(Beyond Pesticides, February 11, 2025) In a Science of The Total Environment study, scientists test over 100 blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) and great tit (Parus major) birds’ nests for pesticide residues in comparison with the number of dead offspring and unhatched eggs within the nest. Fur-lined nests, from animals treated with ectoparasitic chemicals, expose birds to compounds that can impact reproductive success. The authors found fipronil, a phenyl pyrazole insecticide, in all nests, with the majority also containing the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid and synthetic pyrethroid insecticide permethrin. The data shows higher insecticide levels are linked to increased offspring mortality and threaten biodiversity.

This study highlights an important exposure route that is overlooked. “Although not all bird species use fur for nest building, a substantial number do, especially cavity-nesting species,” the researchers share. “Previous research found that 74% of studied woodland bird species in central Europe incorporated fur into their nests.” Many bird species in the U.S. also line their nests with fur, such as black-capped chickadees, tufted titmice, and chipping sparrows.

While there is a wide body of science showing reproductive effects from pesticides, the researchers highlight the study’s novel design, saying, “To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have been performed to detect and quantify veterinary ectoparasitic drugs in the fur used for nest-building and explored the potential associated effects in these bird species.” They continue, writing, “The environmental impact of insecticides used as ectoparasitic treatments for companion animals is not well understood, since they are not subject to detailed environmental risk assessment.”

Many veterinary treatments include active ingredients that are banned from agricultural use in the European Union but are still prevalent in the U.S. in both residential pest management and agriculture, increasing the risk of exposure for nontarget organisms such as birds. As the authors state: “Farm livestock and companion animals such as dogs and cats are routinely treated with chemicals such as pyrethroids (e.g., permethrin and cypermethrin) and avermectin insecticides (e.g., ivermectin). Other products, including neonicotinoid insecticides like imidacloprid (banned as a plant protection product in the EU in 2018) and the phenylpyrazole insecticide fipronil (banned for agricultural use in 2013), continue to be widely used for veterinary ectoparasitic treatments for pets.”

“These chemicals are frequently applied topically, sometimes monthly, in the form of shampoos, spot-on treatments, sprays, or impregnated collars,” they continue. “An estimated 80% of dogs and 82% of cats are treated against fleas using an insecticide at least once per year.” These include products such as Frontline®, with the main active ingredient fipronil, and Advocate®, which contains imidacloprid. (See additional resources related to pets and pesticides here, here, here, here, and here, as well as previous coverage on Seresto® pet collars here.)

Since residues from these chemicals can persist on an animal’s fur for extended periods of time, this allows toxic compounds to be dispersed into the environment and come into contact with wildlife. Certain species of birds, in particular, are exposed to these insecticides as they collect animal fur to provide an inner lining to their nests, which impacts the adults, eggs, and nestlings.

Within the study, which analyzes 103 nests collected from September to October 2020 across the United Kingdon, the authors detected 17 out of the 20 insecticides in the screening. The number of insecticides per nest ranges from two to eleven, leaving no nests pesticide-free. “Fipronil, imidacloprid, and permethrin were detected in 100%, 89.1%, and 89.1% of samples, respectively,” the researchers report.

The three active substances found in the highest concentrations include the neonicotinoid dinotefuran, synthetic pyrethroids permethrin, and cypermethrin. “Overall, a higher number of either dead offspring or unhatched eggs was found in nests containing a higher number of insecticides, higher total concentration of insecticides or a higher concentration of fipronil, imidacloprid or permethrin, suggesting that contact exposure of eggs to insecticides in nest lining may lead to mortality and lower reproductive success,” the authors conclude.

They continue, “[T]he number and total concentration of insecticides found in nests, along with the concentrations of fipronil, imidacloprid, and permethrin when considered separately, predicted a higher number of unhatched eggs and/or dead offspring for both bird species together or great tits alone.” The researchers suspect the heightened effects seen in great tits is due to the amount of hair and fur within their nests as compared to the blue tits. Blue tit nests tend to be constructed with more bark and feathers, highlighting behavior-dependent exposure variations between bird species.

The authors also note that the effects seen in this study may not represent the full impact of pesticide exposure from residues within the nests, saying: “Blue tit and great tit adults tend to clean up the nests of any unhatched egg or dead chicks before the end of the breeding season when nests where collected. Thus, we likely underestimate the actual number of unhatched eggs and dead chicks of the studied nests.”

The effects on global bird populations from pesticides has been studied since the 1960’s when Rachel Carson brought attention to the matter through her book Silent Spring. Research continues to note impacts on nontarget organisms from beneficial insects that provide ecosystems services to all wildlife that is necessary in preserving biodiversity.

This study “adds to an already long list of evidence for negative environmental effects from pesticides, in particular fipronil and imidacloprid,” the researchers say. Additional studies find:

• Systemic insecticides impact pollination, soil biota, and aquatic invertebrate communities. (See study here.)
• “Fipronil has been associated with adverse effects on birds, including reduced levels of sex hormones in Japanese quails (Coturnix japonica), and reduced immune responses in red-legged partridges (Alectoris rufa).” (See studies here and here.)
• “Exposure to imidacloprid has been linked to adverse effects in birds, causing mortality following consumption of treated seeds, with sublethal doses leading to reductions in clutch size and delayed laying date in red-legged partridges.” (See studies here and here.)
• Permethrin causes reduced body weight in chicken embryos, as well as morphological abnormalities (See studies here and here.)

In summation, the authors share: “This research reveals that ectoparasitic treatments for pets and livestock can serve as a route of insecticides exposure for birds, potentially affecting eggs and chicks in nests. This raises questions about the environmental impact of veterinary drugs, which seems to have been underestimated compared to their agricultural counterparts.”

They continue, “The study emphasizes the need for comprehensive risk assessments of active substances, considering properties like water solubility, biodegradability, environmental persistence, and toxicity to non-target species, as well as dermal toxicity.” Regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), must be required to properly assess all current and future pesticides for not only impacts on beneficial species but all wildlife and human health. It is imperative that risk assessments consider the better solution to toxic chemicals that exist with organic land management.

The holistic approach that organic practices offer provides a healthy alternative to the detrimental effects of chemicals that pollute the environment and all organisms within it. Organic land management protects all species, including pollinators that are crucial to agricultural and economic productivity and food security, and also mitigates the crises of biodiversity and climate change.

Take action to advance organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies and be part of the organic solution by becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides and supporting our mission today.

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

Source:

Tassin de Montaigu, C. et al. (2025) High prevalence of veterinary drugs in bird’s nests, Science of The Total Environment. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969725000737.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 10, 2025) With the shutting down of key federal government programs, Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to speak out, especially on issues that preserve state and local authority to protect public health and safety in the absence of adequate federal standards. In this context, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a petition with a proposed policy that would, if adopted, prohibit states from issuing warnings of pesticide hazards, like cancer, on product labels. EPA is taking public comment through February 20, 2025, on the petition, filed by the Republican attorneys general (AGs) of 11* states.  The petition asks EPA to prohibit “any state labeling requirements inconsistent with EPA findings and conclusions from its human health risk assessment on human health effects, such as a pesticide’s likelihood to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm.” [*The 11 states filing the petition include: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota.]

According to Beyond Pesticides: “The only conclusion that can be derived from this petition is that the AGs do not care if the people, including farmers, of their states are harmed by pesticides, and they should not be able to seek compensation if they suffer adverse effects. People who argue that the chemical industry is subject to federal or state government overregulation to protect health and safety, are the same people who often argue, like in this petition, that the government should prohibit people from seeking justice in the courts if they are harmed because of inadequate disclosure and government regulation.”

>> Tell EPA to protect states’ rights to warn citizens of the dangers of pesticides.

While the petition is short and does not cite specifics, it clearly targets California’s Proposition 65 warnings on glyphosate (Roundup^TM) weed killer products but could have a much broader effect in an “anything goes” regulatory climate under the Trump administration. For instance, since the mechanism typically used to convey use restrictions is the pesticide product label, prohibiting a state’s authority to issue warning labels undermines its regulatory authority. If states cannot convey their restrictions on the label, it is unlikely that a user of the product will be aware of the restrictions. Similarly, the courts have upheld a state’s and manufacturer’s “duty to warn” of pesticide hazards as a right and responsibility that is not at odds with “misbranding” regulations under federal pesticide law. (See more details on this below.)

In 2019, during the previous Trump administration, EPA told California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) that its label language for glyphosate violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Subsequently, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) explained to EPA:

Proposition 65 is a right-to-know law that requires businesses to provide a clear and reasonable warning prior to exposing people in California to chemicals that have been listed as carcinogens or reproductive toxins. The warnings provide an important public health benefit by allowing individuals to make informed decisions about their exposures to listed chemicals.

Proposition 65 requires the listing “at a minimum” of chemicals that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) places in certain carcinogenicity classifications. In 2015, IARC placed glyphosate in a classification that mandated California’s listing of the chemical under Proposition 65. Because glyphosate is now listed as a carcinogen under Proposition 65, Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings if their products that contain glyphosate would result in exposures, unless those exposures fall below a certain level. 

California OEHHA asked EPA whether language citing IARC’s classification would be allowed, and, in 2022, the Biden EPA said that with that specificity, it would. While California allows several options for communicating the Prop 65 warning for pesticides, historically, the label has been used to convey warnings about pesticides. In judgments awarding damages to those suffering from cancer as a result of exposure to glyphosate, courts have pointed to the failure to warn users of the hazards. 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 (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 03-388, 2005): “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.” 

With regard to pesticide regulation, FIFRA clearly states, “A State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this Act,” which is followed by a clause requiring uniformity of labeling. By focusing on the uniformity of labels, the AG petition would prohibit the state from requiring product labels to warn users of potential hazards, thus subjecting users to a greater risk of illness and eliminating the incentive for manufacturers to develop safer products. It should also be noted that many local laws require service providers, such as lawn care operators or exterminators, to provide the labels of pesticide products that will be used in their contracts.

States and local governments are often at the leading edge in protecting people, land, and water from hazards. 

The attack on state authority, as well as local authority, to restrict pesticides is a bottom-line or foundational issue for public health and environmental protection. 

As momentum builds for local restrictions on pesticide use in the face of ongoing poisoning and contamination, it is clear that effective land management does not require toxic pesticide use. Historically, local municipalities have exercised their democratic right to protect public health and safety where state and federal standards are not adequately protective of their residents. EPA should not be telling states and local governments that they cannot exercise this right, one that has been used effectively to regulate smoking, recycling, dog waste, and other standards. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court reached this conclusion in its decision in Mortier (see more and court decision). Further, the AGs in the petition are attempting an end-run around the Supreme Court’s decision in Bates (see court decision), in which Dow Chemical unsuccessfully argued that their registration with EPA preempted any litigation against them for the harm caused by their product, and more specifically that FIFRA’s labeling requirements preempted cases arguing failure-to-warn or inadequate labeling. Here is Beyond Pesticides’ piece on the right of local government in a state that does not preempt its local jurisdictions (municipalities) from restricting pesticides more stringently than the state and the federal government. And, see the Maryland Court decision.
 
The ramifications of any prohibition on state authority to require label changes are extremely broad because the label is typically the mechanism used by federal and state regulatory authorities to communicate legal use restrictions of a pesticide product. If a state is prohibited from conveying pesticide restrictions or warnings via the pesticide product label, it is unlikely that the user will, for practical purposes, be aware of the restrictions or warnings.

>> Please submit a comment to EPA asking them to reject the AG petition and support the right of states and local governments to protect their residents, land, and water.

Suggested comment to EPA (due by February 20 at 11:59 pm EST):
Please deny the attorneys general (AGs) petition, which misrepresents the authority and responsibility of state governments in their role to protect public health and safety.

While the petition targets California Prop 65 warnings on glyphosate products, it goes much further in restricting the authority of states to restrict pesticides under FIFRA. In 2019, EPA told California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) that its label language for glyphosate violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Subsequently, OEHHA explained to EPA:

Proposition 65 is a right-to-know law that requires businesses to provide a clear and reasonable warning prior to exposing people in California to chemicals that have been listed as carcinogens or reproductive toxins. The warnings provide an important public health benefit by allowing individuals to make informed decisions about their exposures to listed chemicals.

Proposition 65 requires the listing “at a minimum” of chemicals that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) places in certain carcinogenicity classifications. In 2015, IARC placed glyphosate in a classification that mandated California’s listing of the chemical under Proposition 65. Because glyphosate is now listed as a carcinogen under Proposition 65, Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings if their products that contain glyphosate would result in exposures, unless those exposures fall below a certain level.

California OEHHA asked EPA whether language citing IARC’s classification would be allowed, and in 2022, EPA said that with that specificity, it would. While California allows several options for communicating the Prop 65 warnings, historically, the label has been used to convey warnings about pesticides. In jury verdicts awarding damages to those suffering from cancer as a result of exposure to glyphosate, courts have pointed to the failure to warn users of the hazards. 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 (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 03-388, 2005): “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.” 

With regard to pesticide regulation, FIFRA clearly states, “A State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this Act,” which is followed by a clause requiring uniformity of labeling. By focusing on the uniformity of labels, the AG petition would prohibit the state from requiring product labels to warn users of potential hazards, thus subjecting users to greater risk of illness.

States and local governments often take creative measures to protect people, land, and water from hazards. States and local governments believe in their right to protect their residents from poisoning and contamination, a right that has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The only conclusion that can be derived from the petition is that the AGs do not care if the people, including farmers, of their states are harmed by pesticides, and they should not be able to seek compensation if they suffer adverse effects due to a failure to warn on a pesticide label. The courts have upheld a state’s and manufacturer’s “duty to warn” of pesticide hazards as a right and responsibility that is not at odds with “misbranding” regulations under federal pesticide law.

Please uphold the rights of states and deny the AG petition.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 7, 2025) With the strong associations established in epidemiologic studies and a dearth of evidence on the actual mechanisms by which pesticides inflict their damage on the brain, a new meta-analysis identifies studies that pesticides can overwhelm cells’ defenses against them, interfere with cell communication in the brain, and disrupt the epigenetic (gene function) regulation of gene expression. In the journal Nucleus, Bilal Ahmad Mir, PhD and colleagues at the University of Kashmir in Srinagar, India, review what is known at the molecular level about pesticides’ role in brain cancer.

Brain cancer is a heavy burden for its victims and their families, and attributing a cause is, as with many diseases, fraught with difficulty. But there are strong clues: For example, farming is a known risk factor. In a 2021 meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies between 1998 and 2019, analyzed here by Beyond Pesticides, farming was associated with a 13% increase in the risk of brain cancer. For farmers whose specific exposure to pesticides was documented in the studies, the increase jumped to 20 percent. So there is some reason to point a finger at synthetic chemicals.

But agricultural workers are not the only ones at risk. According to a systematic review, in 2019 brain cancer was the 10th leading cause of death in the general population. For men 20 to 39, brain cancer was the leading cause of cancer deaths. This was about twice the rate for women. For children it is even worse: central nervous system tumors, which have a high mortality rate, are the most common childhood cancer; these and leukemia comprise more than half of all malignancies in children.

In 2023, Beyond Pesticides analyzed a review finding that, for children aged 0 to 14, the brain tumors classed as astrocytomas were more strongly associated with maternal and et al. exposures to pesticides during pregnancy than with children’s postnatal direct exposure. Importantly, most exposures occurred at home, not in agricultural settings, and brain tumors in children under five have been linked to flea and tick products. But parental exposure to pesticides at work also poses a risk to children.

The brain, only two percent of the body’s mass, uses 15-20 percent of all the energy the body generates via aerobic metabolism, so oxygen homeostasis is of utmost importance. It is clear that pesticides induce the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which are implicated in many diseases. In the brain, two important communication pathways can be disrupted by ROS: gap junctions, which are direct connections between cells allowing for transfer of molecules such as neurotransmitters, and synapses, where electrical signals travel between neurons. The brain is especially vulnerable because it needs both significant amounts of oxygen and higher levels of iron and copper than the rest of the body. These metals easily react with oxygen, and their balance must also be carefully maintained. Dysregulated iron is implicated in cancer metastasis. Too much copper also fosters cell proliferation and metastatic potential. A further concern is that pesticides are easily and rapidly fat-soluble, leading to their accumulation in the brain’s high levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids.

Many pesticide families have been demonstrated to produce ROS: organophosphates (chlorpyrifos, quinalphos, dichlorvos); organochlorines (paraquat, dieldrin); and pyrethroids (permethrin), for example.  

Many have multiple ways of harming cells. For example, the authors note that paraquat crosses the blood-brain barrier, creates ROS in the intercellular fluid and induces oxidative damage in the hippocampus region of the brain and in neurons. It crosses the placenta, where it severely damages the fetal dopamine system. The weed killer araquat also interferes with the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+ and NADH) process, which involves enzymes crucial for regulating mitochondrial energy generation, the oxygen-iron and oxygen-copper reactions, signal transduction, genomic stability, gene expression regulation, circadian clock management, immunity, and inflammation.

Paraquat is still registered in the U.S. for farm use but banned in more than 70 other countries. In addition to its connection with brain cancer, it is strongly implicated in Parkinson’s disease. In October, Beyond Pesticides called for EPA to ban paraquat using the same reasoning the agency employed to ban dacthal in August.

Epigenetics presents another route for pesticides to damage brain cells. The term refers to ways that gene expression can be controlled by non-gene molecules that attach to the DNA double helix and wrap it around structures called histones. Methyl molecules are a powerful means of preventing gene expression, and the dysregulation of methylation is a primary process in cancer induction. Pesticides generating ROS can lead to hypermethylation, preventing detoxification and allowing the formation of tumors. According to Dr. Ahmad Mir and colleagues, “Taken together, pesticide-induced ROS production may significantly alter the epigenome by targeting various enzymes involved in regulating the expression of various genes involved in detoxification and metabolic processes.” These epigenetic changes can have multigenerational effects.

“The excessive use of pesticides,” write Dr. Ahmad Mir and colleagues, has led to “grave health consequences to humans.” The authors conclude that “the sale and usage of carcinogenic pesticides should be completely banned.”

Considered by itself, the epidemiologic evidence of pesticides’ harms demands that these chemicals be eliminated. The links between pesticides and brain cancer demonstrate this. The combination of epidemiologic evidence and the emerging molecular, mechanistic evidence of pesticides’ influence on cancers, including brain cancer, make it clear that our food system should stop clutching at the crutch of synthetic chemicals and shift to organic agriculture as soon as possible.

In the meantime, you can reduce your exposure to pesticides. See, for example, Lawns We Can Live With – Caution: Children at Play, a factsheet from Safer Pest Control Project. See also Beyond Pesticides’ Action of the Week Archive for the latest concrete actions you can take to affect policy, along with our deep archive of research on pesticides’ human and ecosystem health effects and information about both buying organic and organic farming.

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

Sources:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13237-024-00529-8
Unraveling the toxic link between pesticides and brain cancer: a review on molecular mechanisms, signaling pathways and future research trends
Ahmad et al.
The Nucleus 2025

All Pesticide Classes Increase the Risk of Central Nervous System Tumors in Children
Beyond Pesticides, September 21, 2023
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2023/09/all-pesticide-classes-increase-the-risk-of-central-nervous-system-tumors-in-children/

Environment Becomes Heredity
by Valerie Brown
Pacific Standard Magazine (fka Miller-McCune)
July 14, 2008
https://psmag.com/news/environment-becomes-heredity-4425/

Study Adds to 40 Year Analysis Linking Brain Cancer to Pesticide Exposure
Beyond Pesticides, September 23, 2021
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/09/study-adds-to-40-year-analysis-linking-brain-cancer-to-pesticide-exposure/

Role of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance in generational toxicology
Nilsson et al.
Environmental Epigenetics, Volume 8, Issue 1, 2022
https://academic.oup.com/eep/article/8/1/dvac001/6529222

Living Within 2.5 Miles of Chemical Farming Increases Risk of Childhood Brain Tumors
Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2021
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/04/living-within-2-5-miles-of-chemical-farming-increases-risk-of-childhood-brain-tumors/

Moms’ Pesticide Use Increases Risk of Childhood Brain Tumors
Beyond Pesticides, October 5, 2017
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2017/10/moms-pesticide-use-increases-risk-childhood-brain-tumors/

Study Adds to 40 Year Analysis Linking Brain Cancer to Pesticide Exposure
Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/04/ten-years-of-scientific-studies-find-association-between-childhood-cancer-and-pesticide-exposure/

Research of Pesticide Metabolites in Human Brain Tumor Tissues by Chemometrics-Based Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Analysis for a Hypothetical Correlation between Pesticide Exposure and Risk Factor of Central Nervous System Tumors
Louati et al.
ACS Omega 2023
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.3c04592

(Beyond Pesticides, February 6, 2025) Months after publishing a June 2024 study regarding concentrations of pesticides discovered in legal (and illegal) cannabis products in California, the Los Angeles Times has 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 available smoking products are found to contain hidden chemicals—toxic pesticides present in products but not regulated or monitored by state authorities.

Since 2015, Beyond Pesticides has laid out health, safety, and environmental concerns related to the contamination of cannabis by pesticides (and fertilizers) alongside an imperative need to mandate an organic systems approach to cannabis production. Yet ten years later, it appears nationally that California state regulators are alone in moving forward in 2021 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.

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.”  

Given that cannabis is often used for medicinal purposes, the fact that EPA is not evaluating pesticide residues in tobacco raises grave concerns when a state points to its regulation as guidance. GAO stated in its report (p3), Pesticides on Tobacco: Federal Activities to Assess Risks and Monitor Residues, states the following: “[E]PA has generally concluded that the low levels of residues measured in tobacco smoke do not pose short-term health concerns. EPA does not assess the additional risk of either intermediate- or long-term exposure to pesticide residues in smoke because of the severity and quantity of health effects associated with the use of tobacco products themselves. In addition, the agency does not include short-, intermediate-, or long-term exposure to residues on tobacco in its assessments of total exposures to the pesticides. Officials and experts with whom we spoke generally agreed that pesticide residues on tobacco could incrementally increase health risks, though some also said the known harm from using tobacco products dwarfs any potential effect from exposure to pesticide residues in the smoke.”

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

• chlorfenapyr 2,000 times over EPA permitted residue level and an insecticide that is not allowed in food use 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.

Since the federal government classifies cannabis as a Schedule 1 narcotic, it is not recognized as a legal agricultural crop under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Consequently, EPA has not assessed the safety of any pesticides for use on cannabis plants, nor has it established tolerances or exemptions for pesticide residues on cannabis. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) allows a pesticide product to be used on cannabis only if its active ingredient is exempt from federal residue tolerance requirements and either exempt from federal registration requirements or registered for a use that is broad enough to include use on cannabis plants.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the contamination is so widespread that there is not enough clean weed to supply the vape market. Half of all vape products tested positive for pesticides not approved for use on cannabis; one example, pymetrozine, a reproductive toxicant and carcinogen banned in Europe, is present in 31% of vape products tested.. When confronted with the results, one cannabis company executive said that they were not in violation of state regulations as there is no testing requirement or residue limit for pymetrozine.

