(Beyond Pesticides, January 13, 2026) An important study in Nature Microbiology challenges the entrenched assumption in the chemical industry and among regulators that synthetic chemicals can be targeted for specific uses and have limited effects beyond those uses. The categorization of chemicals into pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and industrial chemicals masks their commonalities and combined potential for deep harm to biological systems. In particular, the effects of the onslaught of xenobiotics (not naturally produced) on human gut microbiota are of increasing concern.

The study, by an international team including researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Cambridge University, and Heinrich Heine University in Germany, tested a set of xenobiotics, including pharmaceutical, pesticide, and industrial compounds, against 22 human gut bacteria. Using both in silico (computers) and in vitro (laboratory experiments), they found 168 chemicals that exerted inhibitory effects on the gut bacteria. Most of these interactions had not been previously reported. Of the xenobiotic categories, fungicides and industrial chemicals were the most influential.

The researchers note that the “pervasive use” of synthetic chemicals “and environmental persistence have led to pollution levels exceeding the planetary boundary for stable and resilient Earth systems” [emphasis added] and that “safety assessments for these chemicals currently do not consider the human gut microbiome.” Given the powerful and accumulating evidence that gut microbiota interact with every human physiological system (see Beyond Pesticides’ coverage here and here), a crucial priority for regulators must be to incorporate consideration of the microbiome into safety research and policies. Currently, the authors observe, there are no available population cohort data that track both chemical exposure and microbiome dynamics.

In the current study, the researchers use a library of 1,076 compounds likely to enter food and water, including 829 pesticides, 119 known pesticide metabolites, and 75 related products such as pesticide precursors and breakdown products. The library also includes 48 industrial chemicals such as endocrine-disrupting bisphenols, carcinogenic nitrosamines, and PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). They screened the chemicals against 21 bacterial species common in a healthy human gut at a concentration expected to be similar to real-life blood levels of chemicals in humans. This concentration is in the micromolar range, which is typical for xenobiotic screens and, while micromolar levels are very small, they are highly relevant for biologically active chemicals such as hormones, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides. There is evidence that gut concentrations of chemicals tend to be equal to or greater than those in blood, so the researchers were able to infer reasonable exposure levels to the gut bacteria at the micromolar scale. The study involves complex computer screening of many compounds, along with lab cultures exposing bacteria to xenobiotics and analyzing the genetic consequences.

The chemicals showing the most anti-gut-bacterial activity are fungicides, industrial chemicals, and acaricides. Most chemicals inhibit only a few bacterial strains, but 24 chemicals affected more than a third of the tested species. These broad-spectrum agents include the insecticides chlordecone and ememectin benzoate, the fungicide fluazinam, the antiparasitic closantel, the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), and the plasticizer bisphenol AF (BPAF).

In the study, some 150 chemical-bacterial interactions result in more than 90% bacterial growth reduction. To learn whether lower concentrations than the experiment’s baseline exposure produce the same inhibitory effects, the researchers tested 11 pesticides against eight bacteria in multiple concentrations, finding that there are significant effects at “substantially lower concentrations.” This includes three chemicals affecting a gut bacterium that produces butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid mediating inflammation and immune responses affecting digestion, heart health, and mood. This suggests that deleterious effects on the gut microbiome are likely to be occurring at levels akin to the very low amounts characteristic of human hormones.

The study also analyzes patterns of gene mutations appearing in bacterial populations affected by the chemicals. One set of changes is in genes controlling efflux pumps, which are structures in the cell wall by which bacteria can eject antibiotics and other unwanted toxins, as well as signaling molecules and metabolites. The researchers exposed several bacterial species, including Parabacteroides merdae, a gut bacterium that can protect against rheumatoid arthritis, to ten chemicals, including TBBPA, closantel, and glyphosate. Many of the surviving bacteria lose a gene that represses efflux pump activity. Previous research shows that loss of this gene results in resistance to the antibiotic ciproflaxin. In the current study, P. merdae’s loss of the gene makes it resistant to closantel and TBBPA, which, the authors point out, likely produces cross-resistance among a pesticide, a flame retardant, and an antibiotic.

This study dovetails with another important study by researchers from The Ohio State University and several Chinese institutions. In that study, the researchers similarly exposed a selection of intestinal microbes to a selection of pesticides. They found that, while most pesticides inhibit growth, some bacteria actually grow more under exposure. They also discovered that all gut bacteria can selectively bioaccumulate pesticides, and that this bioaccumulation contributes to the host’s prolonged exposure.

The authors of the current study note that the wide range of inhibitory effects of chemicals on gut bacteria, combined with the “immense genetic diversity of the gut microbiome,” suggesting that xenobiotic chemicals may have far more targets than has been assumed. Effects on the gut microbiome are not captured by toxicity studies in the existing analytical bins–pesticides, pharmaceutical drugs, and industrial chemicals. In fact, the authors write, “[T]oxicity studies are typically set up in ways that are incompatible with capturing gut microbiota effects.” Yet the complexity of the real-life landscape—the human and microbial genomes, epigenomes, exposomes, diet, and medications—makes devising computational methods all the more advisable to unravel the multiple mechanisms by which xenobiotics affect gut microbiota and consequently human health. To keep up with the accelerating onslaught of xenobiotics—regardless of their category—the authors urge further development of computational toxicity protocols to develop “safe-by-design product development.”

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

Sources:

Industrial & agricultural chemicals exhibit antimicrobial activity against human gut bacteria in vitro
Roux et al
Nature Microbiology 2025
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-025-02182-6

Mapping pesticide-induced metabolic alterations in human gut bacteria
Chen et al
Nature Microbiology 2025
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59747-6

Reinforcing Scientific Findings, Insecticide Permethrin Alters Gut Microbiome, Causing Obesity
Beyond Pesticides, September 5, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/09/reinforcing-scientific-findings-insecticide-permethrin-found-to-alter-gut-microbiome-causing-obesity/

Reinforcing Scientific Findings, Insecticide Permethrin Alters Gut Microbiome, Causing Obesity
Beyond Pesticides, June 11, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/06/study-maps-the-gut-microbiome-and-adverse-impacts-of-pesticide-residues/

Pesticide Exposure-Induced Gestational Anemia Mitigated by Maternal Gut Microbiota
Beyond Pesticides, May 16, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/05/pesticide-exposure-induced-gestational-anemia-mitigated-by-maternal-gut-microbiota/

(Beyond Pesticides, January 12, 2026) With a pattern of chemical industry deception of independent scientific review, and the recent retraction of an influential Monsanto ghostwritten article (April 2000) on the weed killer glyphosate (Roundup™), Beyond Pesticides and its network are calling for oversight hearings in Congress. At issue is the reliance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on industry data and agency collusion with chemical manufacturers on its decisions. Beyond Pesticides is questioning the underlying reliability of the data, in addition to limitations of the regulatory review process in meeting its statutory duty to protect health and the environment. In addition to the deception, key underlying deficiencies are EPA’s failure to evaluate endocrine disrupting pesticides and synergistic effects of chemical mixtures. Given these deficiencies and the cost effectiveness of organic land management and crop production Beyond Pesticides is asking Congress to hold oversight hearings to determine how EPA can eliminate the use of toxic pesticides that are no longer needed to grow food or manage landscapes cost-effectively. 

Critically, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and EPA’s pesticide program allow toxic chemicals to be dispersed, resulting in widespread negative impacts, without regard for the availability of cost-effective and profitable alternatives that are eco-sensitive and health protective. Consideration of the essentiality of synthetic substance use in agriculture is addressed in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), along with stringent restrictions on their approval in certified organic production. The success of organic food production and land management practices demonstrates how pointless this dispersal of toxic chemicals is.

It was uncovered in lawsuit documents that the authors of the retracted study, which concludes that the weed killer glyphosate did not cause cancer, did not disclose their relationship with Monsanto/Bayer. The (co) editor-in-chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Martin van den Berg, PhD, which published the article 25 years ago, wrote in the journal, “Concerns were raised regarding the authorship of this paper, validity of the research findings in the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor and potential conflicts of interest of the authors.”  

The study, titled “Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans” and coauthored by three researchers in New York, the Netherlands, and Canada, has been called a “Landmark glyphosate safety study,” according to a recent article by U.S. Right to Know.   

While this retraction reveals Monsanto’s influence through ghostwriting, it also sheds light on the regulatory deficiencies in the law governing pesticides—FIFRA. The revelation is a reminder of related incidents in which Monsanto (Bayer) and other companies have wielded excessive influence at EPA, undermining the integrity of the science needed to inform the regulatory decisions that safeguard health and the environment. 

The current issue of the industry-ghostwritten study is symptomatic of the deficiencies in the pesticide regulatory process. EPA relies on chemical manufacturers to generate the underlying laboratory animal data that is used for pesticide registration and has been historically criticized for an inadequate audit process to ensure compliance with standard laboratory practices.  

FIFRA contains a statement—known as the essentiality clause—stating, “The Administrator shall not make any lack of essentiality a criterion for denying registration of any pesticide. Where two pesticides meet the requirements of this paragraph, one should not be registered in preference to the other.” Although the second sentence makes it clear that “lack of essentiality” applies to the existence of a competing product, EPA has interpreted the essentiality clause as meaning that the agency cannot use the determination that a pesticide is not needed to deny registration. 

Beyond Pesticides and others—including organic farmers and advocates—have long argued that the failure of EPA to consider the viability, productivity, and profitability of organic practices and product alternatives to conventional pesticides means the agency’s registration and registration review of toxic pesticides have not been subject to a complete assessment. In this context and given the availability of  less  and nontoxic  alternatives, EPA has failed in its responsibility to ensure that pesticides registered for use under FIFRA will not cause unreasonable adverse effects. 

The inadequacies in the regulation of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers support the urgent need for the widespread adoption of safer alternatives. The holistic approach of organic agriculture and land management protects all organisms, including humans, and the environment through the elimination of harmful toxicants and the focus on building soil health. This also mitigates the current crises of biodiversity, public health, and climate change, among other benefits. In focusing on building soil health, which in turn creates a healthy system, with only allowable materials through the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the pesticide treadmill can be broken, and all workers, consumers, and wildlife can truly be protected.  

Rather than ignoring OFPA as a way of marketing specialty products, Beyond Pesticides maintains that Congress must use it as a model for eliminating the use of toxic pesticides and fertilizers.  

Letter to Congress
In recognition of the recent retraction of an article central to support for the use of the weed killer glyphosate (Roundup™), it is important to understand that regulators’ dependence on pesticide companies for health and safety data is the rule rather than the exception. Congress must hold oversight hearings to ensure that toxic pesticides do not pose unnecessary—and therefore unreasonable—adverse effects, as required by law.

Critically, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and EPA’s pesticide program allow toxic chemicals to be dispersed, resulting in widespread negative impacts, without regard for need. The consideration of essentiality is addressed in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), along with stringent restrictions on approval of synthetic chemicals for use in certified organic production. The success of organic food production and land management practices demonstrates how pointless this dispersal of toxic chemicals is.

An apparently definitive study concluding that the weed killer glyphosate did not cause cancer was retracted last month after it was revealed in lawsuit documents that the authors did not disclose their relationship with Monsanto/Bayer. This serves as a reminder of related incidents in which pesticide companies have wielded excessive influence at EPA. In undermining the integrity of the science needed to inform the regulatory decisions that safeguard health and the environment, the industry-ghostwritten study is symptomatic of the deficiencies in pesticide regulatory processes. EPA relies on chemical manufacturers to generate the underlying laboratory animal data that is used for pesticide registration and has been historically criticized for an inadequate audit process to ensure compliance with standard laboratory practices. 

FIFRA contains a statement—known as the essentiality clause—stating, “The Administrator shall not make any lack of essentiality a criterion for denying registration of any pesticide. Where two pesticides meet the requirements of this paragraph, one should not be registered in preference to the other.” Although the second sentence makes it clear that “lack of essentiality” applies to the existence of a competing product, EPA has interpreted the essentiality clause as meaning that the agency cannot use the determination that a pesticide is not needed to deny registration. 

Many have long argued that the failure of EPA to consider the viability, productivity, and profitability of organic practices and product alternatives to conventional pesticides means the agency’s registration and registration review of toxic pesticides have not been subject to a complete assessment. In this context and given the availability of less and nontoxic alternatives, EPA has failed in its responsibility to ensure that pesticides registered for use under FIFRA will not cause unreasonable adverse effects. 

The inadequacies in the regulation of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers support the urgent need for the widespread adoption of safer alternatives. The holistic approach of organic agriculture and land management protects all organisms, including humans, and the environment through the elimination of harmful toxicants and the focus on building soil health. It also mitigates the current crises of biodiversity, public health, and climate change. In focusing on building soil health, creating a healthy system, with only allowable materials through the National Organic Standards Board, the pesticide treadmill can be broken, and all workers, consumers, and wildlife can truly be protected. OFPA can serve as a model for eliminating the use of toxic pesticides and fertilizers.  

Please call for oversight hearings to ensure that toxic pesticides do not pose unnecessary—and therefore unreasonable—adverse effects, as required by law. 

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 9, 2026) Beyond Pesticides is partnering with the City of Dubuque Parks and Recreation Department to adopt organic land management practices at two city parks, Jackson Park and Washington Park, with funding for technical support from Natural Grocers. The initiative aims to enhance soil health, reduce water usage, and create safer public spaces, while also addressing climate change and biodiversity issues. Click here to read a joint press release.

Beyond Pesticides, through the Parks for a Sustainable Future nationwide program, collaborates with communities across the country to transition parks, playing fields, and public spaces to organic land management by providing in-depth training to assist community land managers in transitioning two public demonstration sites and the knowledge necessary to eventually transition all public areas in a locality to these safer practices. These demonstration sites serve as models for how sustainable land management is possible without synthetic, petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, showcasing the benefits of organic practices while addressing potential challenges in a manageable and cost-effective way. 

