution? See ManageSafe^TM for addressing pest prevention and management for land and buildings.

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

Source: Environmental Advances

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apoptotic Regulated Cell Death

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

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

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

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

Non-Apoptotic Regulated Cell Death

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

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

Ferroptosis

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

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

Necroptosis

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

Pyroptosis

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

Literature Review Outcomes

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

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

Beyond Pesticides’ Resources

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

Methodology and Results

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

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

There are several additional notable takeaways from this study:

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

Previous Coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

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

Source: Environmental Pollution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Agriculture page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional noteworthy results include:

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

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

Previous Research

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 18, 2026) Researchers in Germany and Brazil investigated the biodiversity of agricultural landscapes in organic and non-organic areas in “bee hotels,” finding that there is a positive correlation between organically managed fields and numerous indicators of improved pollinator health, including an “increase in bee abundance, species richness, and diversity.” This study, published in Global Ecology and Conservation, builds on the breadth of existing research in recent years that underscores the adverse public health and biodiversity effects associated with a food system that is drenched in synthetic chemicals, as well as additional evidence of the ecological and economic benefits of organic agriculture.

Methodology and Results

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

Source: Global Ecology and Conservation

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

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

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

Importance and Background

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

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

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

Health and Environmental Implications

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

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

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

Gut Microbiome

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

Infant Health

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

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

Oral Health

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

Soil Health

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

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

GMOs and GMMs in Agriculture

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

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

Insufficient Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

Take Action

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2026) The science connecting pesticide exposure to neurotoxicity continues to mount. A study in Discover Toxicology highlights neurotoxic pollutants as significant environmental threats, showcasing the adverse impacts on vertebrates’ neurological health from pesticides, including organophosphates, carbamates, and organochlorines. “These substances disrupt normal neurophysiological functions by impairing neurotransmission, generating oxidative stress, provoking neuroinflammation, and initiating neuronal cell death,” the authors say. They continue, “Such disturbances are linked to cognitive deficits, motor impairments, and abnormal neural development.”

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

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

Importance and Background

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

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

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

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

What the Science Shows

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

Amphibians

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

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

Reptiles

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

Mammals

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

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

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

Additional Concerns

This review mentions the “cocktail effect,” which refers to the combined or interactive effects of multiple contaminants that can be additive (total effect equals the sum of each individual effect) or synergistic (total effect is greater than the sum, amplifying toxicity). With this increase in toxicity as multiple pesticides are encountered as mixtures, further health threats occur. “This concept challenges traditional toxicology, which often evaluates substances in isolation,” the researchers note. The scientific literature has long documented the regulatory deficiencies regarding assessing additive and synergistic effects of pesticide mixtures.

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

Previous Research

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

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

Moving Forward

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

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

Join the organic movement by buying organic products (on a budget!), growing your own organic food, and taking action through Action of the Week, where you can have your voice heard on governmental actions that are harmful to the environment and public and worker health, increase overall pesticide use, or undermine the advancement of organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies. Take Action: >> Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to become a cosponsor of the Opportunities in Organic Act (S. 3717/H.R. 7318).

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review 

The main arguments in the Monsanto brief include: 

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

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

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

Solicitor General Amicus Brief 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of Bates Decision 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action 

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: Bayer; U.S. Right to Know 

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

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

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

Mechanisms of Pesticide-ARG Interactions

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

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

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

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

Previous Coverage

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

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

Take Action

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Agriculture Committee bill adversely affects a wide range of social and conservation issues, including the protection of family farms, food security, environmental and public health, local and state authority, and judicial review, according to a cross-section of groups representing these interests. Overall, critics say, the Committee bill increases dependency of petrochemical fertilizers (which contribute to escalating toxic pesticide use), ignores hunger (despite a historically large $186 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program/SNAP), dismisses the notion of a fair, responsible, and accessible family farm safety net, and rolls back successful conservation investments.

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Agriculture Committee Vote Breakdown

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

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