In addition, the investigation identifies instances when the state was notified of the usage of illegal pesticide products but failed to act. Not only did farmers in Santa Cruz county apply pymetrozine, but its illegal use was reported to the state via monthly pesticide use reports; however, there was no response from regulators. While CDPR uses a software program to flag pesticide use reports when a potentially illegal use is reported, the Los Angeles Times article highlights hundreds of reports not flagged by the system, support, resulting in non-enforcement of what appears to be extensive illegal usage.

Furthermore, even if the state chose to respond, there is no established process cited to identify the source and extent of contamination, in order to mount a response. The California Department of Cannabis Control has established a tracking system (operated by METRC, a state vendor) to collect information on every plant from “seed-to-sale,” which, in theory, could provide a means of tracking and removing contaminated products from the marketplace. However, the Los Angeles Times article found the system to be completely inadequate for tracking the distillate used in vapes, which can be made up from parts of hundreds of plants.

Since the above mentioned report in June 2024, the state’s Department of Cannabis Control has recalled hundreds of products from sale, primarily due to whistleblower complaints. However, early efforts by California regulators to establish a pesticide surveillance program were dropped; subsequently, a recent proposal to add ten chemicals to the mandatory screening list was subsequently whittled down to eight chemicals.

Attempts have been made to establish an organic certification program for cannabis products at the state level and in the marketplace. Since cannabis is illegal and classified as a Schedule I narcotic under federal law, it cannot be certified as “organic” under the National Organic Program and carry the USDA organic label. As of 2025, cannabis is legal for recreational use in 24 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia, and for medical use in 40 states, three territories, and the District of Columbia, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Some states have taken steps to address this regulatory gap. The states of Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have adopted regulations emphasizing less-toxic methods of cannabis cultivation, prioritizing practices that avoid or prohibit pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides has pointed to these state-level initiatives are essential in the absence of federal guidance, presenting an opportunity for states to incentivize environmentally friendly and health-conscious cultivation practices.

California introduced stricter oversight with a series of laws enacted in 2018, requiring pesticide residue testing for cannabis products. In 2021, California state law required Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to establish a certification program for cannabis that is comparable to the National Organic Program and the California Organic Food and Farming Act. Notably, only the National Organic Program can authorize use of the word “organic” on product packaging. This California OCal Registration Program, establishes a “comparable-to-organic” certification for cannabis products to enhance consumer trust in the state’s marijuana industry. However, Beyond Pesticides points out challenges with this program, particularly the need for more stringent scrutiny of inhalation and skin absorption risks for all cannabis users, especially medical patients. Advocates argue that California consumers would benefit from a dedicated OCal Standards Board to review pesticide and processing material restrictions in the context of cannabis consumption.

Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides, underscores the importance of addressing gaps in data collection for evaluating cumulative pesticide exposure risks from inhalable cannabis products. In Environmental Health Perspectives, Feldman emphasizes the need for a precautionary approach: “If [the California Department of Pesticide Regulation] does not have this kind of data, which is extremely expensive to produce and evaluate, then it should use its statutory authority to embrace a precautionary approach. They are establishing a false sense of security regarding the allowed residues, given that they have not looked at the aggregate cumulative risk of dietary and nondietary exposure in combination with cannabis residue.”

In January 2025, cannabis industry leaders established a nonprofit—the Environmental & Consumer Compliance Organization (ECCO)—to provide certification to those products that test for more than 200 chemicals. Some advocates observe that the multitude of certifications, including some that include and go beyond comparable organic certification standards, like national certifier Sun and Earth may confuse consumers and producers alike.

Ultimately, the regulatory gap presented by the legal status of cannabis federally raises critical concerns about potential pesticide exposure: from residues introduced through inhalation, ingestion, or absorption, to occupational risks for workers involved in its cultivation and identified harms to wildlife environmentally. In the absence of federal guidelines, Beyond Pesticides argues that any synthetic pesticide use on cannabis is effectively illegal under current federal law: “In the absence of federal regulations governing pesticides in cannabis production, the use of pesticides not registered by [EPA] is understood to be illegal.”

Beyond Pesticides urges all cannabis regulatory agencies to adopt an enforceable organic systems approach, mirroring the standards of certified organic agriculture, which prohibit synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Additionally, the organization encourages states to adopt laws or regulations that require an organic systems approach to cannabis cultivation. This precautionary strategy has become increasingly vital, rather than relying solely on detecting and regulating prohibited pesticide residues in cannabis; implementing a framework that mandates adherence to national organic soil management standards would be a more responsible approach.

For detailed information on how pesticide residues in marijuana may affect your health, refer to Beyond Pesticides’ reports: Pushing for Organic Cannabis as Industry Grows and Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options (and here). If you suspect that you or someone you know has been exposed to pesticides, consult our Pesticide Emergencies resource. Additional insights into the health impacts of herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, and fungicides are also available on our website.

For further guidance on organic crop production, explore the organic agriculture page from Beyond Pesticides. To support the alignment of organic standards with the principles and requirements of the Organic Foods Production Act, visit our Keeping Organic Strong (KOS) initiative. KOS offers a straightforward vehicle for the public to provide input on critical issues addressed by the National Organic Standards Board and the National Organic Program under the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

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

Sources

New tests find ‘hidden’ pesticides in more California weed brands. Regulators ignored warnings, Los Angeles Times, December 19, 2024

Search your stash: 538 cannabis pesticide tests show what’s in your weed, Los Angeles Times, December 19, 2024

Cannabis conundrum: Legal doesn’t mean clean; illicit isn’t always dirty, Los Angeles Times, December 19, 2024

Contaminated weed in you, Los Angeles Times, June 14, 2024

How dirty is your weed? A joint investigation finds high levels of pesticides in products, Los Angeles Times, WeedWeek, June 14, 2024

California recalls cannabis vape many months after it was told of contamination, Los Angeles Times, June 26, 2024

Consumers Left High and Dry: Public Health Issues Persist with Cannabis Products and Production Practices, Beyond Pesticides Daily News, February 7, 2024

Pushing for Organic Cannabis as Industry Grows, Beyond Pesticides, Pesticides and You, Winter 2018-2019

Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options, Beyond Pesticides, Pesticides and You, Winter 2014-2015

Into the Weeds: Regulating Pesticides in Cannabis, Environmental Health Perspectives, April 25, 2019

(Beyond Pesticides, February 5, 2025) A study in PLOS One finds acute and chronic impacts of nontarget toxicity on the American burying beetle, Nicrophorus americanus, with neonicotinoid insecticide exposure. In assessing environmentally relevant concentrations of the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid with N. americanus, the researchers note both mortality and behavioral effects that leave the species at high risk of predation. These effects mean the American burying beetle “may be at greater risk to insecticide exposure than previously thought and vulnerable to episodic, low-dose neonicotinoid exposure,” the authors say. This data sheds important light on a species that has been listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened.

Burying beetles provide important ecosystem services within the environment such as “burying carrion, increasing available nutrients in soil, and expediting carrion decomposition, while acting as a food source for secondary consumers,” the researchers state. (See more on ecosystem services and beneficial insects here, here, and here.) The N. americanus species are habitat generalists and can be found in grasslands, wet meadows, and forested areas that neighbor agricultural lands and introduce the beetles to pesticide drift and soil residues.

While acute and chronic effects vary in duration and severity, pesticide exposure resulting in both of these “cause[s] negative impacts on beneficial terrestrial insect taxa,” the researchers state. They continue, “Beyond mortality, behavioral indicators of toxicity are often better suited to assess sublethal effects of residual concentrations in the environment.”

An assessment of low levels of imidacloprid in N. americanus shows how “sublethal levels can result in a wide range of detrimental behavioral effects at the population-level, which may increase mortality from predation in natural settings. Behaviors associated with feeding, predator avoidance, mobility, sensory perception, and navigation are among the most affected by neurotoxic compounds, as they are linked to insect neurophysiology and biochemistry.”

While various other studies (see here, here, and here for examples) document behavioral effects in insect species with neonicotinoid exposure, the authors find that “few studies report the impacts of neonicotinoids, both lethal and sublethal endpoints, on nontarget beetle taxa.” This study is novel in that it provides the first neonicotinoid toxicity data for a species of burying beetles that are currently inadequately protected in North America.

The authors state: “Prior to N. americanus being listed as an endangered species, researchers suggested that the widespread use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) may have initially contributed to steep population declines. Since then, few studies have discussed or even considered the toxicity of specific insecticide active ingredients to N. americanus.”

Studying the impacts of this pesticide exposure on various species is vital, as taxa-specific sensitivity can occur. This has been documented in bee species (see Daily News coverage here), as well as in a previous beetle study with imidacloprid. In the study, soldier beetles are documented as being ten times more sensitive to neonicotinoids than ladybird beetles. This highlights an important deficiency in current risk assessments, as model species used do not represent all species that can experience nontarget pesticide exposure. See more on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failures here, here, here, here, and here.

The researchers report: “Once common across eastern North America, N. americanus distribution has reduced by more than 90%, remaining in only six states with the largest populations concentrated in Oklahoma and Nebraska. [USFWS] first listed N. americanus as an endangered species in 1989; however, the USFWS recently reclassified N. americanus as threatened in 2020, citing a diminished threat of extinction in its current range.”

They continue: “Current and historical causes of N. americanus decline include habitat loss to agricultural and urban development, changes in the availability of carrion resources (birds and small mammals), light pollution, and pesticide use… However, concurrent risks of nontarget pesticide exposure to N. americanus were not included in the Species Status Assessment.” This led the authors to design a study assessing neonicotinoid exposure in the American burying beetle.

The study itself uses four nominal concentrations including a control group and groups exposed to 60, 120, and 240 ng/µL solutions of imidacloprid. The treatment groups are subjected to either single LD10 doses or repeated LD10 doses (two separate LD10 doses 48 hours apart). As a result, the researchers find both effects of mortality and behavioral impairments in N. americanus beetles.

“Over a ten-day period of monitoring, N. americanus experienced 30% mortality after a single exposure to the nominal LD10 and repeated exposure caused an increase to 50% mortality, supporting time-cumulative toxicity of this class of insecticides,” the authors report. They continue, “Beyond mortality, our data demonstrate significant behavioral alterations after a single and repeated LD10 application of imidacloprid, which may put N. americanus at greater risk of starvation, desiccation, or predation.”

In noting erratic movement after low level imidacloprid exposure, the researchers highlight how behavioral responses are key factors that should be considered with environmental risk assessments. “Behavior is fundamentally linked to individual fitness, which may influence population level effects, and is a sensitive indicator of pesticide exposure,” they state. “In the present study, behavioral responses of imidacloprid-exposed beetles were significantly different from the controls, with a single LD10 dose prompting greater distance traveled and at greater velocity than repeated LD10 doses,” the authors summarize.

Neonicotinoid insecticides are broad-spectrum pesticides that “represent the largest market share of any insecticide class at 27% worldwide with at least 140 crop uses,” the researchers note. “Specifically, neonicotinoid-coated seed treatments are the most widely adopted crop protection strategy, especially for common field crops. However, it is estimated that greater than 90% of the neonicotinoid active ingredient applied could move from the site of application via runoff and/or particulate matter.”

With neonicotinoids being transported in runoff and persisting in soil, this subjects nontarget organisms, such as the American burying beetle, to sublethal effects and mortality. According to the authors, “Depending on the soil characteristics and light exposure, neonicotinoid active ingredients can bind and persist in soil for months or years, potentially leading to incidental soil contact and soil-water ingestion by burying beetles.” (See studies here and here.)

As the researchers conclude, “Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA], the US EPA is responsible for ensuring that registered pesticide use does not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including listed species and their critical habitats; however, the US EPA has yet to meet the Endangered Species Act criteria for over 95% of all registered pesticides.” EPA must be required to properly assess all current and future pesticides for not only impacts on beneficial species that provide ecosystem services but all wildlife.

To ensure that EPA stands up to the standards of FIFRA and protects health and the environment, participate in the “EPA Must Review Complete Data for All Pesticides” Action of the Week before February 10. Additionally, a better solution to toxic chemicals exists with organic land management and also needs to be considered in these risk assessments. The holistic approach with organic practices provides a healthy alternative to the detrimental effects of chemicals that pollute the environment and all organisms within it.

Protecting all beneficial species, including pollinators, from pesticides is crucial to agricultural and economic productivity, as well as food security. Take action to advance organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies and be part of the organic solution by becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides today.

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

Source:

Cavallaro, M. et al. (2025) Neonicotinoid exposure causes behavioral impairment and delayed mortality of the federally threatened American burying beetle, Nicrophorus americanus, PLOS One. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0314243.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 4, 2025) 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, according to findings from a randomized clinical trial published in Nutrire. The authors explain that their finding “is likely due to two main factors: the presence of compounds characteristic of [an organic] diet, which may have high levels of antioxidants that can protect DNA and also induce DNA repair [], and the absence or decrease in the incidence of pesticides in this type of diet, which are recognized for their genotoxic effects and have the ability to affect the genetic repair system of organisms [].”

Public health professionals and affected families continue to sound the alarm on the unprecedented rates of chronic illnesses, many linked to pesticide exposure, as well as the urgency in developing solutions that acknowledge the connection to policies governing agriculture, nutrition policies, and public health.

Background and Methodology

The purpose of this study is to identify any relationships in health effects of chemical-intensive versus organic diets in a two week-period. More specifically, the authors say the purpose of the research is “to determine the content and concentration of insecticides, hepatic and protein indicators in the urine; analyze the genetic damage; and evaluate DNA repair capacities in the blood of persons who ate conventional diet compared to persons who ate organic diet.”

The study was conducted by a multidisciplinary team of researchers at the Federal University of Rio Grande in Rio Grande, Brazil. There were no competing interests declared from the authors, and they received funding support to carry out this study from the Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (also known as CAPES Foundation) and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development.

This study is a double blind randomized controlled trial, meaning that neither the researchers nor the participants knew who was going to be assigned to each group, minimizing bias. The 14-day-study took place at the University in a location of the city “far from pesticide applications.” All participants were university students between 18- and 40-years-old and without chronic or non-communicable diseases or autoimmune diseases. Individuals who were breastfeeding, pregnant, or smoking/alcohol abuse habitats were excluded. Initially, each participant took part in a “7-day washout period” before the trial began, so both groups received the identical diet of food grown with chemical-intensive (conventional) practices. The conventional group consisted of 25 individuals, while the organic group consisted of 24 individuals. All food for the organic group was sourced from companies with organic certification, with fruit and vegetables sourced from certified local farmers. For both conventional and organic, main meals (lunch and dinner) were prepared by university staff and additional snacks/beverages were provided as requested by participants.

Blood and urine samples were gathered on the first day before the first meal and the fifteenth day of the study to assess potential differences in DNA damage [a comet assay measuring damage and repair markers at the microscopic level], which is the study’s metric for determining the extent to which organic or conventional diets can impact human health. The research identified 24 pesticides across all 49 participants in this study. See Table 2 (page 6 of 11) for more information on the insecticide classes and levels found both pre- and post-intervention.

Results and Main Findings

The authors conclude: “[A]n average reduction of 98.6% in pesticide levels was observed for the organic diet, while the average reduction for the conventional diet was 66.2%. Out of the 24 insecticides detected in the organic group, only three were found after the intervention (aldrin , fipronil, and mirex), while in the conventional group, the detected metabolites after the intervention were Phenothrin-1 and Phenothrin-2.” The researchers continue, “The levels of pyrethroid insecticides decreased from 4.6 µg/L to non-detectable levels in the organic group and increased from 0.18 to 0.34 µg/L in the conventional group.”

Advocates are concerned by these results given the persistence of banned pesticides, particularly organochlorine insecticides that take significantly longer to break down and offer chances to bioaccumulate, in the environment. For example, a 2021 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that long-term exposure to aldrin has been found to lead to increased risk of developing monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) (blood disease) that likely precedes multiple myeloma (blood cancer). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned mirex in 1978 due to possible links to cancer, based on findings at the time from various animal studies linking to cancer and the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) designation of mirex as a probable carcinogen. (See here for the original EPA Health Effects Statement for further breakdown.) Fipronil is not a banned pesticide; in fact, it is one of the most commonly used insecticides used both indoors and in outdoor land management. (See here for Daily News on ecosystem impacts of fipronil.)

Those who followed the organic diet had a “higher percentage of DNA damage repair” after the two-week intervention. “In our study, the organic diet showed a significant increase in both DNA damage repair capacities () compared to the conventional diet, with a significant increase in base excision repair mechanism [the process of DNA glycosylase acting like genetic decomposers to cut and remove damaged lesions] (Table 4).”

There is a growing body of literature (see here, here, and here) that demonstrates the restorative properties of an organic diet.

Existing Research

Medical researchers have documented the linkages of toxic pesticide exposure and various adverse health effects. A 2023 study published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology builds on existing research (here, here, and here) finding that long-term exposure to glyphosate can promote the occurrence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) through diet by causing liver inflammation and oxidative stress. Advocates continue to question the siloed approach of the food regulatory system given the findings of this 2023 study, in which the authors confirm that NAFLD occurred at levels within toxicological limits, which are doses of glyphosate classified as causing no adverse effects or No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). Glyphosate’s impact on the gut microbiome has been the focus of investigation in several studies (Covered in Daily News here, here, here, and here), finding that it can disrupt healthy gut bacteria, lead to underlying immunological suppression due to its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, among other adverse neuroendocrinological impacts.

None of this surprises advocates, given the years of information from U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary on pesticide residue data in the U.S. supply chain which show pesticide exposure through the food supply. A review of seven years of PDP data show that 20% of the foods tested pose a “high risk” to the public and 12 specific commodities are so dangerous that children or pregnant people should not eat more than one serving per day, according to Consumer Reports analysis. (See Daily News here.)

The rise in these adverse health effects do not exclusively pertain to glyphosate. In fact, there are many studies linking other chemicals and chemical mixtures playing a significant role in elevating avenues for risk. These health risks include potentially neurotoxic impacts and neurodevelopmental delay of children exposed pre- and postnatally to pyrethroid insecticides (see Daily News here), as well as long-term exposure to organophosphorus pesticides as a disruptor for the human gut microbiome (see Daily News here).

A 2019 study published in Environmental Health finds that pesticide+ residues are found four times as frequently in conventionally grown food as in organically produced counterparts. A separate study published in 2023 in Scientific Reports finds that plant-based diets might increase pesticide residue exposure compared to meat-heavy diets, finding that a plant-based diet that is nutritionally equivalent to a conventional omnivore diet may increase the risk of pesticide residue exposure. The study finds that a plant-based diet leads to an increase in consumption of dried fruit, legumes, soy, whole grains, vegetables, and oil, which–while nutritionally adequate–corresponds with an increase in pesticide residue exposure since fruits, vegetables, legumes, and cereals exhibit the highest levels of pesticide residues. Pesticides of concern that were identified and test for in these studies include neonicotinoids, organophosphates, pyrethroids, and 2,4-D.

In spite of the challenges that lay ahead, advocates remain optimistic given mounting research on the kaleidoscope of benefits of an organic diet. A 2023 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives finds urinary levels of glyphosate significantly decrease through an organic diet for pregnant individuals living further than 0.5km (~1640ft) from an agricultural field. However, the study finds that adopting an organic diet among pregnant individuals living closer than 0.5km to an agricultural area does not significantly decrease glyphosate levels, indicating alternative sources of contamination outside of diet. A 2020 study published in Environmental Research finds that glyphosate levels can be reduced by up 70% after just one week into a fully organic diet.

Take Action

Parents, physicians, and community members are relieved to know that shifting to an organic diet not only has been found to dramatically reduce pesticide residue levels in your body, but also supports your body’s genetic healing process. Consumers should not face the brunt of paying the price premium that comes with purchasing certified organic or regenerative organic products just to avoid poisoning themselves with potentially harmful residues.

See here to learn more about the health benefits of organic agriculture and criteria for land management systems. See here for a recent Action of the Week to tell U.S. EPA to completely review data for all registered pesticides. The deadline to submit a comment is February 10^th at 11:59pm Eastern.

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

Source: Nutrire

(Beyond Pesticides, February 3, 2025) As a result of executive orders on January 20, 2025 and subsequent actions by the Trump administration, the public airwaves have been flooded with presidential proclamations, some of which have been subject to legal action and outrage. While the president has issued dozens of executive orders dismantling programs—from the environment to foreign aid, the impact of the orders on the functioning of an independent government workforce has been raised by those targeted.

On January 29, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) filed a lawsuit that “asserts that President Trump illegally exceeded his authority in attempting to unilaterally roll back a regulation that protects the rights of civil servants,” according to an AFGE press release. The release continues, “The suit also names the Office of Personnel Management for its role in failing to adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act in its attempts to roll back this same regulation.” According to AFGE National President Everett Kelley, “AFGE is filing suit with our partner union today to protect the integrity of the American people’s government,”

On January 27, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair and Commissioner Charlotte Burrows, having served since 2015 and confirmed through July 2028, along with a colleague, was fired by the president. Her attorney, Lisa Banks, said, “Removing Commissioner Burrows from her position, a full three and half years before the expiration of her term at the EEOC, is just the latest political attack we have seen from President Donald Trump in his coordinated effort to strip-mine the federal government. His efforts will not only significantly weaken the functioning of the EEOC—an independent agency dedicated to equal opportunity for all employees—it will weaken the civil rights protections afforded American workers in workplaces across the country.”

It has long been accepted that independent oversight of government decisions is essential to the integrity and credibility of those decisions. However, President Trump summarily fired at least 17 Inspectors General (IGs) on January 24 across 18 agencies—eliminating, at least for some critical time period, independent oversight of all agency decisions in the new administration. An IG acts independently of the agency head to investigate corruption, fraud, and abuse in the agency and report to Congress. As The Washington Post used to but no longer displays on its masthead, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” (See Jurist News.)

Tell Congress to ensure the integrity of federal agencies through the appointment of independent Inspectors General.

Although IGs—like department heads—are appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the law defines their role to be independent of politics. The Inspector General Act of 1978 states, “There shall be at the head of each Office an Inspector General who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.” [Emphasis added.] The act also provides that the President may remove an IG, but states, “If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” [Emphasis added.] Because Trump failed to provide the 30-day notice and justification as required by law, some claim that the action is illegal, while others regard the infraction as a technicality.  

It has been reported that Phyllis Fong, the U.S. Department of Agriculture IG for 22 years, had to be escorted from her office by security after saying that her firing does not follow comply with the law. Hannibal Ware, chairperson of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, said, “Congress specifically established the authorities and structure of the IGs to safeguard their vital oversight role, by mandating independence under the IG Act. Removals inconsistent with the law are a significant threat to the actual and perceived independence of IGs.” 

However, even some who do not seem especially concerned by the President’s dismissal action say that the real impact of the unexpected presidential action will be determined by the replacements of the fired IGs and the time frame in which new appointments are made. The intended effect of the law will be advanced only if the Senate insists on the independence and integrity of the new appointees. 

The now former IG at the Interior Department, Mark Greenblatt (appointed by Mr. Trump five years ago), was quoted in The New York Times: “This raises an existential threat with respect to the primary independent oversight function in the federal government. We have preserved the independence of inspectors general by making them not swing with every change in political party.” 