“We are excited to be working with the City of Dubuque on organic land management practices that protect community health and the environment, including bees, butterflies, and birds, and support efforts to mitigate climate change and biodiversity decline,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “Organic practices eliminate fossil fuel petroleum-based products and sequester atmospheric carbon in the soil, combating the climate crisis.”

The City of Dubuque Parks and Recreation Department maintains over 2,300 acres of parks and open space, including more than 50 parks and areas of prairie and oak savannah restoration, pollinator habitat, and wetlands. The City has been reducing its use of synthetic pesticides in city parks since 2016 when the City adopted an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. The City currently has 15 pesticide-free parks and does not apply pesticides to most grass turf areas in the city. (“Turf” is considered all regularly mowed grass areas of parks.) The Parks for a Sustainable Future initiative introduces holistic organic land care that emphasizes building resilient soils and healthy park ecosystems throughout the city’s two demonstration parks while eliminating synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. 

“We look forward to working with Beyond Pesticides in these two iconic Dubuque parks,” said City of Dubuque Parks Division Manager Steve Fehsal. “This is a great opportunity for our staff to increase their understanding of how healthy soil and organic management can give us great parks without petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides.” 

In 2022, the City of Dubuque began exploring a partnership with Beyond Pesticides through the Good Neighbor Iowa Program, which works with Beyond Pesticides in statewide outreach and education, helping communities and families understand the health and environmental benefits of organic land care and the public health risks from synthetic pesticides.  The parks and recreation department, alongside Sustainable Dubuque, is building on the City’s long legacy of environmental leadership. Now, with the adoption of organic land management practices in two city parks, Dubuque and Beyond Pesticides are furthering this vision—fostering greener, healthier, and more sustainable urban spaces for future generations. 

In partnership with Osborne Organics, Beyond Pesticides aims through the program to further shift from petrochemical weed killers and other potential pesticide use to organic practices that rely on methods and products that support soil biology and microbial life in the soil. This approach, used in organic agriculture, naturally produces nutrients for plants, resulting in more resiliency, a reduction in water use, lower costs, and safer spaces for children, pets, pollinators, and the entire community—all while supporting long-term savings and environmental health. 

Sign up to be a Parks Advocate today to let us know you’re willing to speak with local leaders about the importance of this program!

Why Go Organic?

The benefits of transitioning to organic land management extend far beyond individual health! Beyond Pesticides believes in building organic communities:

• For health and safety: Organic food and parks are free from harmful pesticides, fossil-fuel-based substances, and toxic chemicals, making them safer and healthier for all ages. Visit Beyond Pesticide’s 40 Common Lawn and Landscape Chemicals page to delve into the health impacts of pesticides in communities, and the factsheet Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix, which highlights data establishing elevated rates of pesticide-induced illnesses among children.

• For environmental stewardship: Opting for organic parks and products supports practices that protect pollinators, improve soil health, increase biodiversity, and eliminate toxic runoff into water bodies. Learn more about how to protect pollinators in your community by reading BEE Protective, and see our archives in the Daily News Blog on soil health, biodiversity, and water runoff.

• For trust and transparency: The USDA Certified Organic label ensures strict standards and regulations for organic products, providing trust and transparency for consumers worldwide. We provide oversight for parks that use organic land management. Take Action via the Keeping Organic Strong page to keep USDA accountable to the principles and values in the Organic Foods Production Act.

• For just communities: Supporting organic farming practices can benefit local communities and economies, as well as promote responsible animal welfare, and protect farmworkers who are at disproportionate risk from pesticide exposure in marginalized communities. Organic parks are the ethical choice to promote environmental justice. Please see the Black Institute’s Poison Parks report, which shines a spotlight on New York City’s previous reliance on glyphosate-based herbicides and how people of color communities bear the burden of health impacts.

• For climate resilience: Organic farming typically exhibits better performance during droughts and challenging weather conditions. Watering needs are very site-specific, and the type of soil impacts drainage. Once established, a deep root system from organic land management and healthy soil with increased water retention requires less water. Additionally, organic soil management results in the drawdown of atmospheric carbon, contributing to efforts to reduce the adverse effects of carbon on climate.

How To Take Action

There is no better time than the beginning of a new year to reflect on what can be done individually and collectively to have a meaningful effect on health, the health of families and communities, and the legacy to be left behind. An equitable and sustainable world for all can be achieved by seeking the adoption of a transformative solution that recognizes the urgency to address disproportionate harm caused by toxic pesticide production, transportation, use, storage, and disposal with the organic alternative.

In this context, Beyond Pesticides, in collaboration with people and organizations nationwide, is: Asking Mayors, in the new year, to adopt a policy and program for organic management of their community’s parks and public spaces. [In the event that a specific local mayor is not in the system, readers are invited to email this personal message—see below.] 

Since laying the groundwork for the program in the early 1980s, Beyond Pesticides has also worked with communities to adopt land management policies in jurisdictions of nearly every state in the country to ensure continuity and accountability. Click here for access to a template for a local pesticide-free model ordinance or policy!

Envision an organic community where local parks, playing fields, and greenways are managed without unnecessary toxic pesticides, children and pets are safe to run around on the grass, and bees and other pollinators are safeguarded from toxic chemicals. At Beyond Pesticides, this is the future we envision and are working to achieve.

See the attached photos of pilot sites: Washington Park [featured] and Jackson Park [above left]. Images courtesy of the City of Dubuque.

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

Source: Beyond Pesticides and City of Dubuque Parks and Recreation—Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, January 8, 2026) In a press release published on December 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the creation of “a $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program to help American farmers adopt practices that improve soil health, enhance water quality, and boost long-term productivity, all while strengthening America’s food and fiber supply.” The agency specifically ties the program to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA), diverting resources that could be used to support organic transition and phase out pesticides that are clearly defined as prohibited by USDA’s National Organic Program under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), but allowed in regenerative agriculture programs. Regenerative agriculture, embraced by major food companies, has been identified by Beyond Pesticides and many organizations as greenwashing because it typically allows wide use of weed killers and other petrochemical pesticides and is not defined as a transition to organic practices and compatible products. (See here.)

Public health and environmental advocates, farmers, and businesses fear that pouring funding into a loosely defined “regenerative agriculture” program will not only undermine existing efforts to transition farming and communities to more sustainable and truly regenerative systems but also contribute to greenwashing, where corporations that are enabling the climate, biodiversity, and public health crises are rewarded. (See here for Bayer advert on how it supports “Regenerative Agriculture.”)

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) will administer the Regenerative Pilot Program, which is purported to divert $400 million in funds from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and $300 million from the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) for Fiscal Year 2026. The NRCS, meanwhile, has lost almost 25 percent of its staff since January 2025, according to an analysis by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition in September 2025. Family farmers are often distrustful of USDA, which is seen as aligned with industrial agribusiness—as captured in a recent expose by More Perfect Union.

“A leading form of truly regenerative agriculture is organic farming,” says Sarah Starman, senior food and agriculture campaigner at Friends of the Earth, in a press release published in response to the USDA announcement. “Decades of research shows that organic farms, on average, improve soil health, climate resilience, and soil carbon sequestration; reduce emissions; and protect biodiversity, human health, and community well-being.”

Advocates view the USDA announcement as a distraction from the Administration’s alignment with multinational pesticide corporations such as Bayer. In an amicus brief published on December 1, 2025, the Office of the Solicitor General (SG) and the White House are calling on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to grant certiorari on Bayer’s petition to shield chemical companies that fail to warn people about the potential hazards of their pesticide products. (See Daily News here.) 

“We must imagine a future beyond a reliance on petrochemical, synthetic pesticides,” says Max Sano, senior policy and coalitions associate at Beyond Pesticides. “Not only must we protect and expand safeguards to hold corporations accountable for harmful products and bring long-awaited scientific integrity to the registration review process, but we must also get focused and expansive in supporting organic land management systems that can finally move us away from this toxic treadmill.”

Organic Under Pressure

Be it at the federal level or in state programs like California, the legacy of organic systems is under threat.

The beginning of 2025 marked a time of turmoil that upended years-long projects in organic and local food systems due to the far-reaching defunding of critical programs by DOGE, the now-defunct “Department of Government Efficiency.” Earthjustice and Knight First Amendment Institute (Columbia University), on behalf of Northeast Organic Farmers Association of New York (NOFA-NY) and other farmer associations, filed a lawsuit against USDA, challenging the Department’s alleged illegal purging of climate-smart agriculture datasets, resources, and pertinent information that organic farmers rely on to carry out their operations, according to the complaint filed on February 24, 2025. In addition to this, federal funding freezes in 2025 adversely impacted farmers who had made investments based on approved grants through the Organic Market Development (OMD) program and funding through the Partnerships for Climate Smart Commodities Program in support of organic and transitioning farmers. (See Daily News here.) See a publicly available repository of farmer stories impacted by federal funding freezes.

According to an Earthjustice press release, “Shortly after filing the [NOFA-NY] lawsuit, the plaintiffs moved the court for a preliminary injunction, which sought a court order requiring USDA to restore the removed webpages and preventing USDA from taking down additional climate-related information,” but “[d]ays before that motion was set to be heard in federal court, USDA reversed course.” The release continues, “In a letter filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, USDA now says that it ‘will restore the climate-change-related web content that was removed post-inauguration’ and that it ‘commits to complying with’ federal laws governing its future ‘posting decisions.’ USDA also says that it has begun restoring climate-related webpages and expects to substantially complete the restoration process in approximately two weeks.” (See Daily News here.)

In 2024, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) opened a comment period for the public to share their thoughts on how the state agency would internally define “regenerative agriculture” in the context of their programmatic work moving forward. Advocates raised concerns that organic was not included at all, when in reality, there are many groups, farmers, and consumers who say that an organic system should be the baseline for any definition of regenerative. CDFA’s Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory Panel (SAP), falling short of this, proposes a framework for developing a definition:

• Being applicable, relevant, and useful for California Agriculture.
• Leading to positive impacts on California’s environmental, social, human health, and economic goals, including climate goals.
• Providing measurable and verifiable outcomes, keeping in mind variability throughout the state, and emphasizing outcomes that farmers and ranchers can easily measure and that are not economically burdensome to measure.
• Allowing for context-specific outcomes (in terms of scale, geographic location, diverse and/or innovative agricultural systems, goals, etc.)
• Include the idea that building soil health, including elements of physical quality, carbon sequestered, soil biodiversity, and alleviation of climate change (e.g., practices funded by the CDFA Healthy Soils Program) as a foundational element.

Beyond Pesticides stated in comments during a public comment period that this framework will not be effective if definitions, policies, and rules fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Definition clarity and enforceability;
2. Systems plan (establishes baseline for management practices intended to create resiliency and prevent pests);
3. Rigorous standard for allowed/prohibited substances list with a mechanism for incorporating real-time data on hazards and alternatives into reevaluation of the allowed list;
4. Certification and enforcement system (third-party enforcement);
5. Process for public participation to ensure a feedback loop for continuous improvement; and
6. Funding to ensure elements are carried out in a robust way

After months of deliberations, the California State Board of Food and Agriculture (SBFA) on January 10, 2025, formalized a definition of “regenerative agriculture” that is being widely criticized as undermining the transition of agriculture to certified organic practices that eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, highlights the core issue: “Strategies that allow continued use of toxic substances undermine the soil biology and biodiversity critical to healthy plants.” The CDFA definition fails to establish accountability by omitting a clear standard for inputs, such as OPFA’s National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. This omission leaves room for practices like synthetic fertilizer use, genetically engineered crops, biosolids, and synthetic pesticides—all explicitly banned in organic systems.

While the CDFA definition of regenerative is not intended for use in a certification process or statute, critics argue that without specific, measurable goals, the new definition remains open to interpretation and greenwashing. In Civil Eats reporting, Rebekah Weber, policy director for California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF), states, “I could survey 100 farmers and show them this definition and they would each have a different interpretation of what this means, and the verification and accountability pieces just aren’t there.”

By not including verifiable outcomes, the new definition also fails to meet the recommendations provided by the Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory Panel of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The panel, composed of subject matter experts from around the state, was asked to provide input regarding the definition. A May 2023 letter from the panel to SBFA Chair Don Cameron repeatedly emphasized the need for “providing measurable and verifiable outcomes.” (See Daily News here and here and previous Action of the Week here for additional context.)

Regenerative Greenwashing

While not necessarily representative of the broader movement, some regenerative agricultural practitioners and their products have been found to fall short of organic standards and open the door to loopholes for toxic pesticide use that undermines the sanctity of alternative agricultural systems compared to the conventional status quo.

In 2024, an agrichemical industry-funded study published in International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability dissects the development of national organic standards and opportunities that can be applied in expanding the use of “regenerative” agriculture. Not surprisingly, the study authors offer support for integrated pest management (IPM) and reassurance of a rigorous pesticide registration review process before the chemicals are marketed. Similar to regenerative, IPM was advanced as a monitoring-based system with pest thresholds and the “judicious use“ of pesticides. The study includes a survey of five farmers, who farm a total of 100,000 acres, but do not have extensive experience farming organically. The authors take the position that IPM is the most viable systems approach. They state: “This approach [IPM] does not put process-limits on the use of pesticides.”

In fact, The Weed Science Society of America, the American Phytopathological Society, and the Plant-Insect Ecosystems Section of the Entomological Society of America have said that “pesticides are an important part of IPM and that restricting their use by considering them a ‘last resort’ or selecting only the ‘least-toxic pesticide’ can result in a build-up of pests and reduce the overall options for control.” Advocates find it notable and unsurprising that the Entomological Society of America (ESA) issued support of pesticide use as a feature of IPM, given recent instances of chemical industry influence alleged by scientists attending ESA’s 2023 annual meeting. See here for the Daily News analysis of U.S. Right to Know’s report on ESA. See an additional Daily News article, IPM (Integrated Pest Management) Fails to Stop Toxic Pesticide Use, to learn more about the structural failures of IPM to address moving beyond the chemical treadmill. (See Daily News here.)