The independence of the IGs gives them an important role in ensuring the integrity of agency actions. For example, the IG of the Environmental Protection Agency has in recent years investigated and reported to Congress on: pet collars containing pesticides that continue to be used without assurance that there are no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including pets; deviation from established procedures in registering dicamba; EPA’s failure to assess risks from endocrine disrupting chemicals; inadequacies of management controls to implement the revised Worker Protection Standard; and failure to follow the typical intra-agency review and clearance process during the development and publication of the January 2021 perfluorobutane sulfonic acid, or PFBS, toxicity assessment. It also reported on programmatic issues, including: emergency exemptions; a special local needs program; transparency of cancer risk assessment; state cooperative agreements; and implementing stronger internal controls to decrease the risk of issuing a pesticide registration that does not comply with regulatory requirements.  

IGs also play a role in protecting whistleblowers who come forward with information about misconduct within the agency, such as lack of integrity in chemical risk assessment. EPA’s IG reported on retaliation against whistleblowers in 2024.  

Tell Congress to ensure the integrity of federal agencies through the appointment of independent Inspectors General. 

Letter to Congress
In what promises to be a threat to the integrity of federal agencies, President Trump summarily fired at least 17 Inspectors General (IGs) on January 24 across 18 agencies—eliminating, at least for some critical time period, independent oversight of all agency decisions in the new administration. An IG acts independently of the agency head to investigate corruption, fraud, and abuse in the agency and report to Congress. As The Washington Post used to, but no longer displays on its masthead, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

Although IGs—like department heads—are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the law defines their role to be independent of politics. The Inspector General Act of 1978 states, “There shall be at the head of each Office an Inspector General who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.” [Emphasis added.] The act also provides that the President may remove an IG, but states, “If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” [Emphasis added.] Because Trump failed to provide the 30-day notice and justification as required by law, some claim that the action is illegal, while others regard the infraction as a technicality. 

However, even some who do not seem especially concerned by the President’s dismissal action say that the real impact of the unexpected presidential action will be determined by the replacements of the fired IGs and the time frame in which new appointments are made. The intended effect of the law will be advanced only if the Senate insists on the independence and integrity of the new appointees.

The now former IG at the Interior Department, Mark Greenblatt (appointed by Mr. Trump five years ago), was quoted in The New York Times: “This raises an existential threat with respect to the primary independent oversight function in the federal government. We have preserved the independence of inspectors general by making them not swing with every change in political party.”

The independence of the IGs gives them an important role in ensuring the integrity of agency actions. For example, the IG of the Environmental Protection Agency has in recent years investigated and reported to Congress on: pet collars containing pesticides that continue to be used without assurance that there are no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including pets; deviation from established procedures in registering dicamba; EPA’s failure to assess risks from endocrine disrupting chemicals; inadequacies of management controls to implement the revised Worker Protection Standard; and failure to follow the typical intra-agency review and clearance process during the development and publication of the January 2021 perfluorobutane sulfonic acid, or PFBS, toxicity assessment. It also reported on programmatic issues, including: emergency exemptions; special local needs programs; transparency of cancer risk assessment; state cooperative agreements; and implementing stronger internal controls to decrease the risk of issuing a pesticide registration that does not comply with regulatory requirements. 

IGs also play a role in protecting whistleblowers who come forward with information about misconduct within the agency, such as lack of integrity in chemical risk assessment. EPA’s IG reported on retaliation against whistleblowers in 2024. 

Please request a U.S. Government Accountability Office report on the importance of IGs and their independence.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 31, 2025) A recent cross-sectional study in Heliyon highlights the link between sleep disorders in Thai farmers and pesticide exposure. The authors find pesticide exposure as an important risk factor for sleep disorders after surveying 27,334 farmers over the age of 20 who had work experience for at least five years.

The importance of sleep health is reflected both physically and mentally, as studies find “sleep deficiency increase[s] mortality and various health complications, including hypertension, obesity and type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, mood disorders, and neurodegenerative disorder.” Additional studies find that these issues are compounded when sleep health is affected by environmental factors such as pesticide exposure. (See previous Beyond Pesticides’ coverage here and here.)

The researchers report: “The study found a positive association of 19 individual pesticides (twelve insecticides, two herbicides, and five fungicides). Some associations demonstrated a dose-response pattern. Additionally, the study revealed that women are at a higher risk of sleep-related issues with pesticide exposure compared to males. These results not only substantiate existing literature but also unveil several new individual pesticides that may impact sleep health.”

Focusing on study participants in Thailand, which is “characterized by heavy pesticide use and minimal protective measures, presents unique exposure circumstances that offer an opportunity to study the effects of pesticides,” the authors note. The farmers live in the three provinces in the north of Thailand that are the largest in terms of agricultural area, population, and pesticide use. Thai agriculture, according to the researchers, “accounts for about thirty percent of the workforce, [and] depends heavily on pesticides to control of weeds, insects, and fungi.” This places farmers and farmworkers with an elevated risk to the toxic effects of pesticides.

Within the study, consent forms and questionnaires were given to the randomly selected participants between October 2020 and February 2021. The questions were originally developed under the Agricultural Health Study from the U.S. and have been used in many cross-sectional studies. Historical pesticide exposure was assessed and the participants were placed into two groups for each pesticide of exposed and unexposed. 38 individual pesticides are included in the study, falling into several categories. The authors share that this encompasses “seven organochlorine pesticides, eight organophosphates, four carbamates, three other insecticides, seven herbicides, and nine fungicides. These pesticides were chosen based on findings from previous studies that indicated a connection to sleep health and their common usage in Thailand.”

The reported pesticide exposure was compared to sleep disorder diagnoses, as confirmed with hospital records. “In this study, sleep disorder (F51) refers to a group of diseases including insomnia (F510), hypersomnia (F511), disorders of the sleep-wake cycle (F512), sleepwalking (F513), night terrors/sleep terrors (F514), nightmares (F515), and other sleep disorders (F518, F519).”

The study results show that there is a significant association with sleep disorders for insecticide exposure between 116.1–442.5 days. A higher risk with fungicide and molluscicides exposure is noted with any use between 1.2–9030.0 days. The researchers report: “For individual pesticides, significant associations were observed in 19 out of 38 individual pesticides. There were twelve insecticides, including three organochlorine insecticides (chlorpyrifos, chlordane, dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane [DDT]), five organophosphates (ethyl p-nitrophenyl phenylphosphorothioate [EPN], folidol, methamidophos, mevinphos, profenofos), three carbamates (carbaryl, carbofuran, methomyl), and imidacloprid.”

Overall, the study shows that the female group displays higher associations with sleep disorders. Significant associations are also noted for “two herbicides (diuron and paraquat) and five fungicides (benomyl, Bordeaux mixture, carbendazim, copper sulphate, metalaxyl). The association for some chemicals, e.g., chlorpyrifos, DDT, endosulfan, carbosulfan were in a dose-response pattern.”

The authors summarize these results, saying: “This study revealed a significant connection between historical pesticide use and sleep disorders. Remarkably, this association persisted even after adjusting for demographic variations and potential confounding from exposure to other pesticides.”

Notable research on sleep health that the authors reference include:

• “A recent study in Almeria reported a higher risk of insomnia among farmers who did not wear gloves or masks when using pesticides.”
• “Results from a well-designed follow up study among mother-adolescent pairs found sleep health of adolescents could be linked to pesticide exposure during pregnancy.” This study also “reported 3-PBA, a pyrethroid insecticide, to associate with insufficient sleep and trouble sleeping.”
• “In an Agriculture Health Study in the US, a study found pesticide exposure to associate with dream-enacting behaviors or parasomnia. This finding was consistent with a previous US study which reported pesticides used at home could be associated with insufficient sleep and trouble sleeping among adults.” See studies here and here.
• “A study from Uganda reported acute pesticide exposure to increase risk of sleep problems, sleep inadequacy and snoring.” This study also finds the “fungicide mancozeb and herbicide glyphosate to increase risk of sleep problems” and a higher risk of sleep disorders among females.
• “In China, a study found greenhouse farmer with high cumulative pesticide exposure to have a short sleep duration, poor sleep quality, and difficulty sleeping.”
• “Pesticides influence the acetylcholine, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), and serotonin pathways, which are critical for sleep regulation. Disruption of these pathways may result in sleep disturbances by impairing the normal sleep-wake cycle.” See study here.
• “Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including specific herbicides and fungicides, may modify hormone levels (e.g., melatonin, cortisol) that play a direct role in regulating circadian rhythms and sleep patterns.”
• “Research indicates that pesticides may stimulate the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and inflammatory cytokines, potentially affecting brain regions involved in sleep regulation, including the hypothalamus.”
• “Previous studies also found a higher sleep problem among those exposed to organophosphate ester, carbamate insecticide as a group, and carbofuran.” (See studies here, here, here, and here.)
• “In animal studies, researchers found that paraquat increases oxidative stress, a condition that can decrease the length of the sleep-wake cycle and disrupt sleep consolidation.”

Despite the Heliyon study not considering other potential risk factors for sleep disorders, such as body mass index (BMI), chronic disease, stress, or other psychological issues, this is a novel study that supports existing research linking pesticide exposure to sleep disorders. “A notable strength of this study lies in its collection of exposure information for various pesticides, coupled with the use of medically diagnosed diseases confirmed by ICD-10 [a medical classification list by the World Health Organization (WHO)], which is considered more accurate than relying on self-reported outcomes. The results provide valuable insights into the effects on sleep health in a developing country like Thailand, where pesticides are extensively used with minimal exposure prevention,” the researchers state.

The authors continue: “This study serves as a robust comparison group for results from studies conducted in other parts of the world. The impact of pesticides on sleep health deserves increased attention, considering that sleep deficits might be an underlying cause of various health problems and compromise the overall well-being of individuals. This significance is heightened by the widespread use of pesticides as chemicals.”

In finding an association between occupational pesticide exposure and sleep disorders, this research contributes to the wide body of science highlighting the threats of pesticides to human health. In order to protect the health of humans and all organisms within the environment, organic land management practices are needed.

Organic agriculture provides a holistic solution that not only protects farmers and farmworkers, who are at disproportionate risk, but all organisms who are exposed to toxic chemicals through oral, dermal, and inhalation routes. To learn more about the benefits of organic, see here and here. For information about specific pesticides and alternatives, visit the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management. Take action and have your voice heard by participating in the Action of the Week, where you can weigh in 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.

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

Source:

Juntarawijit, C. et al. (2025) Pesticide exposure and sleep disorder: A cross-sectional study among Thai farmers, Heliyon. Available at: https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(24)17154-X.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 30, 2025) A research article in Biology Letters, published by The Royal Society, finds that the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid disrupts survival and reproductive patterns in Bombus impatiens bumblebees. The study adds to the wide body of science highlighting how exposure to pesticides “can result in immediate mortality or cause long-term detrimental effects on pollinators‘ health, lifespan and reproductive success,” the authors state.

The researchers performed two experiments to assess the effects of various concentrations of imidacloprid, one of which focuses on bees during diapause, a period of dormancy. “Wild bees, which provide the majority of pollination services worldwide, undergo an annual life cycle that includes a winter diapause, that can span over 75% of their life cycle and during which their metabolism, growth and development are halted,” the authors note. They continue: “The time spent in diapause can have lasting effects on pollinator fitness and their ability to establish nests or colonies in the following spring. This period is especially critical for social bee colonies, which are founded by a single queen after diapause and play a vital role in large-scale pollination.”

Exposure to pesticides during diapause can occur while bee species overwinter in contaminated soils. In the U.S., many pesticides are highly water-soluble and are found in many nontarget plants, such as in the pollen, nectar, and soil that bee species encounter. (See additional coverage on soil pesticide residues here, here, and here.) “Diapause is a critical period in the life cycle of most bees with profound effects on their health. Exposure to sublethal doses of pesticides may increase bees’ resistance to stress/cold during diapause but may also trade off with reduced reproductive performance later in life,” the researchers state.

They continue: “Bumblebees are annual and social pollinators of great importance to pollination of agricultural and wild crops. A single queen starts a nest in the spring and can produce up to several hundreds of workers at the peak of the season. Towards the end of the summer, the colony produces sexuals [drones and worker bees], and only the new queens (gynes) survive the winter by entering a diapause of six to nine months following mating.”

In this study, the authors assess hormesis in bumblebees with imidacloprid exposure. Hormesis is “a general adaptive response characterized by low-dose stimulation and high-dose inhibition, where overcompensation or stimulation occurs after homeostasis is disrupted,” they denote. By feeding bees different concentrations of imidacloprid and examining “(i) the effect of imidacloprid on longevity and reproduction of gynes, males and workers and (ii) how imidacloprid exposure affects gynes’ diapause survival length,” the researchers find hormetic stress responses in Bombus impatiens.

Twelve colonies of bees were used in the first experiment while six colonies were used in the second experiment. Within the first experiment, the control groups were not subjected to any pesticides, while the treatment groups were fed concentrations of either 6, 60, 150, 300, or 600 ppb of imidacloprid. “These concentrations were chosen to cover both field-realistic and LD50 [lethal] doses of imidacloprid shown to cause mortality within days in other species of bees,” the researchers report. Mortality and the total number of offspring produced were recorded until all bees died.

In the second experiment, gynes (new queens) were collected and “provided pesticide-free sugar solution for the first 3 days, then divided into treatment groups and received either 0, 6 or 60 ppb imidacloprid during days 3-6 after emergence [and] [g]ynes were then weighed and placed in cold storage” and checked weekly for survival until all died. This experiment represents the process of diapause.

As a result, the authors note that imidacloprid treatments higher than 150 ppb reduce survival in gynes, workers, and males. The number of offspring produced was also highest in the control group, showing that even low concentrations of imidacloprid, such as the field-realistic doses of 6 and 60 ppb, can impact reproduction.

In summarizing these results, the authors state: “As anticipated, bee longevity and reproductive performance declined with increasing concentrations of imidacloprid. However, when gynes were exposed to sublethal concentrations and subsequently entered diapause, their survival was greater compared with the control, demonstrating a classic hormetic response. Notably, a recent study showed that bumblebee gynes actively seek out pesticide-contaminated soil, potentially indicating an adaptive strategy to enhance their fitness.”

Similar to previous study results, within the second experiment there was a higher proportion of gynes that survived diapause in the treatment groups versus the control group. This reflects hormetic responses that allow organisms to survive unfavorable conditions. The researchers postulate that a “mechanism linking pesticide exposure to greater diapause survival involves its effects on thermal tolerance and metabolism, possibly enhancing cold resistance at the cost of reduced reproductive performance later in life… Pesticides are known to affect the expression of heat shock proteins [HSPs], and several studies have shown that pesticide exposure alters heat or cold tolerance… Sublethal pesticide exposure often impairs reproduction even without increasing mortality, suggesting a trade-off between detoxification and reproduction.”

Studies show that HSPs “act to protect organisms from various environmental stressors such as heat, cold, desiccation, toxins, pathogens, and others. In this regard, levels of transcripts and translated proteins encoded by HSP genes can be used as biomarkers to monitor cellular and physiological responses to various environmental stimuli.” Another study finds hormetic responses in insects along with an increased expression of detoxification genes, allowing insects to withstand higher levels of pesticides.

Hormetic responses to stressors such as pesticides have been documented to enhance performance in some areas but may reduce the fitness of the next generation. While additional research is needed to determine the full consequences of their enhanced detoxification abilities, studies do show that there is a cost for the hormetic stress responses including decreased reproduction in future generations. (See more on multigenerational effects here.)

One study finds that “Osmia bees exposed to anoxia hormesis exhibit improved flight, mating and longevity compared with controls, yet their offspring experience developmental delays and incomplete adult emergence.” Another study finds that: “exposure to neonicotinoids affected Osmia females and reduced the reproduction of their offspring, even when the offspring were raised in a pesticide-free environment. This highlights the complex, diverse and long-lasting effects of pesticides on pollinators and the potential stimulatory effect they may have in addition to their harmful effects.”

Pollinators provide ecosystem services and are essential for food security but face threats from habitat loss, pesticide exposure, climate change, and many other factors. One of the largest chemical threats is from neonicotinoids. “Although their use in Europe has been banned or restricted, they are still very popular in the United States, with 24% of the global insecticide market. On top of that, they are highly soluble in water, persist in the soil and of a particular danger to diapausing bees,” the authors note.

Exposure to pesticides, even at low concentrations, can compromise pollinator health. A multitude of studies find exposure affects key traits such as survival, reproduction, learning and memory, flight, and foraging, among others. The risk assessments conducted on pesticides by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lack comprehensive data regarding their effects on bees. The limited studies that are performed do not adequately assess the varying impacts throughout all bee species, which display differing levels of sensitivity, nor do they account for the cumulative effects through various routes of exposure to pesticide mixtures. (See more on EPA failures here, here, here, here, and here.)

The researchers conclude that: “[T]he accumulation of pesticide residues in soil is frequently overlooked in standard assessments, leading to incomplete evaluations of pesticide safety. To fully understand the impact of pesticides on pollinators, it is essential to assess their effects across all life stages and account for the varying vulnerabilities throughout the insect life cycle… Not accounting for these hormetic effects can skew survival tests, causing underestimations of the risks neonicotinoids pose to beneficial pollinators. Additionally, without a thorough understanding of the latent effects of pesticides and the trade-offs between diapause survival and post-diapause performance, the full extent of the problem remains unclear, potentially undermining conservation efforts and agricultural policies. This is particularly critical for social bees, such as bumblebees, whose populations depend heavily on the successful emergence of individuals from diapause.”

As an alternative to harmful petrochemical pesticides, crop production practices can consider pollinator preservation, which in turn protects food security and biodiversity, by employing organic land management strategies. Organic agriculture is the solution that not only eliminates exposure to toxic synthetic pesticides for pollinators but also supports soil health and the health of all organisms, including humans.

In previous coverage, Beyond Pesticides reports how researchers find that organic farming provides the highest benefit to bees, as organic practices lead directly to lower parasite load and higher colony growth. See more on the benefits of organic land management here and make The Safer Choice to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides.

Image: Art Page submission from Marion Yaglinski, “Bumblebee on Oriental Chives.”

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

Source:

Amsalem, E., Derstine, N. and Murray, C. (2025) Hormetic response to pesticides in diapausing bees, Biology Letters. Available at: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsbl.2024.0612.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 29, 2025) A team of researchers recently discovered the benefits of using natural biofertilizers and biostimulants in the production of tomatoes, the results of a two-year study featured in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. When the researchers added a biofertilizer consisting of fungi and bacteria, and/or a biostimulant made of algae, the tomato plants grew bigger, faster, and produced significantly more (and sweeter) fruit than plants that received neither treatment. This research, published in August 2024, adds to a growing body of evidence that non-synthetic, natural fertilizer alternatives can support a global transition away from the toxic chemical treadmill of modern commercial farming. 

[A note about the definition of plant biostimulants. They are substances or microorganisms that enhance natural plant processes, improving resource efficiency, stress tolerance, and overall growth without directly providing nutrients or controlling pests. There is ongoing confusion regarding a lack of a set definition, as some biostimulants overlap in function with fertilizers or biocontrol agents. The definition of biofertilizers—also referred to as inoculants, bioinoculants, or bioformulations—are products containing beneficial microorganisms in active or inactive forms. These microorganisms, applied singly or in combination, colonize the rhizosphere or plant tissues to enhance nutrient availability (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) and uptake, ultimately improving plant growth and crop productivity. See here and here]. 

Also known as “plant growth-promoting microorganisms” (PGPM), microbial biofertilizers consist of naturally occurring soil microorganisms, such as rhizobacteria and fungi. By forming symbiotic relationships with a plant’s root system, previous studies have shown that they can enhance plant growth and increase a plant’s tolerance for stressors such as drought and disease, which could serve as an entry towards transitioning to organic agricultural practices worldwide.

As Emanuele Radicetti, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Ferrara, Italy, explains, “There is an urgent need to develop sustainable agroecosystems that can ensure sufficient crop yield over a long-term period. Biofertilisers are gradually emerging as a promising, nature-based alternative that reduces agroecosystem inputs by enhancing organism interactions.”

Methods and materials

The study, “Impact of sustainable agronomic practices for the improvement of agricultural production,” investigates the effects of plant growth-promoting microorganisms (PGPMs) and algae-based biostimulants on the growth and yield of tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in organic farming systems. The experiment was conducted on an organic farm in Ferrara, Italy, over the 2022 and 2023 growing seasons. The researchers hypothesized that the combined application of plant growth-promoting microorganisms (PGPMs) and algae-based biostimulants could improve organic tomato production in organic production (which uses no synthetic fertilizer or pesticides). This study adds to the growing evidence that organic food production practices can be optimized for higher yield, growth, and quality without petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.  The study objectives were threefold:

1. Evaluate the effects of PGPMs on plantlet establishment under field conditions;
2. Assess the impact of combined PGPM and algae-based biostimulant application on tomato growth; and,
3. Investigate how the integrated use of PGPMs and algae-based biostimulants affects tomato yield and fruit quality.

The two treatments of microbial biofertilizers and one biostimulant are

• Microbial biofertilizer PGPM_1 (MICOSAT F®) contains mycorrhizal fungi (Glomus spp.), Trichoderma spp., Agrobacterium radiobacter, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Pochonia chlamydosporia, Trichoderma harzianum, Streptomyces spp., and Pichia pastor, produced by CCS Centro Colture Sperimentali, Aosta, Italy.
• Microbial biofertilizer PGPM_2 (MYCOUP) contains Glomus iranicum var. tenuihypharum (1%) and rhizosphere bacteria, produced by BIOGARD Division, Bergamo, Italy.
• Algae-based biosimulant was derived from spent low-salinity BG11 medium used to cultivate the green microalga Neochloris oleoabundans UTEX 1195, produced by the University of Ferrara botanical lab, applied at a concentration of 0.5% and 1.0%.

Treatment applications

Microbial Biofertilizers: Applied at transplanting, with PGPM-1 at 10 kg/ha and PGPM-2 at 3 kg/ha, delivered via drip irrigation five days after transplanting. In addition, no inoculated tomato plants were cultivated as control group (No_PGPM).

Algae-Based Biostimulants: Foliar applications were made at 15 and 30 days post-transplant, using 0.5% and 1% concentrations. Control plants did not receive any biostimulants (No_Biost).

Control group details

The control groups for both microbial biofertilizers (No_PGPM) and biostimulants (No_Biost) are essential for establishing baseline comparisons, and the experiment design allows testing of two concentrations of biostimulants alone, PGPM formulations alone, and in combination with biostimulants against a control with no biofertilizer (PGPM) or biostimulant used.

Organic farm site description

The experiment was conducted at the organic F.lli Baretta farm in Ferrara, Italy. The site features a mild thermos-Mediterranean climate with an average annual rainfall of 617 mm. The soil conditions are suitable for organic agriculture (most recently for organic wheat production). Soil properties include:

34.4% sand, 49.0% silt, and 16.6% clay, pH of 7.8. 1.13% organic matter. 1.29% total nitrogen.

Results and improved impacts on yield and quality

PGPMs contribute to improved fruit size and sugar content. Biostimulants enhance fruit color and lycopene levels. The combination of treatments significantly increases marketable fruit yield, minimizes unmarketable produce, and elevates overall fruit quality. The control treatment (No_PGPM + No_Biost) provides a baseline for tomato production without any amendments. These control plots exhibit the lowest growth and yield metrics.  

Natural biostimulants developed from algae are also being developed for use in organic agriculture. Easily applied as a foliar spray, biostimulants provide the natural compounds necessary for plant growth and, in comparison with conventional agricultural products, are not only environmentally friendly but more cost-effective. “Algae extracts are considered a rich source of plant biostimulants and provide a renewable option for improving crop quality and yield,” explained Dr. Radicetti. “Even at low doses they have the capacity to support plant development, especially under stressed conditions, which are becoming more frequent with climate change.”

The results of the study, stunning the researchers, demonstrate a significant increase in plant health and fruit yields; 30 days after transplanting the samples, seedlings treated with biofertilizer exhibited higher fresh and dried biomass, more and bigger leaves, longer and denser roots, and increased height compared to the control group. Plants treated with the highest concentration of the algae biostimulant and/or one of the two tested biofertilizers produced the greatest yield of fruit and the greatest number of marketable tomatoes averaging 63-67 tons per hectare. Conversely, the least amount of marketable fruit came from the control plants that received neither biostimulant nor biofertilizer: 26 tons of fruit per hectare. Plants dosed with the 0.5% concentration offered an intermediate yield of 42-46 tons per hectare.

Organic fertilizers have been used throughout the history of agriculture and, adding to the body of science, this research indicates that highly effective organic alternatives to petrochemical synthetic fertilizers conceivably could be relied used effectively on a massive scale. In the words of Dr. Radicetti, “There is an urgent need to develop sustainable agroecosystems that can ensure sufficient crop yield over a long-term period… Biofertilizers are gradually emerging as a promising, nature-based alternative that reduces agroecosystem inputs by enhancing organism interactions.” These “fertilizers” feed the biological life in the soil, and do not directly feed the plants.

Commercial industry falls short 

The global soil health industry, valued in the billions, has seen rapid expansion as farmers and gardeners seek eco-friendly solutions to enhance crop yields and soil sustainability, such as the PGPM biofertilizers featured above. However, recent reporting by Harvest Public Media illustrates that certain commercial PGPM products fall short of their promises. As noted by Celia Llopis-Jepsen, a reporter with the Kansas News Service and the creator and host of the environmental podcast “Up From Dust,” most biofertilizers and related products are not subject to mandatory independent testing or even thorough self-regulation in the U.S. As a result, their potential benefits, well-documented in scientific research, often fail to translate into reliable commercial applications. Adopting a structure similar to the Organic Food Production Act and the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) could provide a solution, as this framework has been effective in supporting the integrity of the U.S.-certified organic food sector by incorporating independent third-party inspections, transparent decision-making process open to public comment, and a system for continuous improvement, including review of approved inputs and products.

Such a system for plant growth-promoting products would help ensure that their scientific potential is fully realized in practice. Without these measures, the benefits promised by biofertilizers and other PGPMs may remain underutilized, leaving farmers and consumers with fewer dependable, environmentally sustainable options. See a recent article for a meta-analysis of globally sourced commercial mycorrhizal inoculants.

The appeal of soil microbes amid concerns over synthetic fertilizers

The growing interest in soil microbiomes is driven in part by dissatisfaction with synthetic fertilizers, which, while boosting yields, have caused environmental harm, including groundwater contamination and the expansion of the Gulf of Mexico’s “dead zone.” As Beyond Pesticides has reported, synthetic fertilizers cause demonstrated environmental harm, negative climate impacts, decreased soil carbon sequestration, and devastating harm to farmers.  As Harvest Public Media reports, many growers are turning to microbial products, drawn by their potential to enhance soil health and reduce dependency on chemical inputs.

Some commercial synthetic fertilizer products, including from The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, allegedly mislead consumers on the hazardous nature of their fertilizer products, which are marketed as “eco-friendly” and “sustainable,” while containing sewage sludge (biosolids) contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).  In October 2024, Beyond Pesticides filed suit in two cases, Beyond Pesticides v. Miracle-Gro Co. and Beyond Pesticides v. GreenTechnologies, LLC, in D.C. Superior Court. The complaint cites test results showing PFAS residues in the companies’ fertilizers and numerous scientific studies on the adverse effects of PFAS to public health, wildlife, and pollinators. “Companies that market hazardous substances while claiming environmental and health benefits are misleading consumers who seek out products to protect themselves, their families, and the ecosystems in which they live,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “Our litigation seeks to put a stop to this deceptive practice in the marketplace, where there are products and practices that are truly healthful and protective of nature,” Mr. Feldman continued. Update as reported in the New York Times: EPA finally acknowledges unsafe levels of PFAS in “sewage sludge” fertilizers.

Organic and regenerative-organic agriculture and the importance of organic fertilizer

Scientific research proves the benefits and importance of organic fertilizers. As reported by Beyond Pesticides for example, a July 2024 study in Biology and Fertility of Soils highlights the benefits of organic farming for soil health, showing it restores ecological functions degraded by chemical-intensive practices. Organic fertilizers boost beneficial protistan predators and maintain sustainable predator-prey dynamics in the soil microbiome. In contrast, chemical fertilizers disrupt these relationships, reinforcing the case for transitioning to organic agriculture.

In addition to supporting a healthy soil ecosystem, Beyond Pesticides continues to issue a clarion call for ending the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and to accelerate the transition to organic farming. Organic agriculture and land management are essential to mitigating the existential threats of the climate crisis. Under organic management, healthy soil can absorb and store 1,000 pounds of carbon per acre foot of soil annually, translating to approximately 3,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre drawn down from the air and sequestered into the soil. [A fact often overlooked by policy makers in generating climate strategies or members of the public seeking to fight climate change is that carbon-sequestering soil practices are federally mandated in certified organic agriculture.]

The challenge lies in overcoming entrenched economic interests in the petroleum and chemical industries that perpetuate chemical-intensive farming and land management practices. Beyond Pesticides advocates for national grassroots collaboration to reframe public discourse and advance systemic change through organic land management. The organic approach operates on the precautionary principle, rejecting toxic chemicals in favor of sustainable methods to meet agricultural and landscaping goals.

The focus on soil health is a basic principle in organic agriculture that directly applies to all land management, including organic lawn and landscape care. See Beyond Pesticides’ website to learn about lawns and landscapes, hazards in common lawn pesticides, and safer alternatives, including organically compatible fertilizers. Please visit the Tools for Change page to learn how to organize your community to end pesticide use and adopt organic land care.

You can contribute to this transition by choosing certified organic food, supporting local organic farmers at markets, and practicing organic land care. Join Beyond Pesticides in fighting to protect the importance of organic integrity—and why public engagement is needed to ensure the National Organic Standards Board upholds strict rules regulating organic agriculture.

Join us in taking action on organic integrity by clicking here and see here for more topics for action.

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

Sources:

Microbial biofertilizers and algae-based biostimulant affect fruit yield characteristics of organic processing tomato, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, published on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry, August 31, 2024

Researchers stunned by results after utilizing unconventional farming tactic: ‘We were fascinated’, The Cool Down, November 6, 2024

Meta‐analysis reveals globally sourced commercial mycorrhizal inoculants fall short, New Phytologist, November 21, 2024

Researchers make stunning discovery after examining farmland treated only with organic fertilizers for decades: ‘[Will] help us to move forward’, The Cool Down, October 13, 2024

Microbial biofertilizers and algae-based biostimulants found to boost tomato crop yield and quality, Phys.org, Society of Chemical Industry, October 1, 2024

Plant Biostimulants: Definition and Overview of Categories and Effects, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) publication, May 2019

Biostimulants 101, Small Farm Sustainability Iowa State University Extension

Lawsuit Targets Scotts Miracle-Gro for Claiming PFAS-Tainted Products Are “Eco-Friendly” and “Sustainable,” Beyond Pesticides Daily News, October 10, 2024

Study Shows Value of Soil Microbiome, Nurtured in Organic Farming, Harmed by Chemical-Intensive Ag,  Beyond Pesticides Daily News, August 9, 2024

Petrochemical Pesticides, Fertilizers, and Plastics Linked to Dire Health Effects while Alternatives Are Available, Beyond Pesticides Daily News, March 14, 2024

(Beyond Pesticides, January 28, 2025) Beyond Pesticides is urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to move more cautiously in  its proposal for “streamlined . . . registration review decisions for several biopesticides,” subject to a public comment period through February 10, 2025. The organization is raising EPA review process concerns. The organization states: “Although the biopesticides listed in EPA’s proposal for streamlining the registration review process for ‘low risk biopesticides’ can be considered relatively low risk compared to conventional pesticides, the precedent for relying on the original or previous registration data and review is troublesome. 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 allowance of pesticides 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 these materials. The issue of biopesticide review is made complicated by the broad definition that the agency uses for the term. EPA uses the following definition for “biopesticides”:

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

In the context, the mechanisms at work and the biological and chemical effects, while viewed as important alternatives to petrochemical pesticides, require careful evaluation, according to the Beyond Pesticides comments. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides has urged EPA to drop PIPs from its definition of biopesticides because of widespread insect resistance to valuable ecologically based materials and indiscriminate disruption of the ecosystem. (See Tell EPA that Biopesticides Must Be Redefined.) Furthermore, it is Beyond Pesticides’ position, also incorporated into the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), that any pest management inputs used in ecological-based farming systems (e.g., organic farming) must be only one part of an organic systems plan that focuses primarily on building soil health and enhancing biodiversity, (often referred to as ecosystems services), foundational to plant health, resilience, and prevention of disease and infestations. However, biopesticides are often discussed in the scientific literature as a substitution for synthetic petrochemical pesticides or to be used alongside synthetic chemical controls in an Integrated Pesticide Management (IPM) system. (See “Biopesticides as a promising alternative to synthetic pesticides: A case for microbial pesticides, phytopesticides, and nanobiopesticides.”) Organic advocates maintain that without a holistic approach, land managers remain on a pesticide treadmill and undercut ecological balance necessary in organic systems.

Because EPA considers the four “biopesticides” in its proposal to be “low risk,” “[t]he Agency is proposing that no further registration review is necessary for these biopesticides at this time.” Although the biopesticides listed in EPA’s proposal for streamlining the registration review process for “low risk biopesticides” can be considered relatively low risk compared to conventional pesticides, the precedent for relying on the original or previous registration data and review is troublesome.

>> Tell EPA to do full registration reviews for all pesticides. 

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conduct a registration review of all registered pesticides every 15 years. EPA explains, “[S]cience is constantly evolving, and new scientific information can come to light at any time and change our understanding of potential effects from pesticides.”

The four biopesticides to which this proposal pertains are alpha methyl mannoside (a plant growth regulator to improve the growth of a range of crops); Duddingtonia flagrans strain IAH 1297 (to break the cycle of parasitic nematode infections in grazing animals); Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate 1906 (to protect greenhouse tomatoes from other viruses); and sheep fat (to repel animals like deer from ornamentals, trees, shrubs, and other plants). When considering the listed biopesticides in the proposal, EPA’s summaries are predominantly dependent on limited actual data, data waiver request rationales, and purported absence of new data or adverse incidents reported. The absence of adverse effect evidence is not evidence of no adverse effects.

For alpha methyl mannoside, all human health data requirements were satisfied by a combination of data, waiver rationales, and the bridging of information from guar gum where high concentrations of mannose polymers are present. For ecological effects, all nontarget toxicology data requirements have been satisfied through guideline studies that demonstrated low acute toxicity for birds, mammals, aquatic organisms, invertebrates, and plants. EPA has concluded that adverse effects are not anticipated to birds, mammals, freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates, insects, and nontarget plants. Curiously, the agency also determined that effects to federally listed threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitats are not expected from these uses. However, the mode of action for alpha methyl mannoside, as a plant growth regulator, is to stimulate growth of treated plants. It is unclear why stimulating the growth of listed plant species, if exposed, or plants in the critical habitat of a listed species either plant or animal, if exposed, would not be potentially problematic or negatively affected by excessive growth. This seems worthy of more in-depth consideration as many herbicides function by excessive growth stimulation of target weeds, which can pose serious risks to nontarget plants.

For Duddingtonia flagrans strain IAH 1297, the registrant requested consideration of the history of safe use, the global ubiquity of D. flagrans, and the rationale based on literature sources to satisfy the data requirements for avian toxicity, wild mammal toxicity, aquatic organism testing, nontarget plant testing, and nontarget insect testing. EPA accepted the data waiver requests.

Similarly for Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate 1906, scientific rationale was submitted and accepted to satisfy data requirements for Avian oral, Avian inhalation, Wild mammals, Freshwater fish, Freshwater invertebrates, Estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, Nontarget insects, Honey bees, and Nontarget Plant toxicity/pathogenicity testing. Additionally, some nontarget plant testing, persistence in soil, persistence in water, algal toxicity, duckweed growth inhibition, and vegetative vigor studies were submitted. The results from the nontarget plant testing study are considered supplemental due to several deficiencies in the study, and it is not robust enough to conclude a lack of hazard for nontarget plants. The aquatic plant studies did not adequately describe the positive controls used, why the virus was not detectable at the start of the experiments, and did not describe the concentration (lg/L) of Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate 1906 treatment in the Algal toxicity test which may have caused minimal growth inhibition.

EPA distinguishes three classes of biopesticides—biochemical, microbial, and plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs). The agency says, “Because it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a substance meets the criteria for classification as a biochemical pesticide, EPA has established a special committee to make such decisions.” “Biopesticides” are often assumed to be safer than “conventional” pesticides because they are assumed to be “natural.” However, EPA’s definition of biopesticides—”derived from such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals”—does not mean that they are “natural.” Many of them would not qualify as “nonsynthetic” inputs in organic farming because the organic law requires consideration of manufacturing processes. Since some biopesticides—for example, pheromones—occur in minute quantities naturally, they are produced through chemical synthesis for commercial use. Such synthetic chemicals must be recommended by the National Organic Standards Board before they can be used in organic production and processing. Some microbial pesticides and PIPs would not be allowed because they result from genetic engineering.

>> Tell EPA to do full registration reviews for all pesticides. 

Suggested comment to EPA:
Although biopesticides in the proposal for streamlining the registration review process for “low risk biopesticides” can be considered low risk compared to conventional pesticides, the precedent for relying on the original or previous registration data and review is unacceptable.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act requires that EPA conduct a registration review of all registered pesticides every 15 years. EPA states, “[S]cience is constantly evolving, and new scientific information can come to light at any time and change our understanding of potential effects from pesticides.”

EPA’s summaries concerning Alpha methyl mannoside; Duddingtonia flagrans strain IAH 1297; Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate 1906; and sheep fat are predominantly dependent on limited actual data, data waiver request rationales, and purported absence of new data or reported adverse incidents. Absence of adverse effect evidence is not evidence of no adverse effects.

All human health data requirements for alpha methyl mannoside were satisfied by a combination of data, waiver rationales, and data from guar gum where high concentrations of mannose polymers are present. EPA concluded from guideline studies that adverse effects are not anticipated to birds, mammals, freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates, insects, and nontarget plants. Although the agency also determined that effects to federally listed threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitats are not expected from these uses, the mode of action as a plant growth regulator is to stimulate growth of treated plants. It is unclear why stimulating growth of listed plant species or plants in a critical habitat of a listed species, either plant or animal, would not result in negative impacts. This seems worthy of more in-depth consideration, as many herbicides function by excessive growth stimulation of target weeds, posing serious risks to nontarget plants.

For Duddingtonia flagrans strain IAH 1297, the registrant requested consideration of the history of safe use, the global ubiquity of D. flagrans, and a rationale based on literature sources to satisfy the data requirements for avian toxicity, wild mammal toxicity, aquatic organism testing, nontarget plant testing, and nontarget insect testing. EPA accepted the data waiver requests.

Similarly for Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate 1906, scientific rationale was accepted to satisfy data requirements for avian oral, avian inhalation, wild mammals, freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, nontarget insects, honey bees, and nontarget plant toxicity/pathogenicity testing. Some nontarget plant testing, persistence in soil, persistence in water, algal toxicity, duckweed growth inhibition, and vegetative vigor studies were submitted. The nontarget plant testing study has several deficiencies and is insufficient to support a lack of hazard for nontarget plants. The aquatic plant studies did not adequately describe the positive controls used, why the virus was not detectable at the start of the experiments, and did not describe the concentration of the treatment in the algal toxicity test which may have caused minimal growth inhibition.

The EFSA 2021 peer review of the sheep fat risk assessment found toxicity data were not available for any group of nontarget organisms. A low acute and chronic risk to birds and mammals was presumed. Toxicity data to assess the chronic risk to aquatic organisms was deemed unnecessary.

Although these biopesticides may be considered low risk compared to conventional pesticides, relying on the original or previous registration data and review is problematic.

Thank you.

The target for this Action is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, via comments through Regulations.gov.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 27, 2025) A public comment period ends today, January 27, 2025, on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) proposed critical habitat rule to protect the rusty patched bumble bee under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This proposal is responsive to the agency’s 2024 stipulated settlement agreement resulting from years of advocacy and government review and a 2023 court order (NRDC et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.). The proposal follows a 2017 determination by the agency that lists the bumble bee as an endangered species. (See previous Daily News here, here, here, here, and here.)

>> Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fully protect the endangered rusty patched bumble bee by finalizing its proposed critical habitat rule with strengthening provisions.

The FWS proposal grows out of a species status assessment (SSA) conducted by “15 scientists with expertise in bumble bee biology, habitat management, and stressors (factors negatively affecting the species).” University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign insect ecologist Jason Robinson, PhD concludes in his paper, “Project-specific bumble bee habitat quality assessment,” “As the first social insect listed under the ESA, the listing of RPBB has required new methods for biological assessment. This species has a complex life cycle requiring a mosaic of different habitat types, with each life cycle stage facing unique challenges and threats.” This is why a critical habitat designation is especially important and timely after seven years since the listing.

When FWS issued its listing announcement in 2017, it said, “Causes of the decline in rusty patched bumble bee populations are believed to be loss of habitat; disease and parasites; use of pesticides that directly or indirectly kill the bees; climate change, which can affect the availability of the flowers they depend on; and extremely small population size. Most likely, a combination of these factors has caused the decline in rusty patched bumble bees.” There is substantial research demonstrating that neonicotinoid insecticides, working either individually or synergistically, play a critical role in the ongoing decline of bees and other pollinators due to mounting evidence of toxicity.

When FWS announced the endangered species classification for the rusty patched bumble bee, it wrote: “Before it was declared endangered in 2017, the rusty patched bumble bee experienced a widespread and steep decline, with populations plummeting by about 87 percent in the past two decades. . . The cause of the species’ drastic decline is unknown, but evidence suggests a harmful interaction between a disease-causing pathogen and exposure to pesticides. Other threats to the insect include habitat loss and degradation, competition and disease introduction from managed and non-native bees, small population genetics, and climate change. The rusty patched bumble bee lives in colonies, which are formed by solitary queens emerging from overwintering sites. The species needs nectar and pollen-producing flowers for food, undisturbed nesting habitat near food sources, and suitable overwintering areas to survive. The final recovery plan for the rusty patched bumble bee includes actions such as land management to improve floral resources and measures to reduce exposure to pesticides and disease-causing pathogens. Raising awareness about the species and engaging private citizens and groups are also key to recovery.” 

In this context, given the scientific findings, FWS must make sure that its designation of critical habitat takes into account all areas that are necessary to the species’ restoration, including agricultural areas and unoccupied spaces.

>> Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fully protect the endangered rusty patched bumble bee by finalizing its proposed critical habitat rule with strengthening provisions. 

The target for this Action is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, via comments through Regulations.gov.

Comment to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
I am writing in support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s proposed critical habitat rule to protect the rusty patched bumble bee under the Endangered Species Act. This proposal is responsive to the agency’s 2024 stipulated settlement agreement resulting from years of review and a 2023 court order (NRDC et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.). The proposal follows a 2017 determination by the agency that lists the bumble bee as an endangered species.

The proposal  grows out of a species status assessment (SSA) conducted by “15 scientists with expertise in bumble bee biology, habitat management, and stressors (factors negatively affecting the species).” As stated in his paper, “Project-specific bumble bee habitat quality assessment,” Jason Robinson, PhD concludes, “As the first social insect listed under the ESA, the listing of RPBB has required new methods for biological assessment. This species has a complex life cycle requiring a mosaic of different habitat types, with each life cycle stage facing unique challenges and threats.” This is why a critical habitat designation is especially important and timely after seven years since the listing.  

When FWS made its listing announcement in 2017, it said, “FWS said in its news release, “Causes of the decline in rusty patched bumble bee populations are believed to be loss of habitat; disease and parasites; use of pesticides that directly or indirectly kill the bees; climate change, which can affect the availability of the flowers they depend on; and extremely small population size. Most likely, a combination of these factors has caused the decline in rusty patched bumble bees.” There is substantial research demonstrating that neonicotinoid insecticides, working either individually or synergistically, play a critical role in the ongoing decline of bees and other pollinators.

When FWS announced the endangered species classification for the rusty patched bumble bee, it wrote: “Before it was declared endangered in 2017, the rusty patched bumble bee experienced a widespread and steep decline, with populations plummeting by about 87 percent in the past two decades. . . The cause of the species’ drastic decline is unknown, but evidence suggests a harmful interaction between a disease-causing pathogen and exposure to pesticides. Other threats to the insect include habitat loss and degradation, competition and disease introduction from managed and non-native bees, small population genetics, and climate change. The rusty patched bumble bee lives in colonies, which are formed by solitary queens emerging from overwintering sites. The species needs nectar and pollen-producing flowers for food, undisturbed nesting habitat near food sources, and suitable overwintering areas to survive. The final recovery plan for the rusty patched bumble bee includes actions such as land management to improve floral resources and measures to reduce exposure to pesticides and disease-causing pathogens. Raising awareness about the species and engaging private citizens and groups are also key to recovery.” 

In this context, given the scientific findings, FWS must make sure that its designation of critical habitat takes into account all areas that are necessary to the species restoration, including agricultural areas and unoccupied spaces.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 24, 2025) Based on data collected from government sources and independent monitoring, a multidisciplinary team of researchers at the University of Connecticut finds 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), state-level data from 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.

It is important to note that the authors acknowledged early in the report the “abandonment” of Integrated Pest Management in “the use of neonicotinoids has coincided with and been implicated in the decline of many non-target species of insects, in particular pollinators such as bees () and monarch butterflies.”

They point out that the use of this systemic pesticide, typically incorporated into seeds and then integrated into the vascular system of plants and expressed through their pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets, constitutes the “abandonment” of a basic principle of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), “an approach predicated on minimizing the use of chemical pesticides in favor of pest monitoring and pesticide application only when necessary (Metcalf and Luckmann, 1994).”