A similar greenwashing dynamic occurred under the Biden Administration when CropLife America submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2021, emphasizing the recognition of pesticides as a critical tool for climate-smart farming practices as USDA developed its Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Program. There was concern among environmentalists with the former administration leaning into not clearly defined “climate-smart agriculture,” rather than coordinating with the European Union’s organic agriculture targets for 2030 as a part of their Farm to Fork (F2F) initiative at the time. Instead, there was funding and focus split between climate-smart programs and the Organic Transition Initiative, when the focus could have been on using USDA National Organic Program (NOP) as a foundation for climate-smart agriculture and regenerative agriculture programs. NOP oversees third-party certification, a public comment process through a mandated federal advisory board (National Organic Standards Board—NOSB), an allowed and prohibited substances list, and other important factors.

Based on a wide array of analyses, organic land management as a baseline is crucial to address compounding crises relating to climate change, biodiversity, public health, and economic stability, while eliminating petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use. There are examples of regenerative agriculture certifications that take this approach, including Rodale Institute and Regenerative Organic Alliance’s Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) label. Researchers in California quantified the reduction of total pesticide use in organic and conventional farms, noting that there was a “18–31% likely reduction in spraying of pesticides on organically managed fields compared to conventional, and a 27% likely reduction in use of pesticide products with high acute human toxicity for organic versus conventional fields” from 2013 to 2019. There is a world of difference between the pesticides used in organic and conventional production. Though conventional growers are allowed to use thousands of synthetic compounds on their crops, seeds, and soils — no matter their toxicity, as long as EPA has permitted them — Certified Organic growers are permitted to use only “natural” or naturally derived pesticide products, and a very limited number, that are subject to review by the NOSB.

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

Call to Action

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

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

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

(Beyond Pesticides, January 7, 2026) Chemical manufacturers may have suffered a short-lived setback in their quest for statutory immunity from lawsuits due to their failure to warn those harmed by their products, but their campaign in Congress, state legislatures across the country, and the U.S. Supreme Court is continuing.

On Monday, January 6, it was announced that a provision denying people the right to sue chemical companies for nondisclosure of product hazards had been dropped from the FY2026 funding bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. This summer, a provision passed by the House Appropriations Committee would have denied farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, gardeners, and consumers generally the right to sue companies that do not disclose on their product labels and in marketing information potential hazards associated with their products’ use.

“With the announcement that appropriations legislation moving through Congress does not contain a provision that would shield chemical manufacturers from lawsuits for their failure to warn those harmed by their products, we stress that the industry’s campaign to escape accountability is proceeding with a fierce determination,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

The chemical industry, spearheaded by the chemical giant Bayer/Monsanto, in the last year has waged an all-out, multi-pronged campaign in the courts, Congress, and state legislatures to quash lawsuits by those who have been harmed, but not warned, about hazards associated with pesticide products. Over the last several years, Bayer/Monsanto has been held to account for its failure to warn those harmed by their products, with over 10 billion dollars in jury verdicts and settlements in cases involving its weed killer Roundup^TM (glyphosate). After the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) in 2015 (see Daily News here), the EPA maintained its position that the weed killer is not carcinogenic and in 2019, refused to approve a cancer label warning. (See Daily News here.)

U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, who is leading the charge against the industry bill language, said, “For too long, powerful chemical companies like Bayer have spent billions lobbying Congress to override the voices of states, towns, and families who are simply trying to protect their health. Despite their relentless efforts and thanks to immense public pressure, we successfully stripped the industry-backed pesticides preemption rider, Section 453, from the final Interior and Environment funding bill.”

Here is the chemical industry strategy:

Push for a U.S. Supreme Court hearing.
In an amicus brief published on December 1, 2025, the Office of the Solicitor General (SG) and the White House are calling on the U.S. Supreme Court (in Durnell v. Monsanto) to grant certiorari on Bayer’s petition to shield chemical companies that fail to warn people about the potential hazards of their pesticide products. The SG argues that the pesticide product label is totally controlled by the federal government and that chemical manufacturers in compliance with the EPA pesticide registration process cannot be held to any other, presumably more stringent, standard. The Supreme Court is expected to decide on hearing the case next week.

Push for Congress to pass legislation to shield chemical companies from failure-to-warn lawsuits.
The previous appropriations bill language, which may be attached to other legislative vehicles like the Farm Bill, effectively provides total pesticide immunity from lawsuits that challenge chemical manufacturers who withhold information on the harm that their products can cause. Public health and environmental advocates say that chemical companies have successfully lobbied for a weak federal pesticide law and then try to hide behind the law when sued for damages or failure to warn, telling the courts that their products are in compliance with pesticide registration standards and therefore they are not liable for harm or nondisclosure. [The bill language is found here. Search on Section 453.]

Push for state legislation to prohibit lawsuits for failure to warn.
After years of large jury awards, preemptive settlements, and lost appeals in cases involving exposure to the weed killer glyphosate, in 2024 launched a campaign to stop the company’s financial hemorrhaging with a state-by-state strategy to stop litigation for nondisclosure of the hazards associated with their products. To accomplish this, Bayer founded the Modern Ag Alliance, along with agribusiness groups including state Farm Bureaus, to stop what they describe as “scientifically unsound lawsuits” on the weed killer glyphosate.

In late 2025, a broad coalition, including Beyond Pesticides and over fifty organizations, coalitions, businesses, and leaders, called on Congress not to include Section 453 language in any federal appropriations package for the upcoming fiscal year.

For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ resource hub (currently being updated for the 2026 state legislative sessions). See also background on Congressional legislation and solicitor general amicus on Bayer/Monsanto’s efforts to get its case before the Supreme Court.

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

Source: Beyond Pesticides Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, January 6, 2026) Editor’s Note: We begin the new year with a clarion call for meaningful strategies to eliminate petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use, based on the preponderance of science that documents both the hazards of their use and the abject failure of regulations in the U.S. and worldwide to accurately account for their harm to health and the environment. Over the holiday season, we have been cheered by letters to the editor, one from a pediatrician in Missoula, Montana and another from a student in Cedar Falls, Iowa, calling for the elimination of pesticide use in their communities. This call for action in communities targets the places where we live, work, learn, and play—where critical decisions on the use of poisons and contaminants are being made daily in our parks, playing fields, schools, open space, and other public properties. We have the tools to eliminate pesticide use with defined organic practices and compatible materials. We should accept nothing less. The scientific study we write about today (below) details an outrage of huge proportions, a synergistic effect of chemical interactions of widely used synthetic pyrethroid insecticides in combination with environmental stressors—resulting in adverse effects 70 times greater than when evaluated individually. 2026 is the year to take bold action and eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers in our communities, backed by a proven track record in land management systems that are beautiful, productive, resilient, and cost-effective. And, with this, we become advocates for changes that tackle the most serious toxic chemical threats to our health, biodiversity, and climate. In the new year, Beyond Pesticides is here to support this work in communities with technical hands-on resources. To become an advocate in your community, please reach out to us here, contact us at [email protected], or call us at 202-543-5450.

Researchers studied the effect of multiple climate stressors and pesticides in the environment and published their disturbing findings of elevated harm in “Double trouble: The synergistic threat of environmental stressors and pesticide mixtures,” Journal of Hazardous Materials (December, 2025). The researchers document synergism that is 70 times stronger than for the single chemical. The new work is a follow-up to a previous study covered in Beyond Pesticides’ October 25, 2024, news brief.

Among the manifold failures of pesticide regulators, the failure to address the effects of pesticide mixtures is paramount, since every living thing on the planet is exposed to mixtures rather than single chemicals in some kind of discrete order. Worse, pesticides interact with other stressors in the environment, such as climate change’s disruption of food webs and rapidly rising temperatures.

Climate stressors and pesticide interactions are vastly understudied, and only now are the scientific tools emerging to evaluate their dynamics. Testing for these effects is not required by regulators in the U.S. and globally, despite the expectation that in a warming world, environmental stressors will become far more intense.

Researchers at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig and the department of Evolutionary Ecology and Environmental Toxicology, at Goethe University in Frankfurt, are revealing the interactions between two types of environmental stress—food deprivation and heat stress—and pesticides, both individually and in mixtures. In their laboratory study, the researchers exposed the water flea Daphnia magna, a tiny crustacean, to both types of stress in combination with exposure to the pyrethroid insecticide esfenvalerate and a mixture of 13 other pyrethroids. The degree to which the combination of pesticides and climate stresses multiplied damage to the Daphnia adds to the real-world hazards that are not captured in required regulatory reviews for pesticide registration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In their earlier study, the researchers evaluated the effects of esfenvalerate on 24-hour-old Daphnia, coming to several ominous conclusions: first, food limitation and high temperature combined produce more stress than either alone; and that these environmental stressors dramatically increased Daphnia’s sensitivity to esfenvalerate.

Both studies employed a Stress Addition Model (SAM) developed in 2016 by some of the same researchers, which posits that each individual has an overall capacity to cope with stress and that it can be overwhelmed as specific independent stressors increase. Each independent stressor adds to the total sum of stress on a population, and the SAM provides a tool to measure the “highly synergistic direct effects of independent stressor combinations.” These direct stressors, in other words, result in effects greater than their individual influences on an individual and a population.

In the current study, the researchers compared SAM with two conventional models that derive additive effects of both chemical exposure concentration and chemical effects on organisms. The additive models consider combined effects for each component but do not account for their synergistic interactions.

The researchers chose esfenvalerate and the 13 pesticides in the mixture based on nationwide German monitoring data showing that they are frequently detected in agricultural streams and are known to be toxic to aquatic invertebrates. They exposed Daphnia to a suite of experimental conditions combining the environmental stressors of heat and food limitation with exposure to either esfenvalerate alone or the mixture at varying doses and temperature.

Food limitation strongly amplified the pesticides’ effects, and these became more intense over time. When the temperature was set near the upper limit of survivability for Daphnia, it did not produce any synergistic reactions with either the single pesticide or the mixture for two weeks, but after three weeks there was strong synergy with the mixture. This indicates a latency effect, in which a specific response to a toxicant does not appear immediately after exposure. The combined effects of food limitation, high temperature, and the pesticide mixture were much stronger than for esfenvalerate alone.

Further, the comparison of SAM with the other models showed that “SAM better predicted the combined effects of chemical and nonchemical environmental stressors by orders of magnitude. This was especially true, again, for the mixtures. The researchers predicted LC₁₀ values (the concentration that kills 10% of the population) to measure the “long-term effects of ultra-low pesticide concentrations in the field” and found that the conventional models underestimated combined effects by up to 2,000 times compared to SAM.

Esfenvalerate is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide registered for use against a range of insects in the U.S. and the European Union. It primarily disrupts calcium signaling, leading to seizures and death. In the U.S., it is applied to vegetables, fruits, nuts, cotton, and sorghum. Additionally, esfenvalerate is registered for both indoor and outdoor uses for pest control in residential, institutional, and commercial areas, including lawns and turf.

Yet in its Interim Registration Review Decision from 2020, EPA states, “There are no human health risks of concern for esfenvalerate.” Compare this to the information in the Pesticide Properties DataBase (PPDB), a European archive of some 2,300 pesticide active substances including a comprehensive suite of parameters, including human health and biodiversity risk assessments. The PPDB classifies esfenvalerate as a “highly hazardous pesticide”, acutely toxic to mammals and temperate freshwater fish. According to the PPDB, for humans, esfenvalerate is carcinogenic, genotoxic, a neurotoxicant, and a reproductive/developmental toxicant. Among nontarget insects, it is acutely toxic to honey bees and beneficial predatory mites, and moderately toxic to ladybugs and lacewings.

EPA’s position on esfenvalerate in its Interim Registration Review Decision is dismissive of the chemical’s known effects on organisms at all levels of the biosphere. While it acknowledges worrisome toxicity to both aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, including bees, its requirements for protecting them consist of hopes that applicators will follow detailed instructions on usage and disposal that, under real-world conditions are unlikely to be effective.

See 2019 Daily News coverage of the Pyrethroid Working Group’s influence on application rules and child protection policies. For example, EPA reduced buffer distances between buildings and field margins and water bodies at the request of the chemical industry. Under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, EPA had set a margin of safety of 3X (out of a maximum of 10X) for pharmacokinetic differences (how the body absorbs, distributes, metabolizes, and excretes chemicals) between adults and children from synthetic pyrethroids. But based on information from the pesticide industry’s Council for the Advancement of Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment (CAPHRA), EPA reduced the protective margin to the lowest level of 1X for children and adults, including women of childbearing age. This decision was a masterpiece of hand-waving corporate toxicology in which EPA accepted CAPHRA’s proposed physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling (PBPK) method. See this 2015 expose by Elizabeth Grossman and Valerie Brown detailing the chemical industry’s successful campaign inducing EPA to accept PBPK modeling as a valid regulatory tool.

The current German study demonstrates clearly that evaluating chemical by chemical, presuming the effects of each are independent, and disregarding the increasing perils of climate change, is a bankrupt approach to chemical regulation. The authors suggest SAM can replace this failed approach. Although conventional models can predict mixture toxicity to some extent, only SAM was able to predict the synergies among multiple pesticides and environmental stressors.

The authors note that mixtures of toxicants that have different mechanisms of action put enormous stress on organisms because they have to cope with detoxifying multiple assaults at once. Metabolic demands rise markedly, and in conditions of low food availability and near-lethal temperatures, an organism may not be able to cope. “[C]umulative sub-lethal effects of the mixture…progressively exhaust physiological reserves,” the authors write. “Ignoring such combined effects may severely underestimate ecological risks.”