IPM has been highly criticized as a land management system because it lacks a uniform definition, is not limited to least-toxic pesticides, and provides no enforcement mechanism, key elements incorporated in organic certification. (See Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future program—a novel initiative that works with land managers across the nation looking to move to organic practices and principles that replace chemical-intensive practices with pest prevention and management strategies, incorporating soil science and the natural cycling of nutrients.)

Advocates, organic farmers, farmworkers, physicians, and community leaders alike welcome science-based and criteria-driven solutions to avoid pesticide industry greenwashing or co-optation of climate solutions to perpetuate the use of toxic products, as has been made evident with the failure of IPM to eliminate hazardous pesticide use, climate-smart agriculture and carbon markets (See Daily News here), and regenerative agriculture. (See Daily News here.)

Background and Methods

The three authors of this study, Steven J. Presley, PhD, Cristopher R. Perkins, MS, and Michael R. Willig, PhD, are research specialists in environmental science, biology, and ecology at the Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering and Institute of the Environment at University of Connecticut. The existing data, as referenced above, comes from a variety of federal and state-level agencies, however there was also some original data gathering.

CT-DEEP collected data on macroinvertebrates along the Norwalk River between 1989 and 2020. USGS data was collected from October 2001 to January 2024 testing for imidacloprid levels in 600 surface water and 62 groundwater samples from across the state. Surface and ground water testing has not been consistent over the decades on record, leading to support for the 2024 Clean Rivers Project in the southeastern region of the state.

The goal of this small-scale study was “to detect and quantify the presence of six neonicotinoids (i.e., nitenpyram, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, and thiacloprid) in surface waters adjacent to large expanses of manicured lawns such as golf courses, which commonly use neonicotinoids to control pests that damage turf.” (See The Clean Rivers Project Neonicotinoid Data section on pages 8 to 9 of the report for more information.)

Funding for this data gathering, particularly the 2024 Clean Rivers Project, came from various sources including a grassroots fundraiser led by CT Pollinator Pathway and contributions from Sustainable CT, National Resources Defense Council, and Friends of the Earth. Norwalk River Watershed Association and East Norwalk Blue are credited with gathering water quality samples for the 2024 Clean Rivers Project. (See Acknowledgments section on page 3 of the report for more details.)

The UConn authors focus on imidacloprid concentrations in aquatic systems for numerous reasons documented in the report. Imidacloprid was the only neonicotinoid detected in the 2024 Clean Rivers Project, the only neonicotinoid for which USGS has publicly available data, the “single most commonly used insecticide in the world,” and an expansive listing of uses across agricultural and non-agricultural contexts.

Aquatic systems were chosen given the importance of marine ecosystems for the New England economy. They were also selected since EPA has acute and chronic benchmarks for freshwater aquatic invertebrate exposure to insecticides.

The researchers identify five main goals for their report:

1. “Determine long-term and seasonal patterns of the frequency of imidacloprid occurrence in surface and ground waters of Connecticut;
2. Determine seasonal variation in imidacloprid concentration in Connecticut waters;
3. Determine spatiotemporal variation in imidacloprid concentration in Connecticut surface water and groundwater;
4. Leverage long-term sampling from a site in the Connecticut River from northern Connecticut (Thompsonville) as a case study to evaluate long-term patterns in imidacloprid concentration that reflect impacts from a “light urban” region that contains urban, forested, and agricultural areas in Massachusetts that flow south into Connecticut; and,
5. Use the Norwalk River, a watershed with relatively little agriculture, as a case study to evaluate long-term trends in imidacloprid concentration from nonagricultural outdoor sources, and long-term trends in aquatic macroinvertebrate richness and abundance.”

Main Conclusions and Recommendations

Long-Term and Seasonal Patterns: Frequency of Imidacloprid Occurrence

Researchers find that the frequency of imidacloprid detection in Connecticut waterways increased in surface waters but “show[ed] no significant temporal trend in groundwaters.” Beginning after the 2012 sampling period, “46% of samples collected since 2012 have detected imidacloprid, with at least half of the samples testing positive for imidacloprid during 5 of the past 9 years.” It is important to note that groundwater testing for neonicotinoids has not been tested since 2017, which exacerbates the researchers’ concern over “the ability of neonicotinoids to persist for extended periods of time when not exposed to sunlight.”

See Daily News here for related analysis of pesticide contamination in water wells in Wisconsin for lessons to be learned on improving groundwater detection of pesticides.

Seasonal Variation in Imidacloprid Concentration

Similar to the previous section’s results, imidacloprid detection in Connecticut surface water corresponds with the “seasonal applications of neonicotinoids for agriculture and for turf grass management (e.g., lawns and golf courses.)” Average imidacloprid concentrations in June and July are found to be “six times greater than the USEPA freshwater aquatic chronic benchmark.”

Groundwater sampling is deemed “insufficient” to determine seasonal trends.

Where in Connecticut is Imidacloprid Most Concentrated?

Researchers find imidacloprid concentrations increasing closer to Connecticut coastal waterways. “In contrast, there is no significant pattern of imidacloprid concentration going from east to west in the state, there are no significant differences between water sources (surface versus ground water), and there is no interaction between water source and time or between water source and space,” the researchers write. They suggest that the concentration of imidacloprid in the eastern parts of the state “is greatest in agricultural and suburban areas, and the proportion of area represented by the combination of agriculture and suburban developments increases toward the coast, with northern areas often being highly forested, which is a habitat type in which the use of neonicotinoids is uncommon.”

The researchers raise concerns that groundwater along the Connecticut coast “has rarely been tested for imidacloprid.”

The Thompsonville Case Study

The USGS site in Thompsonville tested for imidacloprid concentration from water wells in the Connecticut River Basin, finding “no significant temporal change in groundwaters, but with decreasing mean imidacloprid concentration in surface waters.” Researchers attribute these contrasting results with several factors including,

• Samples were only collected in 2003 and 2017;
• The first year of sampling incorporated skewed data that was otherwise corrected for each consecutive year (2013-2023) for EPA chronic benchmark criteria; and,
• Reliance on inconsistent access to private wells for groundwater data

The Norwalk River Case Study

“Importantly, the 2024 data from the Clean Rivers Project represent the only targeted sampling for neonicotinoids in Connecticut, with water samples taken specifically when (July and August) and where (near manicured turf grasses) one would expect to find high concentrations of neonicotinoids,” the researchers reflect on the implications of data gathered through the 2024 Clean Rivers Project. “This suggests that targeted sampling of areas (e.g., waters near row crops such as corn and soybeans, near golf courses, or near suburban areas with manicured lawns) during the summer months is more likely to reflect the current presence of neonicotinoids than are the data that are currently provided by the USGS.”

Upon reflection of the various datasets, researchers arrive at the following recommendations that can set the tone for neonicotinoid insecticide regulations in the state of Connecticut moving forward:

• “Execute synoptic sampling (coordinated sampling in space and time) of neonicotinoid concentrations and macroinvertebrate abundance and richness;
• Expand the geographic sampling to include little studied areas of Connecticut (e.g., northwestern and eastern portions of the state);
• Increase the testing of ground water and well water for neonicotinoids, as these water sources are under-represented in the available data and may relate more intimately to human health concerns;
• Amplify testing to include samples of sediment, which may represent areas of contaminant accumulation and exposure for some benthic species;
• Enlarge the suite of neonicotinoids whose concentrations are being monitored throughout the state, including newer generation compounds such as cycloxaprid, imidaclothiz, paichongding, sulfoxaflor, guadipyr, and flupyradifurone;
• Implement before and after studies that focus on known pesticide application periods and major rainfall events to gather data that are relevant to possible acute levels of neonicotinoids;
• Explore the extent of sub-lethal effects of neonicotinoids on insects that include characteristics related to demographics such as emergence times, size at emergence, and proportion of individuals that reach maturity;
• Consider banning the use of seeds treated with neonicotinoids;
• Recommend the use of alternatives to neonicotinoids, including biological control and natural products, where feasible;
• Where non-toxic alternatives are not feasible, recommend the use of non-neonicotinoid insecticides such as chlorantraniliprole, which have low toxicity to bees, though they are toxic to aquatic invertebrates and butterflies; and,
• Conduct testing of effects of neonicotinoids on aquatic larvae in areas that are used for shellfish production. Many shellfish producers seed their oysters in the brackish areas near the mouth of large rivers, including the Quinnipiac River.”

Environmental and public health professionals resonate with these recommendations as they take to heart the importance of applying the precautionary principle in the regulatory review process, while simultaneously proposing crucial starting points for additional future research on neonicotinoid contamination, sampling sources (i.e. well water and groundwater sources), more aquatic animal populations such as shellfish, and factors such as “sublethal” exposure or accounting for recent rainfall.

Neonicotinoid Regulations in Review

Policymakers, by the consistent and decades-long urging of dynamic coalitions and communities within the state, have already taken strides in protecting the public from petrochemical-based pesticide exposure. Branford, Greenwich, Stamford, and Norwalk are several examples of the cities that have moved toward organic land management and/or pesticide bans in the spirit of protecting children’s public health. In the past several legislative sessions, there have been bills in the state legislature calling for restricting neonicotinoid insecticides. (See here previous testimony from 2024 legislative session submitted to Joint Environment Committee.) Beyond Pesticides will continue to monitor for future actions this session.

The U.S. regulatory review process for uses of neonicotinoid insecticides has failed to consider numerous studies linking neonicotinoid insecticide exposure to adverse health effects, including breast cancer, nervous system impacts, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), neurological impacts, heightened risk of obesity, and transferability between mother and fetus. Neonicotinoid applications have been linked to elevated hazards to honeybee populations. Neonicotinoid-treated seeds have been linked to precipitous declines in bird and monarch butterfly populations. Meanwhile, studies have exposed the shortcomings of EPA’s ecological risk assessment process and the broader pesticide risk assessment process.

The chemical Industry will continue to intervene in the regulatory process, as was made evident last month by investigative reporters from Canada’s National Observer, which found pesticide manufacturer Bayer colluded with environmental and public health regulators to reverse Canada’s proposed neonicotinoid insecticide ban originally introduced in 2018. (See Daily News here.)

Take Action

Several states, including Vermont and New York in 2024, have taken actions to restrict the use of neonicotinoid insecticides across certain uses. Advocates expect more bills to be introduced in various state legislatures this year to address the biodiversity, public health, and climate implications of the continuous use of neonicotinoids, neonicotinoid-treated seeds, and systemic pesticides.

See recent Daily News here on the impacts of neonicotinoid insecticides on monarch butterfly populations in North America. Take action today by telling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to finalize its proposed listing of monarchs as threatened.

For a deeper dive, see Poisoned Waterways: The same pesticide that is killing bees is destroying life in the nation’s streams, rivers, and lakes.

Source: University of Connecticut

(Beyond Pesticides, January 23, 2025) According to reporting by Bangor Daily News, “Starting in 2025, the Mi’kmaq Nation, [Upland Grassroots], [University of Virginia], the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station and Central Aroostook Soil and Water Conservation District will use a four-year, $1.6 million EPA grant to continue hemp planting at [the former] Loring [Air Force Base] and testing potential ways to extract PFAS [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] from harvested hemp.” This grant will support an existing initiative led by members of the Mi’kmaq Nation to remediate this contaminated Superfund-designated land purchased from the U.S. government in 2009 based on interviews of the Nation’s Vice Chief Richard Silliboy.  

PFAS, colloquially known as “forever chemicals,” persist in various petrochemical-based pesticides, chemicals, and other consumer products. Beyond Pesticides, in coordination with national coalitions and local communities, continues to act against the proliferation of PFAS and PFAS-contaminated products through grassroots organizing and litigation.

The use and associated public and environmental exposure to PFAS as pesticide active ingredients in pesticide products and a wide range of consumer products (including containers holding pesticides targeting mosquitoes and sewage sludge fertilizers) represent a grave threat as a result of their use in homes, emergency rooms, health care facilities, schools, and lawncare. The contamination extends to homes and gardens, food, water, and soil. PFAS compounds have been found to contaminate water and irrigation sources, and soils themselves — often through the use of fertilizers made from so-called “biosludge” (biosolids) from local waste treatment plants where PFAS active ingredients can end up. In addition, run-off from land treated with PFAS active ingredients, these treatment plants may discharge millions of gallons of wastewater into waterways, contaminating them; current waste and water treatment generally does not eliminate PFAS compounds from the treated effluent water.

Tribal Leadership on PFAS Remediation in Maine

In partnership with professionals from the University of Virginia and Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Vice Chief Silliboy and tribal member Norman Bernard began planting hemp seeds in 2022 “at the start of a research project studying whether hemp can extract PFAS from soil.” Silliboy is a co-founder of Upland Grassroots, the community-led organization leading the cleanup effort. Through this organization, hemp plants were planted on small plots and tested for PFAS at the Connecticut station.

“Of the 28 PFAS varieties identified in the soil, 10 were found in the harvested hemp plants, according to the group’s research,” says the reporting by Bangor Daily News. (See here for published study in Environmental Science: Advances.) Despite preliminary success in sequestering some forms of PFAS to hemp, the group now must contend with how to properly dispose of the contaminated plants without contributing to landfills or leading to eventual exposure in future generations. The University of Virginia, represented by chemical engineering professor Bryan Berger, PhD, is poised to release data in early 2025 as part of an ongoing scientific initiative testing a method that could remove PFAS directly from the contaminated plants. Given the $1.6 million EPA grant, community members and scientific partners alike appear optimistic at this juncture.

Decision-makers in Maine, both at the state-level and county level, have demonstrated leadership in passing legislation and programs that take seriously the existential threat of toxic petrochemical-based and PFAS-contaminated pesticides, fertilizers, and chemicals in a way that is not present in other states, nor at the federal level.

In 2022, Maine became the first state in the nation to prohibit PFAS from pesticide and fertilizer products by 2030. (See Daily News here.) In order to meet this goal, the legislature established a PFAS Fund to provide compensation for commercial farmers whose health, business, and land have been impacted by contamination through a $70 million federal-state funding pool over the next five years. (See Daily News here for more coverage.) The first application was filed earlier this year in March, and local reporting from Maine Public Radio finds that $1 million in compensation was rolled out by June 17, 2024.

PFAS Health and Environmental Threats

There are numerous environmental and public health impacts of forever chemicals, underscoring the necessity for transformational change of food and land management systems.

In a recent commentary published by scientists and lawyers in Environmental Health Perspectives, the authors speak to the existential threat that fluorinated molecules, including PFAS, pose to environmental health. “The long-term impacts of using mixtures of extremely persistent chemicals on potentially hundreds of millions of acres of US land every year is, to us, a cause for concern,” the authors write. PFAS or related compounds are included in 70% of pesticides (those with a fluorine–carbon atom bond, which is among the strongest ever created) introduced to the global market from 2015 to 2020, according to a review paper published in January 2022 in Environmental Pollution. Earlier this year, EPA announced standards for six PFAS (there are over 12,000 types and only 32 detectable in federal labs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), marking the first time since 1996 that EPA has regulated new chemicals with the recognition that there are no safe levels of exposure due to persistence and bioaccumulation in humans, wildlife, and ecosystems. (See Daily News here.)

According to public health and environmental advocates, this decision is a long time coming, given U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data released in a 2023 study published in Environment International indicating “that at least one PFAS could be detected in about 45% of U.S. drinking-water samples.” (See Daily News here.) Yet still, there are various limitations to existing environmental statutes as made evident in April 2024 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated EPA action, pursuant to Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), ordering Texas-based manufacturer Inhance Technologies, L.L.C. to stop producing plastic containers that leach PFAS into various products that use the company’s containers, including pesticides. The court ruled that EPA used the wrong TSCA section to pursue action, however in the court opinion authored by Circuit Judge Cory T. Wilson, it was confirmed that the agency must “weigh the costs to businesses and the overall economy before shutting down an ongoing manufacturing process,” effectively stating that financial concerns of industry usurp public wellbeing. (See Daily News here.)

The implications of failing to regulate PFAS are staggering given existing peer-reviewed science on adverse health effects.

Intrepid 2F, one of the most widely used pesticides in California as of 2023, was found to contain harmful PFAS levels based on an investigation led by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and Center for Biological Diversity. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) determined that 98% of Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream, with studies reporting PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. (See Daily News here.) A 2022 study published in Environmental Science and Technology finds PFAS regularly contaminates the hydrological ecosystem, leading to rainwater absorption of PFAS chemicals. (See Daily News here.)

Prenatal exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including PFAS, may increase liver injury and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) risk for child patients, based on peer-reviewed literature published in Environmental Health and led by an international team of researchers from various medical institutions, including Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Columbia University. (See Daily News here.) Prenatal exposure to forever chemicals can also increase cardiometabolic risk (aka the risk of heart diseases and metabolic disorders) in adolescence and later in life, according to a Brown University-led study published in Environment International (2021). (See Daily News here.)

For more coverage and analysis of science and policy solutions, see the dedicated Daily News section on PFAS.

Call to Action

PFAS has been found in a vast array of products, including containers holding pesticides targeting mosquitoes (See Daily News here) and sewage sludge fertilizers (See Daily News here.). While communities across the nation brace for a significant drop off in federal engagement on PFAS, pesticides, and chemical harms, there are various opportunities for engagement, led by scientists, farmers, health professionals, and advocates dedicated to protecting public health and the environment.

In June 2024, PEER filed a lawsuit against the EPA on behalf of a group of ranchers and farmers in Texas harmed by biosolids contaminated with PFAS. (See Daily News here.) This lawsuit stands on the precedent set by a 2023 settlement in which DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva were ordered to pay $1.185 billion dollars to local communities across the U.S. to cover the cost of PFAS remediation and monitoring for their public drinking water systems. (See Daily News here.)

Beyond Pesticides, represented by Richman Law & Policy, filed suit against The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company and GreenTechnologies, LLC for allegedly misleading consumers on the hazardous nature of their fertilizer products, which contain PFAS-contaminated sewage sludge. The complaint cites test results showing PFAS residues in the companies’ fertilizers and numerous scientific studies on the adverse effects of PFAS to public health, wildlife, and pollinators. (See Daily News here and associated press release here.)

There are numerous actions that you can take if you are concerned about the threat of PFAS. In 2024, the Center for Food Safety, on behalf of twelve other petitioners (including environmental, farmer, and farmworker groups), filed a petition to EPA telling the agency to prevent PFAS contamination through pesticides through five key actions. See here to take action and learn more.

See here to tell Congress to pass bipartisan bills (Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act and the Healthy H2O Act) to protect farmers and rural communities from PFAS contamination in their drinking water and soil. See here for PFAS prohibition bill introduced in Maryland (SB 345) based on last year’s unsuccessful push. (See here for previous Action of the Week.)

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

Source: Bangor Daily News

(Beyond Pesticides, January 22, 2025) A study published in Nature Scientific Reports in December 2024 sheds light on how people value the benefits of reducing or eliminating pesticide exposures. The study, based on economic concepts, is a meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to discern what that value is in monetary terms. This study shows the difficulty in gleaning from the existing literature an assignment of true value of social costs associated with pesticide contamination and poisoning, however, was able to glean several points of interest:

• People’s “willingness to pay” (WTP) is higher for health benefits than ecological ones.
• In studies that included pesticide risks associated with cancer, the social cost (WTP) tripled.
• People’s WTP is higher to prevent or ameliorate chronic diseases than to treat or avoid acute exposures.
• If the study did not specify a pesticide type—even general categories such as herbicide, insecticide and fungicide, and most studies fell into this category—the WTP is significantly higher.
• In ecosystem terms, use of the term “biodiversity” results in higher WTPs compared to other aspects such as groundwater or aquatic organism health.
• Consumers are more risk-averse than farmers.
• The higher the income, the higher the WTP.

Social cost is distinguished from the cost of externalities, such as water contamination cleanup, morbidity and mortality, damages, lost pollination and more. The authors equate the “willingness to pay” (WTP) with the “social cost of pesticides.” In behavioral economics, WTP is the maximum price a buyer is willing to pay for a product or service. Social costs are the personal costs to an individual for the actions he or she performs, such as making a product, plus the externalized costs to everyone else—in this case the damage to human and ecosystem health. The terms are based on an underlying assumption that people will pay more for things they value more, and that a measure of how much people are willing to pay for mitigating or preventing pesticide damage is reflective of the degree of concern society assigns to the hazards and risks of pesticides compared to their benefits.

The authors, from The Netherlands and Canada, faced enormous heterogeneity in the literature they were analyzing because there are few commonalities in methodology, number of participants, or even specification of particular pesticides among previous studies. In fact, the authors state, “The main conclusion is that there exists no single global value estimate for the social costs of pesticide use [and] there is widespread variation in existing value estimates.” The best the authors could do, given the inconsistencies in their data, was to estimate the average global cost of pesticide use at $51 per person per year. That is, taking the entire world population, that is how much humanity is willing to pay to reduce the risks of pesticide exposures annually.

This figure cannot be more than a ballpark guess. The U.S. and Europe, where most of the studies were conducted, were willing to pay more than countries like Vietnam, but given the very wide disparities of both money and information globally, the average is almost meaningless.

But there are deeper assumptions in economics. One is that all players have access to all the relevant information. This is not the case with respect to pesticides. The authors note that “most chemicals used in agriculture do not meet international safety standards, and are in fact highly toxic to humans and the environment” according to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. However, this knowledge is not necessarily reflected in the economic behavior of consumers and farmers. Pesticide companies have far more knowledge than their customers about the toxicity of their products, and they exploit this asymmetry avidly, creating yet another economic problem: “moral hazard.”

Last August, Beyond Pesticides analyzed a study showing that pesticide labels fail to convey the hazards and risks of pesticide exposure, and that this failure affects users’ willingness to pay for less toxic products. Current labels use CAUTION, WARNING and DANGER to inform the user. In the experiment, the researchers used two other symbol systems: circles in traffic light colors and skull intensity symbols. Participants’ understanding of the pesticides’ toxicity improved from 54 percent to 95 percent using the traffic light colors and rose to 83 percent using the skull symbols. This improved understanding led to participants choosing the less toxic pesticides.

The current study’s meta-analysis included 49 primary studies published between 1990 and 2023. The participants’ attitudes toward risks were divided between human health and ecological health. For human health, the meta-analysis subdivided the pooled responses into farmers and consumers. There was great variation in the categories and definitions used in the subject studies, so the researchers divided the effects into bins: cancer, acute and chronic effects and unspecified effects. Of the 107 studies involving consumers, 58 did not specify particular effects and 42 included cancer. The 52 farmer studies were more evenly distributed across the bins, but with only four studies including cancer. For ecological concerns, participants were asked to value risks to terrestrial and aquatic organisms, surface and groundwater, and biodiversity.

Another concept involved in the assessment of WTP is baseline risk. In medicine, baseline risk is the chance that a person will contract cancer, for example, without the exposure of interest, such as a pesticide. People will use their general impression of baseline risk to decide how much they are willing to pay to prevent or lower the risk. In the meta-analytic study, the researchers found that “individuals are willing to pay higher values to reduce medium and high risk levels compared to low baseline risks.” Further, in studies that failed to define “the specific baseline pesticide risks,” respondents gave “significantly lower WTP estimates for pesticide risk reductions or elimination of these risks. Thus, the absence of information about baseline risks in…surveys makes respondents undervalue pesticide-related risks. Similarly, not specifying the public health implications of pesticide use significantly lowers mean WTP.”

Here again, there is manipulation of the consumer or farmers’ ignorance as to the real risks of pesticides. One simple and obvious correction would be for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to meaningfully reform pesticide labeling to convey those risks more accurately. As was noted in our August Daily News, terms currently required on pesticide labels are ineffective. Further, EPA allows one participant in the economic transaction, the pesticide manufacturer, to withhold enormous amounts of relevant information from the other participant, the farmer or consumer. For example, EPA relies on toxicity testing performed by or on behalf of the manufacturer which is not available to the public before the product is registered, and EPA does not require pesticide manufacturers to disclose toxicity data of so-called inert ingredients.

The meta-analysis’s framework for assessing people’s concerns with pesticides and their desired solutions reflects even deeper assumptions in economics that any consequences to society can be assigned monetary values, and that the measure of a society’s value of some activity or substance is how much people are willing to pay for it or to avoid it. These assumptions have permeated environmentalism in the form of “ecosystems services” in the hope that this will preserve ecosystems. But ecosystems are literally priceless, because people cannot exist without them, and people want to preserve them for more than economic reasons.

This kind of monetization skews public discourse because it reduces all human values to those operating in financial transactions. Yet there is growing interest in a “well-being economy,” one that incorporates numerous values not directly connected to standard economic measures such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Defined as the “total market value of the goods and services produced by a country’s economy during a specified period of time,” the GDP is treated as a proxy for the health of a country. In a white paper on the well-being economy, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) admits that “taking GDP as a single compass does not provide policy-makers with a sufficiently rich and accurate picture of the way in which the economy performs for citizens or of the long-term impacts of growth on sustainability.”

Clearly the asymmetrical information system between people exposed to pesticides and pesticide manufacturers undermines both human and ecological health. The meta-analysis authors note that even recent economic valuation research on pesticide reduction preferences “continues to lack critical information on the risk characteristics of the specific chemical substances involved. Such reporting would be consistent with current chemical regulations, such as the European Union’s registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals in its 2007 REACH legislation, which [is] based on the specific risk profiles of individual and compound substances and their associated toxicity.”

If economic approaches to protecting the health of humans and the environment are to be useful, this information asymmetry is one of the first things that must be corrected. Beyond Pesticides offers a rich archive of both detailed information about hundreds of pesticides’ human and ecosystem health effects and ways to push for rational policy reform reflecting the evidence of harm. See our Pesticide Illness and Disease Database (PIDD). For consumer resources on safer management of pests, including weeds and insects, see the Safer Choice page. See Tools for Change for a range of strategies, resources, and tips to initiate grassroots advocacy in your community, town, city, or state against pesticide use on lawns, public land, and agricultural lands.

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

Sources:

The social costs of pesticides: a meta-analysis of the experimental and stated preference literature
Nature Scientific Reports
Rufo et al.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-83298-3#Abs1

Study Finds Pesticide Product Labels Fail to Convey Toxic Effects to Consumers
Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/08/study-finds-pesticide-product-labels-fail-to-convey-toxic-effects-to-consumers/

The economy of well-being: Creating opportunities for people’s well-being and economic growth
Llena-Nozal et al.
OECD 2019
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-economy-of-well-being_498e9bc7-en.html

Study Captures Agronomists’ Advice to Farmers and Continued Reliance on Toxic Pesticides
Beyond Pesticides, July 12, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/07/study-captures-agronomists-advice-to-farmers-and-continued-reliance-on-toxic-pesticides/

A Meta-Analysis of the Willingness to Pay for Reductions in Pesticide Risk Exposure
Travisi, Chiara et al
EconStor 2004
https://hdl.handle.net/10419/117978

Improving consumer understanding of pesticide toxicity labels: experimental evidence
Hosni et al.
Nature Scientific Reports 2024
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-68288-9

(Beyond Pesticides, January 21, 2025) When the American Cancer Society (ACS) published its annual report last week, it pointed to a rising incidence of cancer in younger women and highlighted disparities by race and ethnicity that are especially timely with the commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

In its report, “Cancer Mortality Continues to Drop Despite Rising Incidence in Women; Rates of New Diagnoses Under 65 Higher in Women Than Men,” ACS writes:

“Disparities in cancer occurrence and outcomes are often the result of socioeconomic deprivation as a consequence of structural racism, which limits opportunities for education and other mechanisms of upward mobility. For example, the historical practice of mortgage lending discrimination known as redlining is associated with later stage cancer diagnosis, lower likelihood of receiving recommended treatment, and higher cancer mortality. Inequalities in wealth lead to differences in the prevalence of risk factor exposures as well as access to high-quality cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment. Even beyond higher prevalence of common risk factors like smoking and obesity, exposure to carcinogenic air emissions is up to 50% higher among people experiencing poverty, regardless of race or ethnicity. In 2022, 25% of AIAN [American Indian and Alaska Native] people lived below the federal poverty level ($27,750 for a family of four), as well as 17% of Black and Hispanic people, compared with 9% of White and Asian people. Persistent poverty ranks among the leading causes of death alongside smoking and is consistently associated with higher cancer incidence, later stage diagnosis, and worse outcomes. The effects of poverty are both compounded by and independent of racial status. A recent study found that living in a disadvantaged neighborhood increased the likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer by 30% among Black men but had no impact on risk in White men, suggesting the contribution of race-specific factors, such as minority stress.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. reminded us that even the wealthiest of us are dependent on those less fortunate, whose work is not adequately rewarded in our capitalist economy—farmworkers, landscapers, workers in meat-packing and food processing plants, factory workers, hospital workers, sanitation workers—and those workers are disproportionately people of color. Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to remind our legislators of “their duty to protect the most exposed and most vulnerable members of society from the impacts of an economy unnecessarily dependent on toxic chemicals.”

>> This Martin Luther King Jr. Day, tell Congress to protect our farmworkers and those at disproportionate risk from toxic chemicals.  

Justice for all people converges with the protection of biodiversity, health, and climate. As Dr. King said in his 1967 Christmas sermon, “It really boils down to this: that all life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. We are made to live together because of the interrelated structure of reality.”

If we are not protecting the most vulnerable in society, we ultimately adversely affect the entire society because we are intricately linked in the web of life. This is a day to recognize the importance and value of those who are disproportionately affected by toxic chemical production, transportation, use, and disposal (including those who live in fenceline communities near chemical plants or agricultural fields) redouble our focus on their protection, and adopt practices and policies that no longer support environmental racism. On this day, we recognize that we can all individually shift our personal and community practices to organic management and products, and, in so doing, eliminate the cradle-to-grave exposures that disproportionately affect people of color.

Dr. King’s words in his 1967 sermon clearly focus on addressing injustices for disenfranchised people. Similarly, with biodiversity collapse looming, it has become exceedingly clear that the protection of ecosystems requires support for those organisms most vulnerable but essential to all life. And just as we need to recognize our dependence on vulnerable humans and protect them, we must similarly recognize and protect vulnerable members of all species integral to the web of life.

Environmental injustice looms large on the horizon. Workers integral to meeting societal needs—especially in agriculture and landscaping—face the threat of deportation. Pesticide regulation, which has failed even under friendly administrations to protect human health, enhance biodiversity, and prevent climate disasters—is in need of reform in order to protect those at greatest risk, and in doing so, protect us all.

Beyond Pesticides states, “We recognize the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a new administration takes office. We need to ask all leaders to follow Dr. King’s leadership in recognizing the need to protect the most vulnerable among us.” 

Here are some actions Congress can take:

Ensure protection for farmworkers. 

• Farmworkers need more protections, not industry-friendly compromises when alternatives are available. Currently, the average life expectancy for a farmworker is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. A recent report, Exposed and At Risk: Opportunities to Strengthen Enforcement of Pesticide Regulations for Farmworker Safety, by the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School, in partnership with the nonprofit advocacy group, Farmworker Justice, again highlights the systemic racism of our country’s pesticide policies. Our nation depends on farmworkers, declared “essential workers” during the COVID-19 pandemic, to ensure sustenance for the nation and world. Yet, the occupational exposure to toxic pesticides by farmworkers is discounted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers.
• Many farmworkers are migrant workers, and are subject to conditions that would not be permitted for U.S. citizens. The U.S. must sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which would set a moral standard to treat migrant workers like workers who are citizens.
• Prohibit the use of toxic fumigants that endanger farmworkers and their communities.  

Protect all who are at disproportionate risk.

• Require EPA to begin meaningful dialogue with Native American tribes to learn how pesticide use can be avoided by adopting indigenous practices. When needs can be met without using pesticides, such use causes “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”
• Require that registration decisions take into account cradle-to-grave exposures. Harm done in the manufacture, transportation, and disposal—in addition to use—of pesticides must count as “unreasonable adverse effects.”  
• Prohibit the registration of pesticides that threaten children, biodiversity, or the climate.
• Phase out toxic petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers by 2032. 

>> This Martin Luther King Jr. Day, tell Congress to protect our farmworkers and those at disproportionate risk from toxic chemicals.   

Members of Congress
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. reminded us that even the wealthiest of us are dependent on those less fortunate, whose work is not rewarded in our economic system—farmworkers, landscapers, workers in meat-packing and food processing plants, factory workers, hospital workers, sanitation workers —who are predominately people of color. So, on Martin Luther King Day, as we commemorate Dr. King, it is fitting to seek better protections for the most exposed and most vulnerable members of society from the impacts of our economy, which is unnecessarily dependent on toxic chemicals

Justice for all people converges with the protection of biodiversity, health, and climate. As Dr. King said in his 1967 Christmas sermon, “[A]ll life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. We are made to live together because of the interrelated structure of reality.” 

Dr. King’s words in his 1967 sermon clearly focus on addressing injustices for disenfranchised people. Similarly, with biodiversity collapse looming, it has become exceedingly clear that the protection of ecosystems requires support for those organisms most vulnerable but essential to all life. And just as we need to recognize our dependence on vulnerable humans and protect them, we must similarly recognize and protect vulnerable members of all species integral to the web of life.

Environmental injustice looms large on the horizon. Workers integral to meeting societal needs—especially in agriculture and landscaping—face the threat of deportation. Pesticide regulation, which has failed even under friendly administrations to protect human health, enhance biodiversity, and prevent climate disasters, is in need of reform in order to protect those at greatest risk—and in doing so, protect us all.

As a new administration takes office, we need to ask all leaders to follow Dr. King’s leadership in recognizing the need to protect the most vulnerable among us. 

Here are some actions I would like to see Congress take:

(1) Ensure protection for farmworkers
Farmworkers need more protections, not industry-friendly compromises when alternatives are available. Currently, the average life expectancy for a farmworker is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. Our nation depends on farmworkers, declared “essential workers” during the COVID-19 pandemic, to ensure sustenance for the nation and world. Yet, the occupational exposure to toxic pesticides by farmworkers is discounted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers. 

The U.S. must sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which would set a moral standard to treat migrant workers like workers who are citizens.

Prohibit the use of toxic fumigants that endanger farmworkers and their communities. 

(2) Protect all who are at disproportionate risk. 
Require EPA to begin meaningful dialogue with Native American tribes to learn how pesticide use can be avoided by adopting indigenous practices. When needs can be met without using pesticides, such use causes “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”

Require that registration decisions take into account cradle-to-grave exposures. Harm done in the manufacture, transportation, and disposal—in addition to use—of pesticides must count as “unreasonable adverse effects.” 

Prohibit the registration of pesticides that threaten children, biodiversity, or the climate.

Please join me in seeking to phase out toxic petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers by 2032 and replace them with organic management practices that are both effective and cost-competitive.

Thank you.

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

 Sources: Cancer statistics, 2025

(Beyond Pesticides, January 17-20, 2025) Martin Luther King Day recognizes the achievements of a remarkable civil rights leader while asking the nation to assess what more the country must do to ensure equality and environmental justice, as well as protection for those who suffer disproportionately from toxic chemical exposure. Advocates and disproportionately affected communities acknowledge the historic nature of the Biden Administration’s commitment to elevating environmental justice in the decision-making of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

However, according to Willy Blackmore, writer for Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder (“the oldest Black-owned newspaper in the state of Minnesota and one of the longest-standing, family-owned newspapers in the country”), “[T]he more systemic change that [Administrator] Regan’s EPA tried to bring about was stonewalled by legal challenges that threatened to undermine the agency’s strongest tool for righting environmental injustices.”

Black communities across the nation face disproportionate impacts to petrochemical infrastructure and toxic chemicals, including pesticides and fertilizers. A 2021 study published in BMC Public Health found that biomarkers for 12 dangerous pesticides tracked over the past 20 years were found in the blood and urine of Black participants at average levels up to five times those in White participants. A University of Michigan study found that African American women are 40 percent more likely to die from breast cancer than women of any race. This same study found that triple-negative cancer (basal-liked breast cancer) is approximately three-fold higher in non-Hispanic Black women compared to non-Hispanic White women.

In the context of disproportionate harms and imagining a world free of toxic petrochemical pesticides, Dr. Martin Luther King’s Christmas Eve Sermon of 1967 at his home church of Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia demonstrates his perspective on adopting a holistic approach to solving seemingly insurmountable challenges of our time.

Dr. King said, “It really boils down to this: that all life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

As the nation faces the dual occasions of inaugurating a U.S. president known for stoking division while simultaneously celebrating the legacy of a life-long organizer and titan of environmental, economic, and racial justice, Beyond Pesticides looks to reflect on the track record of the Biden Administration to apply these lessons to renewed public interest in transformative change in our communities with organic as an environmental justice solution.

Environmental Justice (EJ) under the Biden Administration

Throughout the Biden Administration, Beyond Pesticides, through the Daily News and Action of the Week, called on the Administration to implement its groundbreaking environmental justice commitments as outlined in various Executive Orders, legislative actions, and executive agency actions to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

See Daily News here from February 5, 2021, analyzing the initial rollout of Executive Orders that intertwined environmental and racial justice by aiming to comprehensively reform the Office of Management and Budget operations, restore scientific integrity, and develop a “whole of government” approach to addressing the climate crisis and disproportionate impacts on frontline and disadvantaged communities.

Office of Budget and Management: Politics of Pricing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

There is a long history of incorporating the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) into budgetary analysis, regulatory actions, and federally-funded projects. See here for a regulatory tracker developed by Harvard Law School Environmental & Energy Law Program for a longer history of the Biden Administration’s track record through 2023, as well as the history of GHG pricing beginning in the Obama Administration.

In January 2024, World Resources Institute conducted a climate action progress tracker, finding the Biden Administration to have made several pivotal achievements, including:

• “Set target to cut emissions by at least 50% by 2030;
• Pass a major climate-smart stimulus package [Inflation Reduction Act] after Covid-19; [and]
• Tackle super pollutants.”

Meanwhile, the same analysis found that the Administration was off track for taxing pollution. Beyond Pesticides raised concerns throughout the Biden Administration about the co-option of climate-smart funding and programs by pesticide industry actors to incorporate pesticide products as a necessary component of holistic climate solutions. (See Daily News here and here for examples to debunk these myths.)

On the subject of scientific integrity, advocates see that little has changed in ensuring sound science in EPA decision-making on pesticide and chemical regulations. There was a public comment period that closed earlier this year (see the Action of the Week here) in response to the Presidential Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking.

As of today’s publication, EPA has not published a final draft of the updated Scientific Integrity Policy. According to its website, “The updated Scientific Integrity Policy is expected to be released this year [2024] and will be posted on the Scientific Integrity Website with corresponding outreach and training materials.” Given the direction of the incoming administration, the future of resolving scientific integrity appears to be stalled indefinitely.

Whole-of-Government Approach : Justice40 in Context

Another Executive Order signed on January 27, 2021, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” put into place commitments to put teeth into these EOs, leading to the creation of the Justice40 Initiative. The goal of Justice40 was transformational in that it aimed to dedicate “40 percent of the overall benefits of certain Federal climate, clean energy, affordable and sustainable housing, and other investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution.”

An independent analysis by Resources for the Future, “an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, D.C,” of 445 Justice40 covered programs released by the White House in April 2023 finds a mixed bag for implementation of EJ commitments in a programmatic sense.

For example, 30 percent of the programs (133 programs) reviewed are “not making information about their activities available to the public.” However, 98 of the programs are considered to fall under the category of “full implementation and achievement of the 40 percent goal,” representing the second highest category. It remains to be seen what the full impact of Justice40 has been moving forward.

An additional action the Biden Administration took through this EO was the establishment of the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) with the goal of “bring[ing] greater visibility to EJ issues across the federal government but will provide EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) with an excellent partner for providing horizon-expanding EJ advice and recommendations to our government’s leadership.” While it remains unclear the full extent to which WHEJAC pushed the needle on environmental justice under the Biden Administration, advocates believe the creation of this Council is critical in mounting pressure within and across executive actions. (See here for the full list of WHEJAC recommendations.)

EJ Moving Forward

Principles of environmental justice, including diversity, equity, and inclusion, will be on the chopping block in the second Trump administration, given the track record of the first administration and rhetoric among key Trump advisors.

The Trump-affiliated Project 2025 represents significant risks of exacerbating continuing disproportionate harms to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities across various federal agencies.

For example, there is a proposal to “[s]hift responsibility for evaluating misconduct away from its Office of Scientific Integrity, which has been overseen by environmental activists, and toward an independent body.” It says EPA’s “scientific enterprise, including the ORD [Office of Research and Development], has rightly been criticized for decades as precautionary, bloated, unaccountable, closed, outcome-driven, hostile to public and legislative input, and inclined to pursue political rather than purely scientific goals.” Environmental and public health advocates view the irony of Project 2025 given that it recommends placing political appointees across EPA and other federal agencies. See Daily News here for extensive commentary on Project 2025 implications for environmental law moving forward.

Advocates are not surprised by Project 2025 given what they view as the lackluster track record of the previous Trump Administration on regulatory and scientific integrity. For example, the EPA under Trump 1.0 announced in an eleventh-hour move the finalization of what advocates dubbed the “Secret Science” rule, which would have significantly restricted the scientific research EPA uses in developing regulations to amplify public health, biodiversity regeneration, and climate action.

Additionally, EPA under the first Trump Administration established the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, a precursor to the eventual SCOTUS decision in Sackett v. EPA (2023) in which Clean Water Act protections are only applied to contiguous “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS), excluding groundwater, ephemeral streams, and critical wetland ecosystems that do not connect directly to waterbodies that are not clearly defined under the WOTUS definition. Recent research conducted by Yale University and the University of Massachusetts determined that the Sackett decision “endangered the drinking water sources of at least 117 million Americans by stripping protections from over half of the nation’s wetlands, as well as up to nearly 5 million miles of rain-dependent and seasonal streams that feed into rivers, lakes, and estuaries.” [See Daily News here for an analysis and the initial reactions to the Sackett ruling from environmental and public health advocates in 2023.]

There were various other actions that raised concerns, including the eleventh-hour approval of various toxic pesticides. There was the reapproval of the previously canceled insecticide aldicarb (see Daily News here), the reregistration of bee-toxic flonicamid, and the disinfectant ethylene oxide (see Daily News here), as well as continuing the registration of chlorpyrifos (see Daily News here). According to an analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity, at least 100 new pesticide products were approved in the first administration that were either banned in other countries or were in the process of a phaseout. The Trump-led EPA also promulgated a rule that would have weakened pesticide buffer zones, having direct implications for farmworkers and frontline communities living in agricultural areas (see Daily News here). Ultimately, a federal court blocked this rule from moving forward (see Daily News here).

The legacy of environmental justice falls on the shoulders of, among other members of Congress, the ranking members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate Agriculture Committees, Representative Angie Craig (D-MN) and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), respectively. In the upcoming Farm Bill negotiations, their plate will include funding the twenty “orphan” Farm Bill programs without guaranteed funding, including three organic programs: Organic Cost Share, Organic Data Initiative, and Organic Certification Trade and Tracking program. (See here for the National Organic Coalition’s press release.)

Given President-elect Trump’s pledge in a C-Span interview in late 2024 to “… eliminat[e] 10 old regulations for every new one,” there is a renewed commitment to invest in local actions and push local elected officials to protect public health, biodiversity, and climate resilience. See Daily News here for reflections on the importance of protecting democracy and the ability of communities to protect themselves from cascading crises.

In the face of deregulatory actions likely to exacerbate disproportionate risks and impacts of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, as well as industrial chemicals, on communities of color across the nation, there are Black-led organizations that are advancing the mission of eliminating petrochemical dependence by advancing food and land management systems that move toward organic principles and practices.

Consider supporting SAAFON (Southeastern African American Farmers Organic Network). SAAFON was founded in 2006 to partner with Black farmers in the Southeast to attain USDA organic certification, while advocating for their needs in the broader sustainable agriculture movement. Also consider supporting Black Farmers Index, which offers a directory of Black-owned and operated farms around the country, including certified organic farmers and resources for farmers interested in going through the organic certification process.

Join Beyond Pesticides in taking action through the holiday weekend! >> This Martin Luther King Jr. Day, tell Congress to protect our farmworkers and those at disproportionate risk from toxic chemicals.

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

Sources: Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, World Resources Institute, Resources for the Future

(Beyond Pesticides, January 16, 2025) In Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, researchers highlight a multitude of studies on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and endocrine disrupting pesticides (EDPs) showing epigenetic effects from exposure. These EDCs imitate the action of endocrine hormones and lead to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health.

“These chemicals can interfere with the normal functioning of target tissues by altering their response to hormonal signals, thereby affecting various physiological processes including reproduction, development, the nervous system, the immune system, and even the process of carcinogenesis [causing cancer],” according to the authors from Hebei Agricultural University and Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences.  

In causing epigenetic modifications, the authors describe that EDCs can create changes “at the nuclear and mitochondrial DNA (nDNA and mtDNA) or RNA levels, without changing the underlying DNA sequence. These alterations modify the structure or conformation of DNA, influencing gene expression and, consequently, cellular function.” They continue, “The mechanisms of epigenetics include changes in DNA methylation, chromatin modifications and the involvement of certain noncoding RNAs.”

In reviewing over 80 studies on EDCs, predominantly fluorinated compounds such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the researchers provide a summary of linkages between pesticide exposure and the threats to health on a cellular level. The studies on EDCs “include typical pesticides such as organophosphorus, organochlorine, pyrethroid, carbamate, and triazole pesticides, which can induce estrogenic, androgenic, and thyroid hormone effects in the body,” the authors note.

They continue: “Their actions hinge on intricate hormone signaling pathways, which have the potential to disrupt various aspects of the endocrine system in humans and other animals, leading to abnormal effects within the organism. It is widely recognized that the action of EDPs is related to their structural similarity to natural hormones, which endows EDPs with the ability to mimic endogenous hormones [those produced inside a cell] by binding to target hormone receptors.”

With the high sensitivity of organisms to epigenetic changes, exposure to EDPs at very low concentrations poses a threat. These chemicals are also prone to accumulating in human tissues and can lead to chronic impacts. (See more on body burden here.) The authors describe exposure methods and the resulting implications in saying: “EDPs enter organisms through various routes, including food ingestion, breathing, and skin contact. EDPs exert endocrine-disrupting effects with potentially wide-ranging effects on the reproductive system. They can impact the development and functionality of the gonads, resulting in imbalances in sex hormone levels that may cause reproductive issues, including infertility and gonadal tumors.”