Despite all this, until EPA updates its framework for evaluating chemicals’ threats to the biosphere, this underestimation continues to serve the interests of the pesticide industry. In its Interim Registration Review Decision for esfenvalerate, EPA stated, “[T]he benefits of pyrethroids in agricultural crop production outweigh the risks, and the necessary mitigation are expected to allow continued use of pyrethroids in agricultural settings while putting reasonable measures in place to reduce risk to non-target organisms from runoff and spray drift.”

Thus, the fate of the modest water flea demonstrates the real cost of such reasoning. Daphnia provide enormous ecosystem services by filtering suspended particles out of water. They are food prey for fish and insect larvae and form the basis of most freshwater trophic webs and therefore, are considered a keystone species. What harms them harms their beneficiaries, and the mechanisms of toxicity, not to mention the environmental stressors from climate change, affect micro- and macro-organisms, including humans, worldwide.

Pesticide pollution and climate change, individually, are near-existential threats; combined, they threaten civilization itself and the stability of the ecosphere. The stress on the biology of Earth will be considerably reduced if, as Beyond Pesticides advocates, pesticides can be eliminated altogether by 2032. It is possible.

See Beyond Pesticides’ resources—Organic Agriculture, including sections on Why Organic? and Keeping Organic Strong, to view an array of information, guides, and research on the ecological, public health, and environmental justice implications of a wholesale organic food system. Plus, see Tools for Change to learn about organizing strategies to transition your community toward organic lawncare management programs!

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

Sources:

Double trouble: The synergistic threat of environmental stressors and pesticide mixtures
Shahid et al
Journal of Hazardous Materials 2025
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389425032133

Study Shows Climate Change Exacerbates Synergistic Effects of Synthetic Pyrethroid on Biodiversity
Beyond Pesticides, October 25, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/10/study-shows-climate-change-exacerbates-synergistic-effects-of-synthetic-pyrethroid-pesticide-threatens-biodiversity/

Scientific Studies Identify EPA Deficiency in Evaluating Safety of Toxic Chemical Interactions
Beyond Pesticides, September 8, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/09/scientific-studies-identify-epa-deficiency-in-evaluating-safety-of-toxic-chemical-interactions-calls-for-action/

Common Household Pesticides Again Linked to Behavioral Problems in Children
Beyond Pesticides, March 7, 2017
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2017/03/common-household-pesticides-linked-behavioral-problems-children/

Research Shows Commonly Used Pesticides Produce Greater Toxic Effect When Mixed
Beyond Pesticides, August 11, 2011
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2011/08/research-shows-commonly-used-pesticides-produce-greater-toxic-effect-when-mixed/

Pyrethroid Pesticide Affects Puberty at Low Levels
Beyond Pesticides, September 22, 2008
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2008/09/pyrethroid-pesticide-affects-puberty-at-low-levels/

Predicting the synergy of multiple stress effects
Liess et al
Scientific Reports 2016
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307937573_Predicting_the_synergy_of_multiple_stress_effects

Pesticide Properties DataBase (PPDB)
An international database for pesticide risk assessments and management.
Lewis, K.A., Tzilivakis, J., Warner, D. and Green, A.
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 22(4), 1050-1064. (2016)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299518887_An_international_database_for_pesticide_risk_assessments_and_management

(Beyond Pesticides, January 5, 2026) There is no better time than the beginning of a new year to reflect on what can be done as individuals and collectively to have a meaningful effect on individual health, the health of families and communities, and the legacy of a sustainable world. For Beyond Pesticides, the start of the new year is an opportunity to take steps that prioritize health and the health of the planet. In this context, Beyond Pesticides, in collaboration with people and organizations nationwide is: Asking Mayors, in the new year, to adopt a policy and program for organic management of their community’s parks and public spaces. [In the event that a specific local mayor is not in the system, readers are invited to email this personal message—see below.] 

The year 2025 has been filled with discouraging news for planetary health. With the publication of the latest assessments by the United Nations Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), there are greater insights documented on the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food, and health, and particularly, ecosystem services—the ways in which humans depend on nature. In its assessment of the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, the IPBES states, “The unprecedented challenges posed by global environmental change call for an urgent shift in how we view and interact with nature. As humanity faces the consequences of unsustainable practices, it is clear that transformative change is not just an option—it is a necessity.” Furthermore, the assessment says, “[W]e must redefine the relationship between people and nature, basing new visions on inclusive, just, diverse and forward-thinking approaches that address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss.”  

With the principle of thinking globally and acting locally, one action people and communities can take toward achieving the vision of an organic future is transitioning parks and public spaces to organic practices. For example, a mother of two children in Kansas City wants, simply, her neighborhood park where her children play to be free of toxic chemical use. She saw a flier in her local Natural Grocers store about Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future Program, reached out to her Kansas City Parks and Recreation Department, and now the city is moving ahead to transition two pilot sites to organic practices. It happened with a simple reaching out to the Parks Department! With the hands-on assistance of Beyond Pesticides, Parks Departments receive a plan and training from a horticulturalist and learn about organic practices that can be applied across all parks and public spaces.  

In protecting children and biodiversity using community parks, the organic land management program is creating models for cost-effective programs that meet community expectations, while eliminating the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. When combined with the growth of certified organic agriculture, the conversion of land management to organic eliminates the petrochemicals associated with endocrine disruption (see a talk by Dr. Tracey Woodruff here) and rising rates of related illnesses, biodiversity decline, and an escalating climate crisis. As the climate crisis causes increasingly erratic weather, more frequent flooding, and widespread fires, organic soil management draws down atmospheric carbon, which reduces the threat of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate disasters.  

There could not be a more important time for us to all engage in this new year’s organic journey, whether we choose to emphasize organic choices in our diet, lawn and landscape care, or community involvement. Here is more on the reasons why:  

1. Health and Safety: Organic foods and parks are free from harmful pesticides, fossil-fuel-based substances, and toxic chemicals, making them safer and healthier for all ages. Visit Beyond Pesticide’s 40 Common Lawn and Landscape Chemicals page to learn more about the health impacts of pesticides in communities. See how residential landscapes can be managed without petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.  
2. Environmental Stewardship: Organic land management supports practices that protect pollinators, improve soil health, increase biodiversity, and reduce toxic runoff into water bodies. Learn more about how to protect pollinators in communities by reading BEE Protective.  
3. Trust and Transparency: The USDA Certified Organic label ensures strict standards and regulations for organic products, providing trust and transparency for consumers worldwide. Beyond Pesticides provides support for parks that use organic land management. Visit Beyond Pesticide’s literature called Save Our Organic to learn more about the power of the organic label and use our Keeping Organic Strong page to keep USDA accountable to the principles and values in the Organic Foods Production Act.  
4. Just Communities: Supporting organic farming practices can benefit local communities and economies, as well as promote responsible animal welfare and fair labor conditions. Organic parks are the ethical choice to promote environmental justice. The Black Institute’s Poison Parks report shines a spotlight on New York City’s previous reliance on glyphosate-based herbicides and that people of color communities, including landscapers, bear the burden of this toxic chemical’s impact.  
5. Climate Resilience: Organic farming often exhibits better performance during droughts and challenging environmental conditions. Watering needs are very site-specific and the type of soil impacts drainage. Once established, a deep root system from organic land management requires less water and results in the draw down of atmospheric carbon, contributing to efforts to reduce the adverse effects of carbon on climate. 

Interested members of the public can use the following link to contact their mayor: Ask your Mayor, in the new year, to adopt a policy and program for organic management of your community’s parks and public spaces. [In the event that the local mayor is not in the system, people are invited to email this personal message below.]  

Letter to Mayor
I am writing to urge you to use your leadership in the new year to require, as a matter of policy and practice, the organic management of our community parks and public spaces. My concern about the management of public spaces—used by children and families, those with health vulnerabilities, pets, and wildlife—stems from the hazardous nature of the petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers commonly used. The adverse health and environmental effects are captured on two factsheets, 40 Commonly Used Lawn Pesticides (https://bp-dc.org/40commonpesticides). With this information, we urge you to advance a policy and management decision to stop the use of these hazardous chemicals and transition our parks to organic practices. 

The factsheets document, with scientific citations, a wide range of diseases and ecological effects linked to pesticides. The underlying analysis identified in the factsheets is based on toxicity determinations in government reviews and university studies and databases. 

Of the 40 most commonly used lawn and landscape pesticides, in reference to adverse health effects, 26 are possible and/or known carcinogens, 24 have the potential to disrupt the endocrine (hormonal) system, 29 are linked to reproductive effects and sexual dysfunction, 21 have been linked to birth defects, 24 are neurotoxic, 32 can cause kidney or liver damage, and 33 are sensitizers and/or irritants. Regarding adverse environmental effects, 21 are detected in groundwater, 24 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 39 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 33 are toxic to bees, 18 are toxic to mammals, and 28 are toxic to birds. 

In adopting organic land management, our community can make an important contribution to solving the threat that petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers pose to biodiversity collapse and the climate crisis. The 2025 United Nations Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) warns that we must adopt policies and practices that reflect the value of Nature’s biodiversity, including pollinators, in supporting human life and activity. This starts with the management of soil and landscapes in our community.  

As the climate crisis causes increasingly erratic weather, more frequent flooding, and widespread fires, organic soil management draws down atmospheric carbon, which reduces the threat of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate disasters. Organic management of our parks enables our community to contribute to solving this existential crisis and elevates our role in climate action. 

Please take advantage of Beyond Pesticides’ offer to assist you and land managers of our community parks in the adoption of organic land management practices through its Parks for a Sustainable Future program. You can contact them at [email protected]. 

I look forward to your reply and working with you in the new year.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 2, 2026) Texas-based pecan orchard Swift River Pecans is collaborating with local conservation nonprofit Merlin Tuttle’s Bat Conservation “so they could collect more information on the species that visit his 266-acre property, and to show off the bats’ value to his operation,” according to recent coverage by NPR affiliate KCUR.

“Bats love to munch on insects like stink bugs and moths. Some farmers are now relying on the mammals for pest control – and ditching chemicals,” says Michael Marks, reporter for NPR (Harvest Public Media) and Texas Standard.

The orchard operator and nonprofit have been collaborating since 2004, after Troy Swift (orchard owner) employed a chemical-intensive approach since purchasing the land in 1988. Merlin Tuttle, “an ecologist and conservationist who has spent 65 years studying bats around the globe,” has been setting up bat boxes using cypress trees from a lumber mill on-site—the researcher has opted for this wood type because it is porous and regulates temperature appropriately.

“Our job is to work with Mother Nature instead of against her to make the best pecans money can buy. That’s the way we see it,” says Mr. Swift, who also serves as the president of the Texas Pecan Growers Association.

The orchard owner reflects on foregoing pesticide use entirely on a part of the orchard for the first time in its history: “This year is the first year I did not spray any insecticide at all…And guess what? We got a really good crop over there.”

This story is an example of a symbiotic relationship between farmers and conservationists, exemplifying the importance of ecosystem-based organic principles for pest management, with public health and environmental advocates continuing to call for a massive transition to organic-compatible pest management.

Forum Reflections from Bat Expert Dr. Danilo Russo

In the first session of the Beyond Pesticides 42^nd National Forum, The Pesticide Threat to Environmental Health: Advancing Holistic Solutions Aligned with Nature (see here for recording), expert researchers convened to discuss their research and implications for the cost savings associated with ecological pest management, including Danilo Russo, PhD, professor of ecology at the University of Naples Federico II, international leader in bat research, and coauthor of A Natural History of Bat Foraging: Evolution, Physiology, Ecology, Behavior, and Conservation.

In a recently published commentary published in Conservation Letters (a journal of the Society of Conservation Biology), he writes the following:

“The ongoing biodiversity crisis highlights the need for targeted conservation efforts, yet the focus often remains on rare and endangered species. This overlooks the vital role of common species, which are the ecological backbone of ecosystems, supporting the stability and functioning of biodiversity.

We argue that common species, especially their population dynamics and potential tipping points, are too often neglected and that their conservation is urgent. We illustrate this issue using bats (Chiroptera) as a model. This diverse mammalian order features key ecosystem service providers, including insectivores, pollinators, and seed dispersers. Bats are sensitive to anthropogenic pressures, and many species, including common ones, face population declines and the impact of ecosystem disruption. Research and conservation must urgently be expanded to include common species.

Through case studies, we demonstrate how common bat species are indicators of environmental changes and the urgent need to monitor their populations. We provide recommendations for improving research, enhancing conservation policies, and adopting a more inclusive framework acknowledging the indispensable role of common species in ecosystem services and biodiversity.”

Dr. Russo has authored additional publications on the intersection of bat conservation and farmland protection in recent years that build on this sentiment. For example, a research study published in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment (2023) explores the concept of “bat-friendly” agricultural systems as an “ecological trap”—in other words, anthropogenic climate change can so fundamentally change the structure of ecosystems that wildlife (from bats to bears and everything in between) no longer can adequately “ assess habitat quality, luring them to poor habitats and reducing individual fitness.” This study examines European farmland and obstacles for habitat restoration for at-risk bat species on and bordering said farmland, with “the persistent and widespread use of pesticides” noted as a primary threat to ongoing and future conservation efforts. Organic farming is referenced as a mitigation strategy/solution to long-term conservation efforts.

In his presentation, Dr. Russo shares the benefits of bats as a natural form of pest management for farmland and ecosystem stability more broadly, citing peer-reviewed research, including research he has led or contributed to in multiple respects, which includes evidence of livestock pest suppression and pest management in Mediterranean rice paddies. (See peer-reviewed studies published in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment (2017) and Mammalian Biology (2015), respectively.)  

Dr. Russo points to a “groundbreaking” U.S.-based study from 2011, published in Science, which calculates the estimated economic benefit of national bat conservation to be approximately $22.9 billion per year in terms of ecosystem services provided. While he characterizes this as a “gross simplification” in his presentation, Dr. Russo also notes that the cost-savings would still be “huge if halved or quartered.”

“Increasing bat diversity in bat communities or protecting bat biodiversity is also very important,” says Dr. Russo. He continues: “What we found in [a recent study based in Portugal] for the processionary [moving in a procession] moth is that higher bat diversity and abundance, the lower the number of pine processionary moths recorded in their foraging areas, which tells you that we should protect rich bat communities if we want to magnify the pest control effect exerted by bats.”

Previous Coverage

A previous Daily News, Climate Change Threat to Ecosystem Management of Insects Focus of New Book, cites a chapter written by Dr. Russo on the climate change impacts on the relationship between climate change, bats, and ecological balance in the book Biological Control Systems and Climate Change. As Dr. Russo points out, “Climate change can disrupt predator–prey interactions in agricultural systems by altering species’ physiology, distribution and behaviour,” including deleterious impacts on bat populations. Changes to temperatures and precipitation can destabilize the dynamics of existing resources, which can “reduce natural pest control effectiveness, increasing reliance on chemical methods.” Research, outlined below, shows that climate change impacts bat distribution, reproduction, behavior, and survival through heat stress and drought, among other factors.

Pollinators and insects across the board have faced the repercussions of pesticide dependency. Pesticides can accumulate in aquatic fly larvae, be retained through metamorphosis, and represent a source of chronic pesticide exposure to birds and bats, according to research published in Environmental Science and Technology in 2022. The researchers used formulated products that contained nine active ingredients, including the fungicides: azoxystrobin, boscalid, cyflufenamid, fluopyram, tebuconazole, pyrimethanil, trifloxystrobin, and the herbicides napropamide and propyzamide. It was determined that roughly 10.4−94.0 ng/m² of pesticide per year is moving from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems as a result of this process. This is a significantly higher amount than other studies, excluding these data, have estimated for the transition from waterbodies to land, which generally indicate a range of 0.4 to 26.8 ng/m². Ultimately, the researchers find that bats and birds feeding on contaminated midges could result in low to moderate chronic pesticide exposure. (See Daily News here.)

The health of bat species and organic agriculture is a symbiotic relationship. In a 2021 study published in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, it was found that bats foraging in chemical-intensive banana plantations have much less gut diversity than bats foraging in organic banana fields and natural forestland. Gut diversity in organic bats was found to be similar to the diversity analyzed in forest bats. The study indicates that it is likely that organic practices are maintaining a “high diversity of commensal microbiota,” while on the other hand, “less diverse gut microbiota in bats foraging in conventional monocultures may suggest that these habitats potentially have negative physiological consequences for the animals (e.g., gut inflammation and metabolic disease), and may act as [an] ecological trap.” (See Daily News here.)

In a more recent study published in 2025 in Global Ecology and Conservation, a survey of bat species in organic desert date palm plantations highlights the invaluable ecosystem services these beneficial organisms provide. “Bats are crucial in suppressing pest arthropods in agroecosystems, contributing vitally to sustainable agriculture,” the study authors share, which makes supporting bat populations important not just for biodiversity but to help enhance their roles in pest management. (See Daily News here.) 

Bats are also facing the decades-long plight of white-nosed syndrome (WNS), with previous research demonstrating the decline of bat populations in the USA resulting from the spread of this lethal fungal disease caused by Pseudogymnoascus destructans. This mortality, due to the loss of ecosystem services that bats provide as natural predators, leads to dramatic increases in pesticide use. WNS has caused high mortality in bats, with rates averaging above 70%. This syndrome causes premature awakening from hibernation, which leaves bats with scarce food and low temperatures that threaten their survival over the winter.

A 2024 study finds that as a result of these implications, a corresponding rise in human infant mortality also occurs. Eyal Frank, PhD, an assistant professor of the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, links increased insecticide use in croplands in the absence of bat species to a rise in infant mortality. As Dr. Frank says in the study, “[B]ats do add value to society in their role as natural pesticides, and this study shows that their decline can be harmful to humans.” He continues, “As of 2024, 12 of the roughly 50 insectivorous bat species in the US are negatively affected by WNS.” This study calls attention to the observable and statistically significant increases in insecticide use in counties that document WNS compared to non-WNS counties, with increased infant mortality also occurring in those areas. (See Daily News here.)

The ecosystem services that bats provide are invaluable to farmers’ financial security, as documented in peer-reviewed literature. For example, a 2020 study published in Molecular Ecology concluded that a certain species (Pipistrellus kuhlii) exploits pink bollworm irruptions – a menacing pest that threatens cotton production—by opportunistic feeding. (See Daily News here.) It is important to note that researchers found in a 2022 study published in the Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists that bat population declines are costing American farmers as much as $495 million each year. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

Environmental and public health advocates agree with researchers and farmers that investing in holistic conservation efforts not only provides economic benefits through ecosystem services but is also essential to addressing the existential threat of biodiversity loss amidst our chemical-intensive, fossil-fuel-based society.

You can learn more about the numerous Benefits of Bats on our dedicated webpage. Armed with this knowledge, you can sign up here to become a Parks for a Sustainable Future Advocate and sign up here to receive our Weekly News Update and Action of the Week every Wednesday and Sunday, respectively.

Missed the live seminar for the 42nd National Pesticide Forum? We are pleased to share—as a teaching tool—TWO recordings that capture the incredible knowledge and work of our incredible speakers who are helping to chart a course for a livable future with scientific research and hands-on work in the field.  [SESSION 1|SESSION 2]

In the first session on October 29, 2025, the speakers provide a framework for applying a recognition of the value and importance of natural systems, with specific examples associated with the critical roles that bats, birds, and beavers play in effective agricultural and land management—including the use of hedgerows and other habitat-sensitive practices. The inspiring presentations and discussion helps us to rethink our approach to land stewardship, moving away from harmful practices to holistic solutions that support life-nurturing ecosystems and biodiversity.

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

Source: KCUR ; Conservation Letters ; Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment (2023) ; Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment (2017) ; Mammalian Biology ; Science ; Science of The Total Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, December 24, 2025 – January 1, 2026) From the entire Beyond Pesticides team, we wish you happy holidays and a healthy new year in 2026! We hope this holiday season is filled with lots of organic gifts, organic food, and even organic Christmas trees for those who celebrate!

Despite the current realities, our program and the people and organizations we collaborate with embrace optimism about the future—solutions are within reach and community-based actions put us on a path to meaningful health and environmental protection. Simultaneously, we recognize the need to respond to the serious magnitude of the crises that too many people are facing.

We look forward to working with you in the new year to meet the severe environmental and public health challenges with organic solutions that eliminate continued use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers!

Click above to see our A Year in Review for 2025, and check out our newly-released 2024-2025 Annual Report and 2-page summary!

Our Mission

While the threats of health, biodiversity, and climate crises grow exponentially, the solutions we have advocated for decades are now within reach. We know how to produce food and manage land without petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, as organic food is widely available. Beautiful parks, playing fields, and schoolyards do not require toxic chemical use. At the same time, the regulatory system underperforms, as existential health and environmental problems escalate. And, we know that individual steps that we take to stay healthy, as important as they are, cannot protect us and the natural world, on which life depend, from involuntary petrochemical exposure through ongoing contamination of land, air, and water. The science is telling us that we can no longer tinker with chemical reduction strategies that fall short of protecting our health, biodiversity, and climate.

We are redoubling our efforts against what may seem to be insurmountable challenges, given chemical industry and agribusiness power and a presidential administration committed to deregulating and dismantling environmental programs intended to protect health and the environment. With your help, we advocate with a strong voice based on our daily tracking of scientific studies and our policy analysis. Our collaboration with people and communities puts organic land management practices in place, starting with a soil analysis, recommended practices and materials, and technical support. We are advancing practical and cost-effective practices, showing that toxic chemicals are not necessary for land and building management.

Our goal is clear: END the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, and utilize practices and products that are in sync with nature and compatible with organic standards. This goal can be achieved through the efforts described below, in which your support is essential.

Taking Bold Action

Our history is an important guide for our current program in this period of perilous catastrophic environmental and health threats, while effective and cost-saving solutions are within reach. Today’s health, biodiversity, and climate crises, associated with a confluence of factors including the reliance on toxic pesticides and fertilizer use, call for Beyond Pesticides’ bold program. Our strategy questions underlying norms of toxic chemical dependency, enabling broader public understanding of pesticide hazards in air, water, land, and food, while leveraging the opportunity for foundational change in product choices and the management of land and buildings.

Strategic Objectives

1. Empower strategic local action with knowledge on: a. The current and looming threats to human health and ecosystems, and the dire consequences of inaction or measures that fall far short of what is necessary; and b. The path forward to eliminate the use of petrochemical-based pesticides and fertilizers, including the constellation of toxic materials used in food production and the management of landscapes, gardens, parks, playing fields, and schoolyards.
2. Support, through hands-on practices and policies, the adoption of agroecological principles embodied in organic standards with the goal of supporting organisms in nature that are essential to a balanced natural environment, ecosystem services, and are essential to sustaining life.
3. Tracking the science and regulation to support toxic pesticide elimination with our Daily News and extensive databases (Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management, the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, and ManageSafe) and in thwarting threats to health, biodiversity, and climate.
4. Policy advocacy with our unique and targeted Action of the Week, providing easy personalization and submission of comments to policy makers at the local, state, and national level, supported with technical analysis on the hazards associated with current or proposed practices and policies, and evidence of cost-effective nonhazardous alternatives.
5. Technical support for transitioning communities to organic land management to protect ecosystems and the organisms that inhabit them, including bees, birds, bats, and other organisms essential to a livable future, recognizing the importance of nurturing complex biological communities that support life.
6. Networking for change through collaboration with local, state, and national groups, growing a powerful force for systemic and foundational change that recognizes both the harm to health and the ecosystem, as well as the availability of cost-effective, productive, and profitable alternatives not reliant on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.
7. Protecting those with elevated risk factors who are disproportionately affected, encompassing a range of factors that include high-risk occupations (from landscapers, farmworkers, to farmers), living near toxic sites, vulnerabilities associated with age (children and older population), and preexisting medical conditions (increasing vulnerability to exposure).
8. Holding corporations accountable for misleading and harmful practices, filing consumer protection cases that allege that targeted corporations engage in fraudulent and misleading practices with marketing and labeling claims that products are protective of the environment, “eco-sensitive,” and safe, when they contain hazardous chemicals.
9. Protecting local authority and legal recourse by ensuring local and state governments’ authority to restrict pesticides, people’s ability to sue for failure to warn, and the integrity of organic standards under federal law.

Tracking the Science

Our daily objective at Beyond Pesticides is to inform action to empower advocacy with science, policy solutions, and practical implementation of cost-effective alternatives. Conventional, chemical-intensive land management practices are not sustainable. Petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer dependency contributes significantly to escalating crises in health, biodiversity, and climate. We talk about improvement in public health and environmental protection as requiring science, policy, and action.

We need all three of these pillars, with the central pillar—science—informing action and changes in practices and policy. In this context, we publish the Daily News and then catalogue the findings in our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database on health and biodiversity effects, and What the Science Shows on Biodiversity—pollinators and other organisms—which provides the science that informs action. In each Daily News, we critique the study under review and then link to our databases and previous critiques to establish a pattern of harm and the preponderance of evidence that supports the urgent need for action.

Organic as a Social Good

Our strategy distinguishes Beyond Pesticides from campaigns against individual pesticides or pesticide families, which historically is an approach that leaves us confronting new chemical replacements and more complex problems. We no longer use the word “reduce” and, instead, define our efforts to “eliminate” toxic pesticide and fertilizer use. We are careful to shine a spotlight on flawed and outdated statutes and regulations that do not integrate into their standards the viability of organic practices as a social good to meet the urgency of the moment.

Transitioning to Organic in Communities

With a hands-on program called Parks for a Sustainable Future, we work to show the cost-effective viability of organic land management practices in communities across the U.S. that serve as models for the nation. While we help to elevate the demand for organic food and advocate to ensure the integrity of the underlying standards, we are effecting a wave of actions nationwide to show communities, through demonstration projects, the benefits of organic land management in parks and on playing fields and open-space. Our goal is to establish successful community-based programs as a springboard for the wide adoption of ecologically sound land management practices. We bring horticultural skills to communities to put in place organic management. We provide technical support to communities and continue a robust program of empowering local leadership with science and technical information for effective change.

Raising Voices for Change

During these times, Beyond Pesticides urges sending a message even to those who refuse to listen. As we strive to adopt the changes essential for a livable future, we believe that we must create a record that is based on science, even when the science and the facts are dismissed by those in power. To this end, the failure of action to address the existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises by those in Congress and the administration empowers lower levels of government and some corporations to step into the void left by those whose actions or inaction threaten life.

For even more details on our work in 2025, see A Year in Review for 2025, as well as the 2024-2025 Annual Report and 2-page summary!

The Future

Our program empowers people to take action and effectively advocate with critical information and support. There is an urgency now requiring us to act holistically—not with piecemeal strategies, if we are to effectively tackle the existential threats to health, biodiversity, and climate that intensified with petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.

The challenges ahead require that we redouble our efforts. Beyond Pesticides’ collaboration with people and communities in every state is providing the energy and enthusiasm to embrace the changes necessary to stop toxic pesticide use and embrace organic practices and policies. We know it can be done if we join together to protect health and the environment with science, policy, and activism. The solutions are within our reach.