There is a wide body of science showcasing the connection of pesticides to endocrine disruption. Numerous studies document exposure to EDPs, including PFAS, leading to dysfunction of the body’s endocrine system as well as additional health effects such as cancer, brain and nervous system disorders, immune system disorders, diabetes, learning/developmental impacts, and sexual and reproductive dysfunction.

Within the review, studies document:

• “[E]nvironmentally relevant concentrations of flutolanil [fungicide] resulted in a significant increase in the level of DNA methylation in the ovaries of zebrafish leading to an endocrine-disrupting response and detrimental effects on the development of their offspring.” Flutolanil also alters the expression of estrogen-responsive genes.
• Sulfoxaflor (insecticide) impacts bees by reducing survival and interfering with intestinal metabolites and steroid hormone biosynthesis.
• Epoxiconazole (fungicide) influences fetal and maternal steroid hormone levels, disrupts critical enzymes related to steroid hormone synthesis, and affects fetal development and endocrinological processes.
• Fipronil (insecticide) exhibits toxicities in both animals and humans including neurotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, and endocrine disruption.
• Trifluralin (herbicide) reduces fertilization in zebrafish with “sex-specific reproductive toxicity and endocrine-disrupting effects in these fish.”
• Lambda-cyhalothrin (insecticide) reduces spermatozoa, leads to reproductive disorders in male mice, and “exhibits neurotoxic properties, disrupting the hippocampal neurodevelopment in mice via the estrogen membrane receptor signaling pathway.”
• “[L]ow concentrations of endosulfan [insecticide] caused an estrogen-disrupting effect on MCF-7 [a human breast cancer cell line], and endosulfan significantly increased the expression of histone deacetylase (HDAC) and DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) in MCF-7, suggesting that endosulfan has a modulating effect on cellular epigenetic regulators.”
• Embryonic stem cells from mice exposed to imidacloprid (insecticide), metolachlor (herbicide), and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) (insecticide) experience induced cellular DNA methylation.
• Cyfluthrin (insecticide) impacts estrogen-responsive genes and progesterone receptor genes that lead to estrogen disrupting effects.
• Hexachlorobenzene (fungicide), methoxychlor (insecticide), and glyphosate (herbicide) are linked to molecular mechanisms that promote breast and ovarian cancer.
• EDPs are linked to disruptions in “various pathways involved in thyroid hormone biosynthesis, metabolism, receptor activation, and function” and lead to thyroid disorders.

In summarizing these results, the researchers state, “As a class of particularly representative endocrine-disrupting chemicals, the accumulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances potentially leads to adverse health effects, including hormonal disruptions, developmental issues, and cancer.” These effects are as a result of complex mechanisms that are not yet fully understood or assessed in pesticide registration processes through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The researchers further explain: “Due to the distinct structural features of EDPs, the mode of their toxic action varies with different dosages, influencing the molecular mechanisms of hormone secretion, targets, and even the toxic pathways that affect various hormones in various ways indeed at extremely low concentrations. Nonetheless, the biological mechanisms underlying their effects remain incompletely understood. Consequently, the complexity of cell models is essential for summarizing and investigating the mechanisms of action of these EDPs.”

Without fully understanding these mechanisms, advocates say, as previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, that EPA falls far short in addressing the full range of endocrine disrupting effects of all pesticide ingredients, as is required to protect human health and the environment. EPA should not approve or reregister pesticides until the full scope of the potential harm from chemicals can be addressed. (See additional Daily News coverage here and here.)

The authors reinforce this in saying: “A comprehensive evaluation of the toxicity of pesticides and their metabolites is necessary to understand their potential risks and take appropriate measures… Combined exposure to multiple EDPs has been indicated to have a synergistic effect, i.e., the effects generated by interactions of the EDPs are higher than the comprehensive effect caused by the individuals. It makes assessing and predicting the risk of EDPs more complex and critical.”

To mitigate the endocrine disrupting effects of these pesticides that display detrimental long-term health effects, even at low doses, and threaten the health of humans and wildlife, the holistic solution of organic land management is available. In eliminating the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, organic methods safeguard public health and biodiversity.

To learn more about the benefits of organic land management, see here and here. Take action by helping to transition your community to organic through the Parks for a Sustainable Future program as a Parks Advocate. Become a member of Beyond Pesticides to add your voice to the organic solution and stay informed by signing up for our Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates.

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

Source:

Liu, Y. et al. (2025) The potential endocrine-disrupting of fluorinated pesticides and molecular mechanism of EDPs in cell models, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651324016919.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 15, 2025) There is robust scientific literature that unpacks the adverse human health effects of pesticide exposure, however immunological impacts do not receive adequate attention in regulatory review processes, according to an in-depth literature review. In a piece published in Frontiers in Immunology (2024) critiquing recent peer-reviewed scientific studies, as well as unpublished research produced by the Institute of Biology and Experimental Medicine in partnership with the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Argentina, researchers assess immune system effects of pesticide exposure, which creates the conditions for deadly health conditions including various forms of cancer.

The focus of this study, according to the authors, is “to critically review fundamental aspects of toxicological studies conducted on PPPs [Plant Protection Products] to provide a clearer understanding of the risks associated with exposure to these compounds on human health.” PPPs are pesticide products that contain more than one active ingredient, and can include synergistic ingredients that supercharge them alongside inert ingredients that pesticide companies are not legally required to disclose under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), but are often manipulated biologically and chemically active.

Most studies analyze the toxicological impacts of active ingredients in isolation rather than testing the entire product, including glyphosate-based herbicides. Additionally, authors identify an insufficient body of research measuring cancer biomarkers connected to specific pesticides, even though they “are essential to precisely and timely understand the extent and depth of the problem.” The researchers acknowledge that while more research is also necessary to better understand the impacts of chemical mixtures on agricultural communities and the broader public, further investigations into mechanisms of toxicity for individual pesticides are integral to public health and awareness in regulatory decision-making.

Immune Response and Pesticides

The literature review finds that more studies are needed to determine immunotoxic impacts of pesticides in human subjects, with the researchers pointing to three relevant peer-reviewed studies. These studies are similar in that they assess cytokine levels among farmworker and farmer populations to determine relationships between pesticide exposure and deadly diseases, specifically cancer. The National Cancer Institute defines cytokines as “a type of protein that is made by certain immune and non-immune cells and has an effect on the immune system.” Simply put, cytokines act as signals to the immune system. There is evidence of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including but not limited to Th-2 cytokines, that can create the conditions for various types of cancers, infections, and other severe diseases.

The first study (published in Science of the Total Environment in 2024) assesses pesticide exposure among 280 individuals in southeastern Spain. 189 of the participants made up the exposed group working in an indoor setting (horticultural greenhouse). The control group consisted of nonagricultural workers living near the greenhouses. The majority of participants from both subgroups were tested for 27 immunoregulatory proteins during high and low pesticide exposure periods. Ultimately, the researchers determined asthmatic conditions can be attributed to increased inflammatory cytokine levels among greenhouse workers in this study, among other health issues.

The second study (published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety in 2020) assesses the immune response impacts of multiple pesticide exposure among Brazilian farmers and rural communities near the city of Santo Amaro da Imperatriz. The experimental group consisted of 43 farmers exposed to various pesticide exposures through their work over the course of at least fifteen years. The control group included 30 individuals in the region that did not have occupational exposure to pesticides. “The results of this study show that pro-inflammatory IL-6 [ILs are interleukins, a class of glycoproteins, or cytokine] was significantly elevated in the plasma of farmers compared to that of controls,” say the researchers in this study.

The third study (published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology in 2024) assesses association between organophosphate pesticide exposure and cytokine levels among flower workers in two different Mexican states. There are 143 flower workers who participated in this study. The authors in this study determine that organophosphate exposure decreased pro-inflammatory cytokines and increased one anti-inflammatory cytokines, “suggesting an imbalance of the immune response.” Cytokine imbalance can lead to increased risk of infectious diseases and cancer.

The authors who reviewed these studies also engaged in original research on the impact of chemical mixtures, building on previously published ecotoxicological research. “Unpublished data from our lab indicate that Roundup® (Bayer), a worldwide-used [glyphosate-based herbicide], when combined with Clorpi48 (Huagro) a chlorpyrifos-based insecticide (CbI), adversely impact on human NK [natural killer] cells from healthy donors,” says authors Norberto Walter Zwirner, PhD and Adrián David Friedrich, PhD. “Environmentally relevant exposure doses of these pesticides resulted in a reduced capacity of cytokine-stimulated NK cells [NK cells are a form of lymphocytes that can act as immune system defenders against the spread of microbial infections] to secrete interferon-gamma (IFN-γ). Furthermore, the combination of GbH and CbI impaired the cytotoxic capacity of NK cells against the tumor cell line K562. Regarding the adaptive immune response, our results indicate that the combination of GbH [glyphosate-based herbicides] and CbI [chlorpyrifos-based insecticides] negatively affected T cell proliferation and differentiation in vitro to Th1 cells.”

The authors conclude, “Altogether, data about the detrimental effects of pesticide mixtures on immune cell functions critical for immunosurveillance are growing and may help explain the increased cancer incidence observed in populations residing in areas exposed to pesticide fumigation.” See yesterday’s Daily News, Pesticides Harming Immune Cell Function Linked to Elevated Breast Cancer Rate in Young Women, for analysis linking immunotoxic impacts of pesticides and heightened risk of breast cancer.

Take Action

For decades, advocates have warned policymakers about the erosion of public trust borne from an inadequate regulatory and sometimes corrupt review process for pesticide products. Look no further than a 2020 press release from CropLife America, the lead U.S. lobbying group representing pesticide manufacturers, in discussing EPA’s “rigorous pesticide Registration Review process” for its proposed interim decision on neonicotinoid insecticides. (See here for public comments by Beyond Pesticides, in collaboration with a coalition of environmental, farmworker, public health, and community groups, on this decision.)

In numerous editions of Pesticides and You—the journal produced by Beyond Pesticides, which provides analyses of breaking public policies, science, and actions relating to pesticide, public health, climate, and biodiversity—there is a clear pattern of failure of federal regulators that permits the poisoning of people, wildlife, and ecosystems.

For easy access to the latest scientific literature dissecting the links between immune system disorders and pesticides, see the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

As the Biden Administration winds to a close, advocates continue to emphasize the importance of local decision making and action in the service of public health, biodiversity, and climate resilience. See the first Action of the Week for 2025 to contact mayors and local elected officials to urge action in transitioning away from toxic petrochemical-based pesticides on public grounds.

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

Sources: Frontiers in Immunology

(Beyond Pesticides, January 14, 2025) Women with occupational pesticide exposure have elevated rates of breast cancer, according to a study in Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology. Based on an analysis of clinicopathological data from 188 affected women, the study authors demonstrate “that occupational exposure to pesticides modifies the clinical presentation of disease in breast cancer patients, depending on their age at disease onset, affecting cytokine production, especially in those exhibiting early age at diagnosis.”  

“Breast cancer (BC) is the most common malignant neoplasm affecting women worldwide and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in this population,” the researchers report. They continue: “Aging is the primary risk factor associated with breast cancer development and mortality, resulting in a cumulative lifetime risk of 1 in 8 women developing the disease. Disease onset significantly impacts patient prognosis. While most cases are of late onset and occur in women over 50 years of age, early-onset BC is prevalent in certain populations and is associated with a poor prognosis and aggressive tumor behavior.” 

Data was collected and analyzed from May 2015 to December 2022, with the study population in Brazil spanning “27 municipalities in the southwest of Paraná, a region characterized by extensive pesticide use, predominantly rural work, and family farming, with significant participation from women,” the authors state. All patients included in the study underwent screening for familial cancer and genetic testing for BRCA 1 and 2 mutations.  

Based on age and pesticide exposure, the women were organized into four groups: pesticide-unexposed women with early disease onset (48 women), pesticide-unexposed women with late disease onset (45 women), pesticide-exposed women with early disease onset (50 women), and pesticide-exposed women with late disease onset (45 women). 

A variety of additional clinicopathological variables were considered, including menopausal status at diagnosis, body mass index, hormonal receptor status (estrogen and progesterone, positive or negative), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression, Ki67 proliferation index, histological grade, breast cancer molecular subtype, tumor size, presence of distant metastasis, lymph node metastasis, risk stratification for recurrence and death, chemoresistance, and death occurrence. Analyses were also performed to assess the relationship between cytokine levels, pesticide exposure, and disease onset age. 

As a result, the researchers find that:  

• the late-onset group shows a greater frequency of low-grade tumors in exposed patients compared to the unexposed group.   

• a higher frequency of high-risk stratification for recurrence and death is seen in early-onset patients when comparing exposed and unexposed groups. 

• patients in the late-onset group show a higher frequency of triple-negative tumors than unexposed women. 

• IL-12 levels are significantly lower in exposed patients in the early-onset group compared to unexposed patients in the same group.  

• early-onset patients show positive correlation between cytokine levels and pesticide exposure while late-onset patients show negative correlations. 

This study reveals “distinct cytokine profiles correlated with pesticide exposure depending on the age of disease onset. In early-onset patients, pesticide exposure positively correlated with IL-1ß, IL-17A, and IL-4 [ILs are interleukins, a class of glycoproteins, or cytokines, produced by leukocytes, or white blood cells, for regulating immune responses], while in late-onset patients, pesticide exposure showed a negative correlation with IL-12, IL-4, and IL-17A,” the authors share. According to the authors: “These findings suggest that young women exposed to pesticides tend to develop decreased serum levels of IL-12. This feature is possibly associated with reduced type I immunity which is important for eliminating BC. Type I immunity promotes natural killer cell (NK) and CD8+ T-cell-mediated tumor cytotoxicity and toxic mediator release by phagocytes within the tumor microenvironment, leading to cancer cell death via multiple mechanisms.” 

In examining the cytokine levels within each patient, an association between early-onset exposed women and the development of high-risk tumors was determined. “These findings indicate that pesticide exposure induces an inflammaging-like state in young women, with increased levels of systemic IL-1 and reduced levels of IL-12 contributing to the increased risk of severe disease in these individuals,” the researchers conclude. 

Environmental exposure to pesticides affects the homeostasis of mammary epithelial cells and can result in cancer development. Pesticide exposure triggers inflammatory responses, which leads to the release of toxic mediators like reactive oxygen species (ROS). “These processes are linked to precarcinogenic events, which may result in cumulative mutations over time and genomic instability,” the authors say. They continue, “Environmental factors, particularly those encountered throughout life, can play a key role in influencing the natural history of mammary gland tumorigenesis and BC progression. Occupational pesticide exposure is a significant environmental risk factor for BC.”  

With greater female participation in rural labor comes an increase in women’s health risks with direct exposure to pesticides that significantly impacts mammary tissues and creates a pro-inflammatory environment. This is characterized by antioxidant depletion, elevated levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα), and increased activity of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ)—all contributing to cancer progression.  

Many pesticides have been detected in women’s mammary gland tissues and breast milk. (See additional studies here and here.) The researchers postulate, “Approximately 35 pesticides with carcinogenic potential have been identified as contributors to tumors or other adverse effects on the mammary glands, indicating that exposure to these substances directly affects breast cells. Studies in animal models demonstrate that exposure to certain pesticides is linked to significant genetic damage, such as DNA breaks and aneuploidy—critical alterations that can lead to the development of breast cancer.” 

Scientific literature finds that pesticide exposure disrupts cellular homeostasis, causes cellular injury, and can lead to cell death. Exposure can also initiate the development of diseases by compromising immunosurveillance, particularly against tumors. (See studies here, here, and here.) The heightened risks for cancer development are associated with the cumulative genotoxic effects, chromosomal damage, and inflammation that occurs after pesticide exposure. These effects lead to genomic instability and immune alterations that have “significant implications for carcinogenesis and tumor progression,” the authors report. 

Long-term oxidative stress is linked to many chronic diseases, including cancer, and there is a wide body of science showing many pesticides causing oxidative stress. (See here, here, and here.) Previous studies also link atrazine to breast cancer, as this pesticide can suppress systemic and local tumor immune functions that promote tumor development. Low concentrations of glyphosate, even with acute exposure, increase ROS levels, induce hypoxia, and disrupt the DNA repair response in human triple-negative BC cells. See more examples of studies on pesticides causing cancer here, here, here, here, here, and here. 

As an alternative to chemicals that cause cancer, endocrine disruption, and a myriad of other health effects, organic agriculture provides a holistic solution for food production. In managing all land with organic methods, the crises of public health, biodiversity, and climate change are mitigated and the environment, and all organisms it supports, are protected.  

Learn more about the health implications of pesticide exposure through the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, as well as the benefits of organic here and here. Stay up to date with the latest science and policy developments with the Daily News Blog and sign up to receive Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates straight to your inbox here.  

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

Source: 

Cardoso Maciel Costa Silva, R. et al. (2024) Occupational exposure to pesticides affects systemic cytokine profile and correlates with poor clinical prognosis in young women with breast cancer, Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08923973.2024.2430665.  

(Beyond Pesticides, January 13, 2025) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is officially taking comments on whether to issue new restrictions on the herbicide atrazine’s use. Beyond Pesticides is telling the agency that it is time to recognize the biodiversity destruction that atrazine is causing and the viability of alternative organic management practices. The group has released an action and is asking the public to join this campaign to ban atrazine.

As a yardstick for what is possible under existing federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), EPA on August 7, 2024 announced that it was taking emergency action to ban the weed killer Dacthal (or DCPA–dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate), leaving many people asking, “Why Dacthal and not other very hazardous pesticides?” The weed killer atrazine (in the triazine chemical family) poses similar elevated hazards to people and the environment, has proven to be impossible to contain, and has viable alternatives. Therefore, we need to challenge EPA to apply the same standard that removed Dacthal from the market to the long list of pesticides that are contributing to a health crisis, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency. 

In its current proposal, EPA is choosing to downplay atrazine’s risk to ecosystems, allow more contamination with the herbicide, and apply a wishy-washy, ineffective enforcement mechanism. In reevaluating the risk to aquatic systems, EPA has chosen to exclude four of the six experiments that it previously judged to show an effect on aquatic plant communities, which allowed it to increase the allowed concentration of atrazine in surface water from 3.4 ug/L to 9.7 ug/L. If atrazine concentrations exceed that allowed concentration, they will trigger mitigation measures. 

Mitigation is to follow EPA’s “herbicide mitigation strategy,” which provides a menu of options providing “flexibility” to pesticide applicators, with no incentive to adopt more ecologically-based approaches such as organic farming and land management. 

UPDATED: EPA is accepting comments on its proposal until April 5, 2025, through Regulations.gov.  

>> EPA must apply the standard of the Dacthal decision to atrazine and issue an emergency suspension and prohibit the use of existing stocks. 

Exposure to atrazine, manufactured by Syngenta, is widespread in the environment. According to EPA, “Pesticide products containing atrazine are registered for use on several agricultural crops, [including] field corn, sweet corn, sorghum, and sugarcane, []wheat, macadamia nuts, and guava, as well as non-agricultural uses such as nursery/ornamental and turf.” It is the second most widely used herbicide in the U.S. after glyphosate (found in Roundup), but banned in the European Union in 2004 and over 40 countries worldwide. Many organizations have called for the chemical to be banned in the U.S. and have joined in litigation against EPA. 

In the case of Dacthal, EPA used the “imminent hazard” clause of the federal pesticide law to immediately suspend the chemical’s use. At the same time, the agency is exercising its authority to prohibit the continued use of Dacthal’s existing stocks, a power that EPA rarely uses. The last time EPA issued an emergency action like this was in 1979 when the agency acknowledged miscarriages associated with the forestry use of the herbicide 2,4,5-T—one-half of the chemical weed killer Agent Orange, sprayed over people to defoliate the landscape of Vietnam in the war there—with the most potent form of dioxin, TCDD (2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin). The chemical manufacturer of Dacthal, AMVAC Chemical Corporation, can challenge the agency’s findings under the law and seek court review, but EPA’s action takes effect immediately while any appeal is considered. Meanwhile, EPA has stopped use under 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., pursuant to section 6(c)(3) (7 U.S.C. 136d(c)(3)). (See Unit IV.) The prohibition on the use of existing stocks is mandated under Section 6(a)(1). 

The timeline for review and action on individual pesticides has taken decades since the 1972 overhaul of nation’s pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The law’s risk-benefit standard allows for high levels of harm, especially to farmworkers and those handling pesticides, as well as public exposure through residues in food, water, and air. EPA’s decisions are based on agency risk assessments that use flawed assumptions and ignore vulnerable populations like children and those with preexisting health conditions—like cancer, endocrine system disruption, neurological illness, and other health effects that are exacerbated by exposure. Amendments to FIFRA in 1996, in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), have done little to reduce the ongoing reliance on toxic chemicals in food production and land management, despite the growth of the $70 billion organic industry—still not considered by EPA as a legitimate alternative to be evaluated when determining the “reasonableness” or “acceptability” of risk under pesticide law. Instead, EPA calculates acceptability of risk in the context of available alternative chemicals. In its press release on the Dacthal decision, EPA said, “In deciding whether to issue today’s Emergency Order, EPA consulted with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to understand how growers use DCPA and alternatives to this pesticide.” The agency’s consultation with USDA evaluated alternative chemicals, not alternative organic management systems and organic-compatible substances. 

The current mechanism that EPA uses to restrict pesticides—negotiated settlements instead of regulatory action—compromises the health of people and the environment, often disproportionately for people of color and workers, who are the first to be exposed as applicators or agricultural workers. Could the Dacthal decision be a watershed moment to change a regulatory process that allows daily pesticide exposure, poisoning, and contamination at rates that EPA deems acceptable—despite the overwhelming science linking real-world pesticide use (from homes to parks and playing fields, schools, and farms) to dreaded illnesses, biodiversity collapse, and the climate crisis? See Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database and the Pesticide Gateway. 

In making its decision to ban Dacthal, EPA states that it considered: 

1. The seriousness of the threatened harm; 
2. The immediacy of the threatened harm; 
3. The probability that the threatened harm will occur; 
4. The benefits to the public of the continued use of the pesticide; and 
5. The nature and extent of the information before the Agency at the time it makes a decision. 

These criteria could be met for most of the pesticides for which EPA has negotiated settlements with pesticide manufacturers, resulting in partial withdrawals of pesticides from the market and compromises that threaten health and the environment. 

Based on the reasoning in the Dacthal decision, EPA should ban atrazine. 

Atrazine poses immediate serious harms to people and the environment. 
Registration of the endocrine-disrupting herbicide propazine (in the triazine family of frog-deforming endocrine disruptors) was canceled by EPA, eliminating the use of the hazardous herbicide by the end of 2022. However, all pesticides in the triazine class, including atrazine and simazine, have similar properties and should be eliminated from use.