It’s a fact. Your support makes our work possible. A special thank you to all our donors and supporters this year. Without your engagement and incredible generosity, it would not be possible to lead the transition to a world free of toxic pesticides. Our team at Beyond Pesticides looks forward to continuing to partner with you in the new year to meet the existential environmental and public health challenges with truly organic solutions through policy, science, and action—one day at a time for ourselves and for future generations!

Wishing a healthy and happy holiday season to all! The health and environmental challenges that we face as families and communities across the nation and worldwide require us to stay engaged. The stark reality of the challenges ahead energizes us at Beyond Pesticides to strengthen our program—now, more than ever!

See the enclosed holiday message from Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 23, 2025) A literature review of military personnel reveals broad evidence linking their toxic exposure to poorer mental health outcomes. The review, written by medical professionals and researchers throughout the U.S. and published in Medical Care, analyzes the existing literature on associations between military environmental exposures (MEEs) to contaminants, including pesticides, and mental health (MH) outcomes. “We used evidence mapping methodology to systematically search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and PTSDpubs for studies of toxic exposure during military service and psychiatric outcomes, which included psychiatric diagnoses, psychiatric symptoms, and neurocognitive functioning,” the authors explain.

The 49 studies in the review, covering chemical exposures for military members, involve chemical munitions from the Gulf War era and Agent Orange from the Vietnam War era that are associated with symptoms of depression, PTSD, and anxiety, among others. “Overall, available evidence suggests that veterans reporting environmental toxic exposures may report relatively high levels of mental health needs,” the researchers report.

They continue: “To date, no studies have synthesized the existing literature linking MEEs to MH outcomes. In this review, we systematically organize and describe peer-reviewed literature studying associations between MEEs and MH and neurocognitive outcomes (ie, diagnoses and symptoms). Our review focused on 2 key questions (KQs): for which MEEs has the co-occurrence of psychiatric conditions or symptoms been evaluated (KQ1)? What is the range of prevalence, incidence, or association of co-occurring psychiatric conditions or symptoms among individuals with a history of MEEs (KQ2)?”

Background

The key questions in the review highlight important areas of concern, particularly the disproportionate risks of exposure for military service members to toxicants that have deleterious health effects. There is a long history connecting U.S. service members to risks from environmental exposures, from burn pits and radioactive materials to toxic biological and chemical agents such as pesticides and chemical weapons. As Beyond Pesticides has previously reported, these exposures can have long-term impacts for veterans, with transgenerational effects that risk the health of their families.

“While some military environmental exposures (MEE; eg, exposure to heat, infectious agents, noise, and chemical solvents) have been experienced across all military eras, other exposures are specific to a service era,” the authors note. They continue: “For instance, Agent Orange is an herbicide used during the Vietnam War, and oil well fires and chemical agents (eg, sarin from the Khamisiyah Munitions Depot demolition) were exposures unique to the wars in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and Afghanistan. Gulf War service has also come to be associated with a wide variety of medically unexplained symptoms affecting cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning. This has come to be known as Gulf War Illness or Chronic Multi-Symptom Illness.”

Previous Daily News coverage, titled Health Risks Found from Exposure to Agent Orange Residues on Military Aircraft, reports that during the Vietnam War, over 10 million pounds of the toxic herbicide Agent Orange were applied from military aircraft to defoliate forests and destroy civilian crops. Outfitted with spraying equipment, UC-123 transport planes played a major role in the American military’s campaign to eliminate forest cover for Vietcong fighters. After the war, these aircraft were returned to use in the United States for basic transport operations such as cargo shipping and medical evacuation missions.

However, these planes never underwent any form of decontamination or testing before being repurposed for use in the U.S. Although the U.S. Air Force and Department of Veteran Affairs asserted that “dried residues” on these aircraft were not likely to pose a health threat to aircraft crew—a justification used to deny sickened veterans medical support—a study from the journal Environmental Research finds strong evidence of health risks from residual exposure.

Agent Orange was given its name because it was stored in orange-striped drums and contained the active ingredients in the herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Past studies have found that U.S. war veterans exposed to Agent Orange developed chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, prostate cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and diabetes. Many children of exposed veterans have been affected by their parents’ exposure to the chemical and show a wide range of symptoms. (See here and here.)

A Daily News article on Gulf War Illness (GWI) reports on research that establishes strong causal evidence that GWI is the result of exposure to sarin gas, an organophosphate nerve agent used by Saddam Hussein as a chemical weapon during the Gulf War. The findings, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, have important implications for the hundreds of thousands of American service members suffering from a constellation of chronic symptoms without a true understanding of how they became sick. (See additional coverage here.)

Study Importance

As stated in the current literature review, “MEEs have been associated with a wide range of adverse health effects in studies of military service members.” The researchers continue, writing: “Most studies examined the physical or physiological effects of MEEs, and some reported genetic and epigenetic changes associated with MEEs. Specific MEEs have been associated with the development of respiratory diseases, liver and kidney damage, blood disorders, movement disorders, and various types of cancer. While the research on mental health (MH) and cognitive implications of these exposures is more scant, increasing evidence has linked military deployment-related MEEs to adverse mental health and cognitive effects.”

As a result of increasing attention on the link between military exposure and health post-deployment, the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act was passed in 2022. “The PACT Act expanded Veteran Affairs (VA) health care eligibility for veterans with medical conditions presumed to result from MEEs and mandated MEE screening of all veterans,” the authors say. “To date, over 5 million veterans have been screened, with almost half (43%) reporting at least one MEE.”

As highlighted in previous Daily News, the PACT Act provides compensation and additional services for exposure to burn pits, as well as contaminated water and Agent Orange. This acknowledges the exposure-related conditions, including but not limited to:

• Cancers of the brain, head, neck, and nervous system
• Brain and nervous system disorders (i.e., Parkinson’s Disease)
• Sarcomas
• Spinal cord cancers
• Gastrointestinal cancers
• Kidney cancers
• Lymphomas
• Melanomas
• Pancreatic cancers
• Reproductive cancers
• Respiratory cancers
• Various non-cancer conditions (High blood pressure/hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, among others.)

Methodology and Results

Through the literature review process, 49 studies were identified that reference military exposure and mental health symptoms and were included in subsequent analyses. “We organized our results into 3 broad categories, informed by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5-Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) and clinical application,” the researchers state. “These groups included psychiatric diagnoses (eg, posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD; major depressive disorder, MDD), psychiatric symptoms (eg, low mood and anxiety), as well as neurocognitive diagnoses (eg, major and mild neurocognitive disorder), and neurocognitive symptoms (eg, executive dysfunction and impaired memory).”

Of the 49 studies, 41 report disaggregated psychiatric or neurocognitive outcomes, “of which 22 studies reported neurocognitive symptoms or diagnostic outcomes, 19 reported psychiatric diagnostic outcomes, and 30 reported psychiatric symptoms (categories not mutually exclusive).” This research includes a range of cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies throughout the eras of the “Persian Gulf War (N=29), Vietnam War (N=7), Iran-Iraq War (N=4), Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF; N=5), Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation New Dawn (OEF/OND; N=3), and other (eg, peacetime, multiera, or not reported, N=5.”

The results linking MEE to negative mental health outcomes include:

• Depressive Symptoms. Seventeen studies associate depressive symptoms with various military exposures, including chemical weapons, pesticides, and herbicides as the most commonly reported.
• Depressive Disorders. Five studies examine associations between depressive disorders and MEEs, with the most commonly studied exposure including chemical weapons (sulfur mustard and sarin) and the herbicide Agent Orange.
• Anxiety Symptoms. Nine studies find associations between anxiety symptoms and exposures, particularly for herbicides and chemical weapons.
• Anxiety Disorders. Four studies show anxiety disorders in relation to chemical exposures. “This included sulfur mustard gas (Gulf War era), sarin nerve agents (Iran-Iraq War era), and the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.”
• Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress. Nine studies include symptoms of PTSD as an outcome of MEE, with chemical exposures including pesticides, herbicides, solvents, paints, and chemical-based weapons.
• Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Six studies assess the association between PTSD and military exposures, five of which explore chemical weapons exposures (such as sulfur mustard gas and sarin nerve agent).
• Sleep Problems. Seven studies identify sleep problems in relation to MEEs, including chemical weapons and pesticides.
• Sleep Disorders. Two studies assess sleep disorders in relation to chemical exposures, with one study of Agent Orange-exposed Vietnam veterans and the other on veterans who had been exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.
• Symptoms of Psychosis. Three studies assess symptoms of psychosis, with all participants reporting chemical exposures and two of the studies including Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange.
• Psychotic Disorders. Two studies assess psychotic disorders in Korean veterans and those exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam.
• Other Psychological Disorders. Eight other studies assess the relationship between toxicants and psychological disorders, including exposure to oil fires, pesticides, and chemical weapons.

The literature review authors report that this collection of studies reveals two main findings: “First, there is broad evidence that toxic exposures during military service are associated with poorer MH. For example, exposure to chemicals and air pollution appears to be associated with a high occurrence of PTSD and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Nevertheless, such findings should be understood within the context of our second broad finding—there are several methodological limitations in the literature examining environmental exposure during military service and MH outcomes, including the imprecise measurement of MEEs and MH symptoms or diagnoses.”

While there is evidence linking military exposure to negative mental health outcomes, relying on self-reported data, often many years or decades after the exposure occurs, makes it difficult to link the two events. “Despite these limitations, the overall pattern of associations between MEE and MH has important clinical implications,” the researchers conclude. They continue: “Given the broad associations between MEE and MH, it would be useful for clinical care to include screening for symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD among veterans reporting MEEs. Assessing the MH needs of this group may help ensure this higher-risk population receives the neuropsychological and mental health care they need.”

Forging an Organic Path Forward

The solution to these disproportionate risks for military service members lies in systems-based, holistic change. Whether in the military, commercial agriculture, or home gardens, toxic pesticides and other environmental contaminants have no place. The threats to the health of entire ecosystems, wildlife, and humans are unreasonable, especially given available alternatives such as organic land management.

Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic methods here and here. Have your voice heard by participating in Action of the Week, which is intended to provide you, our supporters and network, with one concrete action that you can take each week regarding 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.

To stay involved and informed, sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Update emails delivered right to your inbox, and help us in the fight for an organic, pesticide-free world by making a contribution today.

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

Source:

Magnante, A. et al. (2025) Psychiatric Conditions and Symptoms After Toxic Environmental Exposures During Military Service: An Evidence Map, Medical Care. Available at: https://journals.lww.com/lww-medicalcare/fulltext/2026/01002/psychiatric_conditions_and_symptoms_after_toxic.9.aspx.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 22, 2025) After a U.S. Court of Appeals Court decision in October that upheld the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) “bioengineered” food label language, Beyond Pesticides with people across the country renewed their call for truth in labeling—so that consumers clearly understand when products contain genetically engineered ingredients. The label requirement became law under the National Bioengineered  Food Disclosure Standard in 2016. When USDA proposed the bioengineered label, Beyond Pesticides told the agency in 2017, “Since many consumers may not know or understand the term bioengineering, there should be allowable interchangeable terms for the disclosure standard. These include the terms: genetically engineered, genetically modified organism, and GMO.” Beyond Pesticides issued an action to: “Tell USDA to require full disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients, using terms understandable to consumers.“

At the same time, the court ruled that USDA had failed to properly implement the law in allowing manufactures to provide label ingredient with a reference to the availability of electronic information. After a 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California overturning rules issued under the first Trump administration that, according to the Center for Food Safety (CFS), “practically eliminate oversight of novel GE technology and instead let industry self-regulate,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in October for the plaintiffs on providing general public access to information on genetically engineered products. The decision overturns a 2018 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) final rule permitting the use of a “QR code” or smartphone labeling for food products made with genetically modified organisms. The case was filed by the Center for Food Safety on behalf of a coalition of public interest organizations and grocers, including Natural Grocers, Citizens for GMO Labeling, Label GMOs, Rural Vermont, Good Earth Natural Foods, Puget Consumers Co-Op, and National Organic Coalition. 

While the court decision takes an important step towards transparency by requiring labeling revealing “bioengineered” ingredients, the failure to require the use of terms readily understood by consumers—“genetically engineered” or “genetically modified” (or “GMO”)—falls short of full disclosure. In the disclosure law, the term “bioengineering” refers to a food that has been genetically modified in a way that could not be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature, the same as the meaning of terms genetically engineered, genetically modified organism, and GMO, that have been used consistently by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in National Organic Program regulations and communications. 

In USDA regulations:

• The definition of “bioengineering” must include all forms of genetic engineering, including newer forms like CRISPR and RNA interference (RNAi). Definitions should be compatible with those recommended by the National Organic Standards Board. 
• Each GE ingredient must be identified, including highly refined GE sugars and oils and processed corn and soy ingredients. Even if they are so highly processed that the GE ingredients are present only at undetectable levels in the final product, they are still GE foods.   
• GE ingredients must be identified on product labels, or product shelves in the case of raw foods. All products required to label ingredients should include identification of GE ingredients on the label.

There is significant peer-reviewed evidence documenting the impacts of genetically modified organisms on health and biodiversity, as well as research on the health and environmental benefits of organically managed farmland. There are alternatives to genetically engineered crops that promote dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides in industrial monoculture agriculture. Organic systems can compete, and even outpace, conventional systems after a transition period, including corn and soybean fields, as documented in recent research published by USDA researchers in Ames, Iowa. Therefore, labeling at the consumer level should be clear enough for consumers to identify products produced with genetically engineered ingredients and weigh their costs and benefits against organic alternatives.

Letter to USDA

After a 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California overturning rules issued under the first Trump administration that, according to the Center for Food Safety (CFS), “practically eliminate oversight of novel GE technology and instead let industry self-regulate,” the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in October for the plaintiffs on providing general public access to information on genetically engineered products. The decision overturns a 2016 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rule permitting the use of a “QR code” or smartphone labeling for food products made with genetically modified organisms. However, missing from the court’s decision is direction to clarify the use of the misleading term “bioengineered.” Given the general public’s understanding of the common usage of “genetically engineered” or “genetically modified,” I request that USDA require the use of more generally understood terms on product labels. 

While the court decision takes an important step towards transparency by requiring labeling revealing “bioengineered” ingredients, the failure to require the use of terms readily understood by consumers—“genetically engineered” or “genetically modified” (or “GMO”)—falls short of full disclosure. In the disclosure law, the term “bioengineering” refers to a food that has been genetically modified in a way that could not be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature, the same as the meaning of terms genetically engineered, genetically modified organism, and GMO, that have been used consistently by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in National Organic Program regulations and communications.

In USDA regulations:

The definition of “bioengineering” must include all forms of genetic engineering, including newer forms like CRISPR and RNA interference (RNAi). Definitions should be compatible with those recommended by the National Organic Standards Board.

Each GE ingredient must be identified, including highly refined GE sugars and oils and processed corn and soy ingredients. Even if they are so highly processed that the GE ingredients are present only at undetectable levels in the final product, they are still GE foods.  

GE ingredients must be identified on product labels, or product shelves in the case of raw foods. All products required to label ingredients should include identification of GE ingredients on the label.

There is significant peer-reviewed evidence documenting the impacts of genetically modified organisms on health and biodiversity, as well as research on the health and environmental benefits of organically managed farmland. There are alternatives to genetically engineered crops that promote dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides in industrial monoculture agriculture. Organic systems can compete, and even outpace, conventional systems after a transition period, including corn and soybean fields, as documented in recent research published by USDA researchers in Ames, Iowa. Therefore, labeling at the consumer level should be clear enough for consumers to identify products produced with genetically engineered ingredients and weigh their costs and benefits against organic alternatives.

Please adopt regulations that require the use of more generally understood terms—“genetically engineered” or “genetically modified” (or “GMO”)—on product labels.

Thank you.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 19, 2025) While still the exception rather than the norm, a growing movement of Christmas tree farmers across the United States is demonstrating that organically managed systems can also be applied when choosing a tree during this holiday season.

Health and environmental advocates across the country are calling for a transition away from toxic pesticide dependency during the holiday season. Beyond Pesticides maintains a webpage, Christmas Trees and Pesticides, and Center for Biological Diversity and Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a “special review of pesticides used on Christmas trees.” The groups sent a letter on December 4, the day the National Christmas Tree was lit at the White House, specifically citing the need to review the pesticides chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, dimethoate, bifenthrin, chlorothalonil, glyphosate, hexazinone, imidacloprid, simazine, and 2,4-D, among others.

Christmas is one of the most celebrated holidays in the United States, with Christmas trees grown on Christmas tree farms being brought into homes as part of the celebration. On average, Americans purchase 25 to 30 million Christmas trees annually, according to the National Christmas Tree Association; however, certified organic Christmas trees, which follow the same U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic standards as agricultural crops, make up only 1% of all Christmas tree purchases.

Extension Services on Christmas Tree Pest Management

There are various land grant universities and their extension services across the nation that provide resources on pest management “best practices” (see Daily News here on the failures of IPM to address pest issues), which include toxic pesticide use, for domestic Christmas tree production, including Virginia Tech, Penn State, North Carolina State, and Michigan State. However, there are notable exceptions, including in North Carolina, which provides specific information on organic pest control in Fraser fir Christmas trees, including best practices for organic pest management, cultural controls, organic compatible pesticides, and “special considerations” for specific pest problems.

There are also the agricultural extension schools in Oregon and Washington states, leveraging Pacific Northwest Insect Management Handbook – 2025 Horticultural, Landscape, and Ornamental Crops: Christmas Tree Plantation Pests Guide (updated in March 2025), which lists organic-compliant materials and interventions for certain pests, including spider mites and common pests like conifer aphids.

In the North Carolina State publication, the institution includes the following Pesticides Labeled for Use in North Carolina Christmas Trees (bolded refers to substances permitted in USDA-certified organic):

• Bifenazate, Imidacloprid, Flupyradifurone, Clofentezine, Esfenvalerate, Abamectin, Azadirachtin, Prodiamine, Spinosad, Flumioxazim, Carbaryl, Tebufenozide, Chlorothalonil, Dimethoate, Diflubenzuron, Mancozeb, Pymetrozine, Spirodiclofen, Thiamethoxam, Fluazifop-P-butyl, Isoxaben, Triclopyr, Oxyfluorfen, Horticultural Oil (Refined petroleum distillate) Phosmet, Pronamide, Chlorpyrifos, Malathion, Spirotetramat, Bifenthrin, Pendimethalin, S-metolachlor, Permethrin, Simazine, Glyphosate, Dinotefuran, Safer’s Insecticidal Soap (Potassium salts of fatty acids), Pyridaben, Hexythiazox, Lambda-cyhalothrin, Clopyralid, Mefenoxam, Oryzalin, Buprofezin, Etoxazole, Hexazinone and Sulfometuron methyl.

In terms of the chemical-intensive status quo, in March 2025, entomologists and forestry professionals from Virginia Tech and Virginia Department of Forestry published a 28-page report, Pests of Forestry and Christmas Trees: Forest Insects, that includes various tables of invasives, insecticide/herbicide recommendations. For example, VA Extension on page one of the report (Table 8.1 Insects and Insecticides) references the insect host adelgids (Balsam Woolly Adelgid) and recommends for insect control the insecticides carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, petrochemical-based “dormant oil,” esfenvalerate, imidacloprid, and permethrin.

Imidacloprid is a primary example of a toxic insecticide that has sweeping adverse effects on ecosystem stability, as documented in independent peer-reviewed literature. This neonicotinoid insecticide has been found to adversely impact pollinators and birds, contamination of waterways, and negative impacts to soil communities, among other effects. The chemical is an endocrine disruptor and linked to a range of chronic effects. (See Daily News category on imidacloprid for additional analysis.)

An Example of the Organic Solution

There are efforts to encourage the expansion of domestic organic Christmas tree production, as evidenced through a two-year funded Sustainable Agricultural Research and Education (SARE) project, Expanding Organic, Ecological, Regenerative Christmas Tree Agroforestry in Maine.

In the initial proposal developed by Celebration Tree Farm & Wellness Center, LLC, based in Maine, the project aimed to:

1. “Research and compile best practices of regenerative, organic Christmas tree farmers around the country and to connect these farmers together
   1. We will study what practices are being used and farmer observations about these practices, the benefits in protecting forest health, market perceptions and demand for these practices, and the financial benefits.
   2. We will develop a guide that will document and share these best practices and promote organic, regenerative agroforestry.
2. Provide education on organic regenerative agroforestry practices for Christmas tree farming in Maine
   1. We will evaluate based on the number of workshops that we deliver (goal is to develop and deliver 3 on-farm workshops, 1 webinar, and 3 conference workshops) and the evaluations that we receive after the workshops.
3. Encourage existing Christmas tree farmers, existing farmers, service providers, and forestland owners to embrace organic, regenerative Christmas tree farming practices
   1. We will evaluate through conducting post-workshop surveys to determine whether participants are interested in pursuing these practices either by transitioning an existing tree farm or starting a new farm
4. Reach 150 people in workshops and distribute 300 guides (digital and hardcopy)
   1. We will measure by tracking the number of people that attend workshops and download the guide.”

“We developed this guide out of a desire to increase the resources and information available to existing tree farmers and aspiring tree farmers about ecological, organic Christmas tree farming,” says Jonah Fertig-Burd and Thomas Prohl, general coordinator and farm coordinator, and authors of the Ecological Christmas Tree Farming Guide. The guide delves into the history of Christmas tree production in the United States, distinctions between conventional and ecological/organic farming, the benefits of maintaining forest canopy for the purposes of carbon sequestration, shade moisture, and biodiversity, various ecological practices, principles of organic pest management, and market opportunities, among other details.

In terms of organic pest management, the authors share their approach in the context of addressing localized outbreaks of the Balsam Gall Midge:

“Our strategy is to allow the trees to grow through their infestation of the gall midge, as it is rarely fatal to the tree, and infestations generally last 2-3 years before the midge moves on to different locations (Maine Forest Service: Maine DACF). Non-organic chemical intervention will never be utilized within our production system as it is unauthorized by our certifier, MOFGA (although there are some OMRI-approved products for Christmas tree production), unnecessary due to forest resilience, and not in line with our regenerative forestry practices. Instead, careful scouting to identify pest infestation & damage, coupled with avoidant harvesting strategies, has proved to be a successful means of insect pest management over the course of the last decade.”

Call to Action

While Celebration Tree Farm’s trees may not have the “perfect, manicured” look of chemically grown trees, families can feel comfortable knowing that they are not exposing loved ones to toxic pesticides and substances while opening up presents on Christmas morning.

For more information on organic certified Christmas trees, see California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) (Search “Christmas Tree”) and Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA). While most trees are not certified organic in the lists, The Filtery identifies Christmas tree farms across the United States that have either previously been certified organic or claim they grow without the use of substances not permitted for use under federal organic law. Christmas trees can also be ordered online from growers that can ship them to your home; even though they may not be organic certified, these growers claim to use organic principles in their approach, including Silvertip Tree Farm.

See also Local Harvest for local Christmas tree farmers in your area—farmers are happy to share what inputs they use if you pick up the phone or send an email!

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

Sources: Virginia Tech, Penn State, North Carolina State, Michigan State; Center for Biological Diversity; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic Standards; Pacific Northwest Insect Management Handbook – 2025 Horticultural, Landscape, and Ornamental Crops: Christmas Tree Plantation Pests Guide; Ecological Christmas Tree Farming Guide

(Beyond Pesticides, December 18, 2025) A study in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health finds peak concentrations of organophosphate pesticide (OP) metabolites in the urine of pregnant mothers 6-12 hours after consuming contaminated fruits and vegetables. “High detection rates were observed for dimethylthiophosphate (DMTP, 96%), dimethylphosphate (DMP, 94%), diethylphosphate (DEP, 89%), and diethylthiophosphate (DETP, 77%) among 431 urine samples taken from 25 pregnant women, over two 24-hr periods, early in pregnancy,” the researchers report. The levels of metabolites within the urine correlate to the consumption of foods treated with organophosphate pesticides, highlighting the importance of adopting an organic diet—particularly for pregnant individuals and their children.

“In 2009–2010, 80 pregnant women were recruited from Ottawa, Canada for the Plastics and Personal-care Product use in Pregnancy (P4) Study,” the authors say. “A subset (n = 25) collected multiple spot urines (up to 10 each; total n = 431) over two 24-h periods in early pregnancy—one weekday and weekend day—while logging their food consumption beginning 24 h prior to the first urine void and continuing through the following 24-h urine collection period.” This is the first study looking at the variability of organophosphate metabolites within 24 hours in maternal urine, giving insight into “the primary sources of exposure and the temporal variability in a population of Canadian pregnant participants.”

Study Importance and Background

The organophosphate pesticide metabolites analyzed in the study are the breakdown products of many different pesticides that have current or historical uses in both the U.S. and Canada, including malathion, chlorpyrifos, fenitrothion, parathion, diazinon, dimethoate, and others. As the researchers state: “OP metabolism typically involves the production of three dialkyl phosphates (DAPs), which are excreted in urine. In 2010, the same year as the data for this study were collected, 586,288 kg of active pesticide ingredients in the dithiophosphates, phosphates, and thiophosphates chemical groups were sold in Canada.”

They continue: “OPs are widely used in agriculture; thus, it is not surprising that the most common route of exposure to OPs for the general population is via ingestion of foods treated with these pesticides. However, prior studies have compared food consumed prior to a single measure of urinary DAP and not considered daily variation.” (A history of research is found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

As Beyond Pesticides has previously reported, organophosphates are a family of insecticides derived from World War II nerve agents. They are cholinesterase inhibitors, meaning they bind irreversibly to the active site of an essential enzyme for standard nerve impulse transmission, acetylcholine esterase (AchE), inactivating the enzyme. Research finds that organophosphates have significant associations with depressive symptom development, including disturbing normal nerve impulses. Additionally, pesticide poisoning can lead to neurotoxicity via low serotonin levels and cholinergic changes, further exacerbated by oxidative stress and neuronal cell death. A decrease in AChE activity has links to higher depression scores observed in individuals with increased suicide risk, among other deleterious health effects. (See additional related Daily News coverage here.)

Methodology and Results

In the current study, 431 urine samples are analyzed for six dialkyl OP metabolites, including dimethyldithiophosphate (DMDTP), dimethylthiophosphate (DMTP), dimethylphosphate (DMP), diethyldithiophosphate (DEDTP), diethylthiophosphate (DETP), and diethylphosphate (DEP), that correlate with a range of organophosphate pesticide active ingredients. As the authors note: “In this study we aim to examine the within-subject variability in urinary DAP concentrations over two 24-h periods, and to examine the sensitivity and specificity of a single void to classify a participant’s exposure as high or low. Secondly, we aim to describe the change in urinary OP metabolites (dimethyl phosphates, diethyl phosphates, and total dialkyl phosphates) over two 24-h periods since last consuming a particular food group among a small cohort of pregnant participants who completed food diaries and provided individual urine voids.”

During the two study periods, participants kept a detailed time log of food and beverages in which there were 3753 foods and drinks recorded, containing 73 distinct items from 14 main food categories, such as meats, vegetables, grains, dairy, fruits, and more. The results show the highest detection rates for DMTP (96%), DMP (94%), DEP (89%), and DETP (77%), with concentrations peaking between 6-12 h post-consumption of certain foods. “In conclusion, this study found DAP concentrations increased post-consumption of fruits and vegetables in samples collected over a 24 h period on a weekend day, similar to trends found in literature,” the researchers state.