Under an Endangered Species Act review, initiated by EPA only after a lawsuit from health and environmental groups, the triazine chemicals were found to adversely affect a range of species. Propazine was found to harm 64 endangered species, while simazine and atrazine were both likely to harm over 50% of all endangered species and 40% of their critical habitats. EPA finds, “aquatic plant communities are impacted in many areas where atrazine use is heaviest, and there is a potential chronic risk to fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates.” In addition, evidence shows that subsequent life stages or generations of fish are at greater risk of reproductive dysfunction after embryonic/early life exposure to atrazine. 

The triazine class of chemicals also pose significant threats to human health and are particularly concerning in the context of the range of chemicals one may be exposed to in today’s world. As Tyrone Hayes, PhD, University of California, Berkeley professor, noted at a presentation at Beyond Pesticides’ National Pesticide Forum, “Children in utero may be exposed to over 300 synthetic chemicals before they leave the womb… I would argue that a human fetus trapped in contaminated amniotic fluid is no different than one of my tadpoles trapped in a contaminated pond.”  

Atrazine has been linked to a range of adverse birth outcomes, including smaller body sizes, slower growth rates, and certain deformities like choanal atresia (where nasal passages are blocked at birth), and hypospadias (where the opening of a male’s urethra is not located at the tip of the penis). The mechanism of toxicity is perturbation of the neuroendocrine system by disrupting hypothalamic regulation of the pituitary, leading primarily to a disturbance in the ovulatory surge of luteinizing hormone (LH), which results in both reproductive and developmental alterations. Of the numerous adverse effects associated with this disruption, the two that appear to be the most sensitive and occur after the shortest duration (4 days) of exposure are the disruption of the ovarian cycles and the delays in puberty onset.

Despite these endocrine-disrupting effects, EPA reduces the margin of safety and underestimates exposure to children. 

Mitigation measures have not eliminated the harm. 
In November 2020, Beyond Pesticides and allied environmental groups launched a lawsuit against EPA for its intent to reregister the triazine family of chemicals. The agency’s interim approval of the herbicides, conducted under the Trump administration, eliminates important safeguards for children’s health and a monitoring program intended to protect groundwater from contamination. As is typical with EPA, the agency merely proposed minor label changes in attempts to mitigate risks identified in its registration review. According to a release from EPA, it made the decision not out of concerns relating to human health and environmental protection, but in order to provide “regulatory certainty” for farmers and local officials. 

Although a hefty 200,000 lbs. of propazine were used each year, mainly on sorghum in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, this amount pales in comparison to the over 70 million lbs. of atrazine used throughout the United States.

The public does not benefit from continued registration of atrazine. 
While industry consistently lines up local Congressmembers, former EPA officials, and agrichemical lobbyists to pressure EPA to keep triazines in the market, there is no evidence that the herbicides benefit the farmers these officials claim to represent. According to research published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, banning atrazine would provide an economic benefit to farmers. “The winners,” the research concludes, “in an atrazine free future would include farm workers, farmers and their families, and others who are exposed to atrazine either directly from field uses or indirectly from contaminated tap water along with natural ecosystem that are currently damaged by atrazine.”  

EPA has sufficient information to cancel atrazine. 
EPA has long known about triazine’s threats to wildlife, including its ability to chemically castrate male frogs. However, the agency has consistently defended the chemical and sat by while independent researchers like Dr. Hayes, who conducted seminal research on atrazine’s endocrine-disrupting properties, are pilloried by chemical industry propaganda. In a Critical Perspectives piece published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Jason Rohr, PhD, provides an in-depth investigation of the atrazine controversy. 

“I argue that the atrazine controversy must be more than just a true story of cover-ups, bias, and vengeance,” he writes in the piece. “It must be used as an example of how manufacturing uncertainty and bending science can be exploited to delay undesired regulatory decisions and how greed and conflicts of interest—situations where personal or organizational considerations have compromised or biased professional judgment and objectivity—can affect environmental and public health and erode trust in the discipline of toxicology, science in general, and the honorable functioning of societies.” 

The Draft Ecological Risk Assessments for the Registration Review of Atrazine, Simazine, and Propazine dated October 5, 2016, found high risks that were supported by EPA’s assessments. EPA states, “Based on the results from hundreds of toxicity studies on the effects of atrazine on plants and animals, over 20 years of surface water monitoring data, and higher tier aquatic exposure models, this risk assessment concludes that aquatic plant communities are impacted in many areas where atrazine use is heaviest, and there is potential chronic risk to fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates in these same locations. In the terrestrial environment, there are risk concerns for mammals, birds, reptiles, plants and plant communities across the country for many of the atrazine uses. EPA levels of concern for chronic risk are exceeded by as much as 22, 198, and 62 times for birds, mammals, and fish, respectively. For aquatic phase [stage] amphibians, a weight of evidence analysis concluded there is potential for chronic risks to amphibians based on multiple effects endpoint concentrations compared to measured and predicted surface water concentrations. The breadth of terrestrial plant species and families potentially impacted by atrazine use at current labeled rates, as well as reduced rates of 0.5 and 0.25 lbs. a.i./A, suggest that terrestrial plant biodiversity and communities are likely to be impacted from off-field exposures via runoff and spray drift. Average atrazine concentrations in water at or above 5 μg/L for several weeks are predicted to lead to reproductive effects in fish, while a 60-day average of 3.4 μg/L has a high probability of impacting aquatic plant community primary productivity, structure, and function.”  

The agency acknowledges many risks of concern associated with the uses of atrazine but asserts the remaining serious worker and ecological risks after the adoption of all proposed mitigation measures are outweighed by the benefits of atrazine use. EPA has determined that the chlorotriazines (triazines) and their three chlorinated metabolites share a common mechanism of toxicity, and as such, human health risks were assessed together through a triazine cumulative risk assessment. The mechanism of toxicity is perturbation of the neuroendocrine system by disrupting hypothalamic regulation of the pituitary, leading primarily to a disturbance in the ovulatory surge of luteinizing hormone (LH), which results in both reproductive and developmental alterations. Of the numerous adverse effects associated with this disruption, the two that appear to be the most sensitive and occur after the shortest duration (4 days) of exposure are the disruption of the ovarian cycles and the delays in puberty onset. Importantly, this perturbation manifests after short duration exposure with long-term life-cycle consequences, so it establishes both acute and chronic toxicity levels of concern (LOCs). 

Toxicity and exposure data available to EPA are sufficient to demonstrate that several atrazine uses exceed risk levels of concern. Exposures to children 1-2 years old playing on turf sprayed with atrazine exceed a risk estimate of concern for combined dermal and incidental oral exposures when assuming the maximum labeled rate for spray applications (2.0 lb ai/A). However, a screening aggregate assessment without the FQPA required safety factor was performed assuming that the application rate for turf is reduced to 1.0 lb ai/A, which would not be of concern for 4-day aggregate exposures. Even with this rate reduction, it can be presumed children are still at serious risk. For occupational handlers, EPA identified use scenarios that exceed risk concerns even with the maximum available personal protective equipment and/or engineering controls (proposed mitigation measures). 

Here is how EPA describes its truncated process for DCPA: 

In 2013, the agency issued a Data Call-In (DCI) to AMVAC Chemical Corporation, the sole manufacturer of DCPA, requiring it to submit more than 20 studies to support the existing registrations of DCPA. The required data included a comprehensive study of the effects of DCPA on thyroid development and function in adults and in developing young before and after birth, which was due by January 2016. Several of the studies that AMVAC submitted from 2013-2021 were considered insufficient to address the DCI, while the thyroid study and other studies were not submitted at all. 

In April 2022, EPA issued a very rarely used Notice of Intent to Suspend the DCPA technical-grade product (used to manufacture end-use products) based on AMVAC’s failure to submit the complete set of required data for almost 10 years, including the thyroid study. While AMVAC submitted the required thyroid study in August 2022, EPA suspended the registration based solely on AMVAC’s continued failure to submit other outstanding data on Aug. 22, 2023, following an administrative hearing.  In November 2023, the data submission suspension was lifted after AMVAC submitted sufficient data. Most DCPA use on turf was voluntarily canceled by AMVAC in December 2023, but unacceptable risks from other uses remained. 

As society and the global community struggle with petrochemical pesticides and their contribution to health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency, EPA must acknowledge that Dacthal is one active ingredient among over 1,000 in 56,000 pesticide products whose uses can be eliminated by the use of organic systems that have now been shown to be effective.  

>> EPA must apply the standard of the Dacthal decision to atrazine and issue an emergency suspension and prohibit use of existing stocks. 

For more information on the dangers of atrazine and its chemical cousins, read Beyond Pesticides comments to EPA, and watch Tyrone Hayes, PhD, presentations from former National Pesticide Forum events on YouTube.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 10, 2025) [Beyond Pesticides grieves for those tragically harmed by the Los Angeles fires.] As the new year begins with the bleak and devastating reminder brought on by the Los Angeles fires, the nation and world are reminded once again that dramatic land management changes are necessary to address the erratic weather conditions contributing to the force and effect of the fires and the length of the fire season. This is only the most recent reminder, as Beyond Pesticides and many organizations call for an urgent end to land management practices and inputs that rely on the production and use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, which contribute to the global climate crisis. Often incorrectly referred to as natural disasters, environmental disasters, including fires, floods, and severe weather events, are brought on or exacerbated by widespread reliance on disruptive chemicals, which played a role in a delayed start to the southern California rainy season, hurricane-force winds, and low humidity levels—all elevated by climate change. As organic is increasingly understood to be a climate solution, OrganicClimateNet last year launched an aggressive effort to build the base of organic farmers in the European Union (EU).  

As the climate crisis grows exponentially, the United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP28) adopted an agreement with nearly 200 countries committing to the “end of the oil age.” (See UN Climate Crisis Conference Calls for Phaseout of Fossil Fuels, which Are Used to Produce Pesticides and Fertilizers.)

One of the largest barriers to expanding the adoption of organic farming, excluding costs, land access, and paperwork, is a deficiency of tailored mentorship and data collection to back up agroecological practices that critics may argue fall short of demonstrating climate, biodiversity, and public health benefits. OrganicClimateNet launched on February 1, 2024, as a European Union-based initiative coordinated by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), with its seventeen European partners from fourteen EU member nations to develop a pilot network of 250 organic farmers across twelve EU countries.

This initiative supports the objectives of the European Green Deal, as well as EU Biodiversity for 2030 and Farm to Fork strategies, including the EU-wide target to transition 25% of EU farmland to certified organic by 2030.

In December 2023, The Rodale Institute states in its 2020 report, Regenerative Agriculture and the Soil Carbon Solution, that humans could sequester more than 100% of global, annual, human-caused CO₂ emissions if all arable and grasslands were transitioned to regenerative systems, and that “stable soil carbon can be built quickly enough to result in a rapid drawdown of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” The organization adds to that the importance of shifting to organic regenerative systems, a distinction Beyond Pesticides has emphasized.

The goal of the OrganicClimateNet strategy is to boost domestic organic farming amidst increasing consumer interest in access to regenerative organic food products. In the U.S. context, the Organic Transition Initiative, including the Transition to Organic Partnership Program (TOPP), is a similar avenue for expanding organic capacity, as well as continuing to push for 100% reimbursement of certification costs (Organic Cost Share), among other support policies, as a baseline for funding.

OrganicClimateNET & EU Organic Action Plan

OrganicClimateNET is funded with 4.9 million euros from Horizon Europe and Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research, and Innovation (SERI) through 2028. The project partners are a consortium of organic farmer associations, higher education and research institutions, and farming advisors, including  FiBL Europe (Belgium), Institut de l’Elevage (France), Justus-Liebig-Universitaet Giessen (Germany), IFOAM Organics EU (Belgium), Innovarum (Spain), Instytut Genetyki i Biotechnologii Zwierzat Polskiej Akademii Nauk (Poland), Asociacion Ecovalia (Spain), Luomuliito (Finland), Irish Organic Association (Ireland), Bioland Beratung GmbH (Germany), AGROBIO (Portugal), Asociatia Inter-Bio (Romania), LLKC (Latvia), Italian Foundation for Research in Organic and Biodynamic Agriculture FIRAB (Italy), Stichting Louis Bolk Instiut (The Netherlands), CEET (Estonia) and FiBL CH (Switzerland).

The four overarching goals of this Network according to their website are:

1. To engage farmers in climate organic farming;
2. To enhance capacity for climate organic farming;
3. To develop smart policies & consumer engagement; and
4. To foster a climate-neutral and resilient Europe.

The Network will leverage the cumulative capacity of the various partner organizations to organize and develop baseline tools, deliver data and impact reports to policymakers, and communicate with the general public, and incorporate the goals and objectives of related EU-climate, environmental, biodiversity, and food systems-related projects. The six “work packages” represent six phases of the Network’s rollout over the course of the 2024-2028 cycle, including:

1. Establishing the pilot network;
2. Implementing Carbon Farming;
3. Carbon Farming Knowledge Base;
4. Supporting Policy Design;
5. Dissemination & Communication; and
6. Management & Collaboration.

Each of the twelve countries will be organized into national Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (nAKISs). A nAKIS has a national coordinator, hub coaches, and lighthouse farms. The lighthouse farm at each Hub will “serv[e] as a demonstration and test center for project inputs such as training, translated knowledge material or carbon assessments.” The plan is to establish two hubs in each country with approximately 10-12 farms engaged in each hub.

Through OrganicClimateNET’s news page, several hubs have been launched in Romania, Italy, and Poland. For example in Poland, Tomasz Sakowski of the Institute of Animal Genetics and Biotechnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences is the national coordinator working with Bożena Holak (Poland’s hub coach) to develop two hubs in northeastern provinces known to have a robust organic dairy sector. “The chosen hubs will supply milk to the Piątnica dairy, which boasts the largest number of organic milk suppliers in the region,” according to a July update on the news page.

This project comes at a moment when the European Union is struggling to meet its 2030 target of 25% organic, given that the 2022 Eurostat data released on June 19, 2024, finds that just 10.5% of total EU farmland is under organic farming. See previous Daily News here for more analysis concerning some of the factors that contribute to Europe’s lackluster progress.

OrganicClimateNET is one of several EU-funded initiatives aimed at expanding organic agriculture in Europe. OrganicTargets4EU tracks opportunities and obstacles to meet EU and member state-specific national organic targets in the service of fulfilling the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies. There are seven focus countries for agriculture (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Romania) and two focus countries (Germany and Greece) for organic aquaculture aimed at providing diverse data from different EU geographical and bioclimatic contexts, as well as varying levels of development of organic supply chains and consumer demand. Additionally, through the facilitation and curation of Organic Knowledge Hubs, farmers, advocates, journalists, policymakers, the general public, and other stakeholders can access data, studies, and other information relating to crop production, animal husbandry, food chain management, environment and society, and farm management.

Keeping Organic Strong in the United States

OrganicClimateNET’s goals of enhancing peer-to-peer mentorship, data collection and analysis for soil health and carbon sequestration-related outcomes in organic farming, and development of context-specific resources and tools for farmers who may otherwise not pursue organic certification are acknowledged by U.S. organic advocates and farmers as excellent examples of policy strategies that can be applied stateside.

The state of organic knowledge gathering in the U.S. falls short of the European Union’s progress, despite the opportunities that exist. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture has two grant programs for organic farmers and researchers, including the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) and the Organic Transition Initiative. There are also organizations such as Real Organic Project and Organic Farming and Research Foundation (OFRF) [a National Organic Coalition member alongside Beyond Pesticides and other organizations] that offer funding, produce research, facilitate peer-to-peer networks, and provide related resources to build engagement in the U.S. organic farming sector.

The Organic Transition Initiative (OTI), which provides $300 million in funding and crop insurance, as well as network building through the Transition to Organic Partnership Program (TOPP), is the closest equivalent to the European Union capacity-building model. Terry Shistar, PhD, science advisor and board member of Beyond Pesticides, shared testimony to the National Organics Standards Board fall 2023 meeting expressing concerns about the rollout of TOPP and OTI. “[T]he challenges in administering this program have resulted in low participation by farmers because of the very limited window of time for rollout and recruitment. For instance, the time from the announcement of OTI-EQIP [Environmental Quality Incentives Program] funding to the deadline was less than a month, resulting in few new applications,” says Shistar. See the full comments here. See previous Daily News here for more information on OTI and TOPP.

The National Organic Coalition released a press release this week voicing the concerns of advocates and farmers that organic programs were left defunded after government shutdown negotiations in late December 2024 put them on the chopping block. These programs include:

1. The Organic Certification Cost Share Program

2. The Organic Data Initiative

3. The Organic Certification Trade and Tracking Program

See Keeping Organic Strong to learn more about the history of U.S. organic regulations. As mandated in the Organic Food Production Act (OFPA), the National Organic Standards Board is required to hold public hearings twice a year for open comment periods on organic standards, including updates from subcommittees on a plethora of focus areas including the sunset of materials on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, equity and barriers to access organic certification, development of new regulations, among other areas. 

Contact your Senator and U.S. House Representative to support S.5084, Safe School Meals Act, which would expand funding for organic school lunches, fully compensate organic farmers for certification fees, and prohibit paraquat, glyphosate, organophosphates, and other toxic chemical residues in food procured for the National School Lunch Program.

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

Source: FiBL

(Beyond Pesticides, January 9, 2025) In a Frontiers in Public Health review article, researchers report on the wide body of science connecting adverse effects to female reproductive system, such as infertility, with exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). The authors call these effects a significant concern for public health, as there has been growing evidence of EDCs with risk factors for decreased fertility.  

Infertility “affects a substantial proportion of the world’s population with approximately one in six people affected,” the researchers note. They continue: “Over the last 70 years, global fertility has been constantly in decline due to behavioral and societal changes… [E]merging evidence has shown that infertility incidence is linked to exposure to environmental factors such as tobacco, alcohol, and a wide range of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) including pesticides (chlorpyrifos, glyphosate, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT] and methoxychlor), phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), dioxins, and bisphenols.” 

In this review, over 100 studies are summarized to showcase the link between EDC exposure and reproductive effects in women, including infertility and related diseases such as endometriosis, premature ovarian insufficiency (POI), and endocrine axis dysregulation. The studies included investigating the “mechanisms by which EDCs cause ovarian aging, folliculogenesis, decrease of oocyte quality, ovulation disorders, development and receptivity of endometrium, endometriosis, fetal development abnormalities, and epigenetics modulation,” the authors state. 

Results from these studies show exposure to EDCs can lead to infertility and reproductive effects through various mechanisms. Altering the balance of any endocrines that impact reproduction can change fertilization outcomes. The researchers say, “One of the most described mechanisms is when EDCs mimic hormones such as estrogen and bind to their receptors leading to hormonal disruption.” This can alter the ovulation process. 

The authors note: “Additionally, oxidative stress in ovarian tissues, that damages cells and impairs their function, is induced by several EDCs. Thus, EDCs disrupt the development of ovarian follicles and can be directly toxic to gametes, decreasing their numbers and quality… These mechanisms all together lead to abnormalities such as blocked Fallopian tubes, ovarian disorder, uterine disorders, failure to produce an oocyte, abnormal oocyte quality, local inflammation, and endocrine disorders in women.” 

Among the studies, findings include: 

• Pesticide exposure in agricultural regions is “linked with fertility decline, poor IVF outcomes, such as POI, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and endometriosis.” 

• EDCs “influence the fertilization process in women by different means. If the oocyte cannot mature, due to an early ovarian aging, impaired folliculogenesis or cannot be expelled due to anovulation, the fertilization cannot occur. Moreover, if the released oocyte quality is impaired due to altered maturation, the fertilization can occur, but oocytes with cytoplasmic anomalies will lead to significantly lower pregnancy rates.” 

• Atrazine, a widely used herbicide, is “a common environmental contaminant known with EDC effect and reproductive toxicity.” 

• Endosulfan exposure “reduces the expression of the primary endometrial markers of receptivity (such as MUC1, HOXA10, Inn and E-cadherin) and affects the normal endometrial receptivity impairing the adhesion and the implantation process of the blastocyst.” 

• Placenta anomalies, which lead to pre-eclampsia, abnormal fetal development, miscarriage, and placental disruption, can occur with EDC exposure as the “placenta is vulnerable to endocrine disruption due to a large presence of hormone receptors and a lack of enzymatic machinery to guard against EDCs.” This study also finds that organochlorine pesticides “impair placenta ability to produce and release hormones and enzymes, transport nutrients, or produce waste. They contribute to preterm birth by disrupting the balance between P4 and E2 during pregnancy.” 

• Epigenetic patterns can be deregulated “by altering methylation enzymes (DNMTs) and DNA demethylation enzymes (e.g., ten-eleven translocation TET proteins)” from EDC exposure. 

• Methoxychlor and DDT gestational exposure correlates to ovary diseases (studies here and here). 

• DDT is also “linked to impaired fetal growth, and metabolic dysfunction which can possibly lead to miscarriage.” 

• “[A[lmost all major classes of EDCs can target the estrogen pathways as many EDCs display estrogenic activity, and can affect both genetic and epigenetic levels.” (See studies here, here, and here.) 

As the researchers conclude from these results, “The impact of EDCs extends beyond lowering the rate of a successful pregnancy and increasing the risk of miscarriage in women; they also impair the future reproductive health of the fetus.” Infants and children are at a disproportionate risk with pesticide exposure as this is a critical developmental window.  

Chemical exposure during this window can lead to lasting health effects into adulthood. The authors note that “the reach of EDCs to the embryo by transplacental transfer can lead to genome alteration during embryonic germ cell precursors reprogramming… These epigenetic modulations by EDCs suggest serious long-term effects on human reproductive health and fertility decline.” Studies find that EDC exposure within the “first 1,000 days of life increases the risk of developing pathologies in adulthood.” (See studies here and here.) 

As Beyond Pesticides has previously reported, the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences explains endocrine disruptors this way: “Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are natural or human-made chemicals that may mimic, block, or interfere with the body’s hormones, which are part of the endocrine system. These chemicals are associated with a wide array of health issues. . . Endocrine glands, distributed throughout the body, produce the hormones that act as signaling molecules after release into the circulatory system. The human body is dependent on hormones for a healthy endocrine system, which controls many biological processes like normal growth, fertility, and reproduction.” 

With the ubiquitous use of EDCs, exposure to the general population occurs through contact with contaminated food, soil, and air. Studies continue to link EDCs with cancer, cardiovascular risk, behavioral disorders, autoimmune abnormalities, and reproductive disorders (see here, here, here, and here). These effects are seen in higher rates in areas with increased EDC production and pesticide usage, with chemical industry workers and farmworkers having the most exposure. 

To abate these impacts, especially in areas with agricultural EDC exposure, organic land management can be implemented. In adopting this holistic solution, farmworker exposure is reduced, and food crops are safer and healthier to eat. Organic agriculture provides both health and environmental benefits, and mitigates the ongoing climate and biodiversity crises. 

To learn more about endocrine disruption, listen to keynote speaker Tracey Woodruff, PhD from the second session of the 41st National Forum Series — Imperatives for a Sustainable Future. Additional Daily News coverage can also be found here. 

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

Source: 

Tricotteaux-Zarqaoui, S. et al. (2024) Endocrine disruptor chemicals exposure and female fertility declining: from pathophysiology to epigenetic risks, Frontiers in Public Health. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11672798/.