Previous Research

There is a wide body of science on the health effects of organophosphate pesticide exposure, particularly in pregnant women, with subsequent effects on infants/children. Cited within the current study are “numerous investigations in the epidemiological literature regarding possible effects of OP pesticide exposure on the behaviour and development of infants and children, driving home the importance of accurately representing exposure.” This includes:

• Higher maternal DAP metabolite levels are associated with an increased number of abnormal reflexes, as found in a study from the Centre for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) in California.
• “A similar study in Shenyang, China, reported statistically significant associations between the highest quintile of prenatal exposures to OP pesticides and increased number of abnormal reflexes in 3-day-old infants, as measured in the Neonatal Behavioural Neurological Assessment (NBNA).”
• Additional studies report that higher maternal DAP metabolite levels are “associated with a decrement in mental development at 12 months among blacks and Hispanics. In older infants and children, an association was reported between increasing in utero exposure to OP pesticides and maternal report of pervasive developmental disorder at 24 months of age in the CHAMACOS cohort and at 36 months in the Mount Sinai cohort.” (See here, here, and here.)
• “A study of 350 mother-infant pairs, from Ohio… reported that more frequent consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables had higher concentrations of OP metabolites during pregnancy.”
• A study in the Netherlands shows high levels of OPs are associated with high consumption of fruit, “where each 100 g/d difference in fruit consumption was associated with a 7% higher total DAP metabolite concentration across pregnancy.”
• In the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS), “participants with a high frequency of fruit consumption, on average, had total DAP concentrations approximately 43 times higher than those with low fruit consumption.”
• Another study finds similar results, with higher consumption of fruits and grains linked to elevated DAP concentrations while meat intake was associated with lower levels.

As covered by Beyond Pesticides, prenatal OP exposure can cause negative birth outcomes, as well as metabolic disorders in males. Additional health implications from exposure throughout a lifetime include immune system dysfunction that can lead to immunosuppression, allergies, and autoimmune disorders; reproductive effects; brain cancer; endocrine disruption and obesity; and more. (See here, here, and here.)

The Organic Solution

These studies add to the ever-growing mountain of research that links pesticide exposure to adverse health effects, as can be seen in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). Organophosphates are one of many classes of chemicals that threaten human health, as well as all wildlife and the environment, with transgenerational impacts that are not captured in current risk assessments. The only solution to these health threats are to remove exposure to these harmful compounds. Organic agriculture and land management makes that possible.

Without using petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, organic farmers are able to produce crops on a large scale that are not only profitable but are healthier for consumers and farm workers. In Daily News earlier this year, titled Study Demonstrates Health Benefits of Organic Diet Over That Consumed with Toxic Pesticides, Beyond Pesticides shared how 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.

In additional coverage this year, Beyond Pesticides states that a study published in European Journal of Nutrition finds that consumption of organic animal-based and plant-based foods is positively associated with higher cognitive scores. Among women, there is both better cognitive function before testing (at baseline) and up to a 27 percent lower MCI [mild cognitive decline] score over the course of the study period for participants identifying as organic consumers, even if there was consumption of just one of the seven food categories. Over the 3.7-year study period, the authors conclude, “Our study found that organic food consumption was associated with higher cognitive scores for both sexes, yet the association with reduced incidence of MCI was observed exclusively in female participants.”

Learn more about the health effects of pesticides and the organic solution from the speakers at the second session of the 42^nd National Pesticide Forum, The Pesticide Threat to Environmental Health: Advancing Holistic Solutions Aligned with Nature. The Forum brought together cutting-edge science and medical experts from Brazil, Italy, Belgium, Rwanda, Canada, and the United States to sharpen the voices of advocates who are saying that the time for action to eliminate the current reliance on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers is past due, and the transition away from them is now urgent. The speakers bring years of experience in research and clinical work, writing articles in peer-reviewed journals that characterize the dimensions of health threats that call for urgent action to stop toxic chemical use, according to Beyond Pesticides, the convenor of the Forum. (See more here, including session recordings and materials.)

The Forum helps to make important findings accessible to the lay public so that they can inform local and state decisions in the U.S. and across the globe, with the second session in December following an earlier session in October that brought together robust presentations on the critical benefits of land management in sync with nature, with experts explaining the importance of ecosystem services—recognizing the value of ecological balance and the importance of healthy ecosystems on which life depends. Recordings of both sessions can be found here. 

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

Source:

Caton, L. et al. (2025) Organophosphate pesticide metabolite concentrations in a pregnancy cohort: daily variability, and predictors of exposure, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463925001981.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 17, 2025) In a 50-plus page opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in October for the plaintiffs on providing general public access to information on genetically engineered products, overturning a 2016 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rule that permitted the use of a “QR code” or smartphone labeling for food products made with genetically modified organisms. However, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the use of the term “bioengineered” is misleading, given the general public’s understanding of the common usage of “genetically engineered” or genetically modified.” The case was filed by the Center for Food Safety on behalf of a coalition of public interest organizations and grocers, including Natural Grocers, Citizens for GMO Labeling, Label GMOs, Rural Vermont, Good Earth Natural Foods, Puget Consumers Co-Op, and National Organic Coalition.

“We’ve fought for decades for GMO labeling, as required by more than 60 other countries, and today’s decision is a crucial culmination of those hard-fought efforts,” says George Kimbrell, legal director at Center for Food Safety and lead counsel in the litigation. He continues: “QR codes alone do not provide meaningful access to all Americans, and USDA now will have to remedy that failing and provide accessible labeling. We are gratified that the Court has struck down USDA’s loophole for ultra-processed GMO foods, the vast majority of which have been genetically engineered for increased pesticide tolerance.”

This comes after a 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that overturned a rule issued under the first Trump administration to “practically eliminate oversight of novel GE technology and instead let industry self-regulate,” as characterized by the Center for Food Safety (CFS). (See Daily News here.)

There is significant peer-reviewed evidence on the impacts of genetically modified organisms and biodiversity, as well as research on the benefits of organically managed farmland.

Decision

The federal court decided to hear this appeal on GMO labeling, use of the term “bioengineered,” and QR codes as a substitute for disclosure based on the ambiguous 2023 judgment of the district court, as well as the decision that “at least one Plaintiff had [Article III] standing to assert each of the three APA [Administrative Procedure Act] claims at issue.”

The three APA claims include:

1. “the exclusion of highly refined foods from the definition of ‘bioengineered foods’”;
2. “the requirement to use the term ‘bioengineered’ in the mandated disclosures”; and,
3. “The two provisions governing the options of using QR codes or text-messaging to accomplish the required disclosures.”

Regarding the first claim, plaintiffs argue that the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) “committed legal error by generally excluding highly refined foods from the definition of the phrase ‘bioengineered foods’.” The Ninth Circuit “held that the district court erred in rejecting Plaintiffs’ claim.”

Regarding the second claim, the plaintiff argued that a more consumer-friendly term to “bioengineered” should have been allowed, such as “genetically engineered” or “GMO,” rather than the former being required. The Ninth Circuit responded that “the district court’s decision rejecting Plaintiffs’ claim that the regulations were arbitrary and capricious… to the extent that those regulations provide that the required disclosures must use the term ‘bioengineered.’” In terms of the court’s reasoning:

“The panel affirmed the district court’s decision rejecting Plaintiffs’ claim that the regulations were arbitrary and capricious to the extent that those regulations provide that the required disclosures must use the term “bioengineered.” The panel held that the agency’s decision to choose “bioengineered” as the uniform disclosure term, as opposed to “genetically engineered” or “genetically modified,” reflected a reasonable consideration of the relevant issues.”

Lastly, on the subject of the third claim, plaintiffs challenged “the two provisions governing the options of using QR codes or text-messaging to accomplish the required disclosures.” The district court found that “[n]othing in the statute permitted AMS to expand the disclosure options… beyond the ‘text, symbol, or electronic or digital link’ choices.” The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding “that the district court abused its discretion in declining to vacate the two disclosure-format regulations… and directed the district court to prospectively vacate those rules.”

In terms of Ninth Circuit instructions to remedy these issues, the Appeals Court directed the district court to “determine… whether any provisions of the regulations should be vacated” as they related to the first claim. On the subject of the QR Code/text-message provisions, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court “abused its discretion in declining to vacate” and must “prospectively vacate those rules.”

Background

This legal battle began in 2004 with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announcing that it would revisit rulemaking on the governance of genetically engineered organisms. In 2008, APHIS published a notice of this proposed rulemaking that resulted in the final rule in 2020. Center for Food Safety filed the lawsuit in 2021.

In 2019, USDA under the first Trump Administration proposed new rulemaking that would exempt almost all GE crops from regulation and allow the company that makes them to decide whether they are safe. In a petition submitted to the Federal Register that year, USDA Must Offer Basic Protection from Genetically Engineered Organisms, over 6,000 comments were submitted by members of the public on varying sides of these issues. Environmental, public health, and consumer safety organizations, including Beyond Pesticides (see Action of the Week here), urged that APHIS regulations should:

• Base the regulation of GE organisms on the unique hazards they present;
• Include “synthetic biology” in the definition of regulated genetic engineering;
• Prohibit developers from exempting themselves from regulation;
• Regulate plant-made pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals (PMPIs);
• Ensure that plant incorporated protectants (PIPs) are regulated at all scales;
• Address hazards other than “plant pest” risks, including: The unwelcome presence of GE genes in neighboring fields of organic or identity-preserved crops, the creation of new compounds in a plant formed in the plant’s detoxification of herbicides, the movement of genes for manufacture of industrial or pharmaceutical chemicals into crop plants, the creation of “superweeds” (plant pests) through selection for resistance to herbicides continually used on GE crops, the overuse of herbicides in cropping systems dependent on the use of herbicides sprayed over herbicide-tolerant crops, destruction of habitat adjacent to farm fields by overuse of nonselective herbicides sprayed over herbicide-tolerant crops, selection for resistance in insects targeted by PIPs, reduction in populations of insects due to effects of PIPs and destruction of habitat adjacent to fields sprayed by nonselective herbicides over herbicide-tolerant crops, and health effects suffered by those exposed to excessive use of herbicides.

The labeling requirement, in conjunction with the first Trump Administration’s National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law (See Daily News review here and here), mandated that genetically engineered foods bear labels that indicate that they have been “bioengineered,” provide a text-message phone number, or display a QR code to access further information. (“Additional options such as a phone number or web address were available to small food manufacturers or for small and very small packages.”) According to an agency spokesperson, the rule is designed to “balance the need to provide information to consumers with the interest in minimizing costs to companies.” Advocates and communities arrived at different conclusions. (See here for previous Daily News.)

Previous Coverage

Public health and environmental advocates continue to warn of the long-term consequences of GMO- and chemical-dependent agriculture, building on independent, peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Researchers at the University of Oregon found that the rollout of genetically engineered corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years.” Their results “suggest the introduction of GM [genetically modified] seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.” The study also found that not all babies were affected in the same way. When the researchers grouped babies by normal birth weight, they saw that the most vulnerable babies (first decile) lost up to 75 grams relative to the 6 grams lost by the least vulnerable babies. In addition, babies born to Black mothers, female babies, and those born to unmarried parents were at higher risk of adverse developmental effects. (See Daily News here.)

Regulation continues to fall behind unprecedented technological growth, including the use of artificial intelligence to fast-track research and development. In a new report by Save Our Seeds Foundation on Future Farming, a consortium of EU-based scientists and bioethicists raises concerns about the implications and threats of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) for genetic engineering. (See Daily News here.)

There are alternatives to genetically engineered crops that reinforce the status quo of industrial, monoculture agriculture. For example, a study recently published in Horticultural Plant Journal provides additional evidence on the viability of organically managed farmland based on tomatoes cultivated through traditional plant breeding and regional variances. (See Daily News here.) A different study published in European Journal of Agronomy finds that “organic farming equals conventional yield under irrigation and enhances seed quality in drought, aiding food security.” The focus of the study was also to research the viability of traditionally bred crops managed in organic systems. Local landraces (traditionally bred) were specifically promising, according to the researchers, because they balanced resilience to elevated heat with superior nutritional quality. The study results, when comparing current variable irrigation conditions, conclude that conventional seeds watered through irrigation demonstrated the highest yields and caloric value; however, “organic farming equals conventional yield under irrigation and enhances seed quality in drought, aiding food security.” (See Daily News here.) In other words, organic systems can compete, and even outpace, conventional systems after a transition period, including corn and soybean fields, as documented in recent research published by USDA researchers in Ames, Iowa. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

In the first session (see here for recording) of the Beyond Pesticides 42^nd National Forum, The Pesticide Threat to Environmental Health: Advancing Holistic Solutions Aligned with Nature, expert researchers convened to discuss their research and implications for the cost savings associated with ecological pest management, including Danilo Russo, PhD, professor of ecology at the University of Naples Federico II, international leader in bat research, and coauthor of A Natural History of Bat Foraging: Evolution, Physiology, Ecology, Behavior, and Conservation.

In his presentation, Russo shares the benefits of bats as a natural form of pest management for farmland and ecosystem stability more broadly, citing peer-reviewed research, including research he has led or contributed to in multiple respects, including evidence of livestock pest suppression and pest management in Mediterranean rice paddies. (See peer-reviewed studies here and here, respectively.) He also shared a “groundbreaking” U.S.-based study from 2011 published in Science extrapolated the estimated economic benefit of national bat conservation to approximately $22.9 billion per year in terms of ecosystem services provided.

“This defies the conventional ‘wisdom’ of assessing pest management alternatives purely from a chemical-to-chemical substitution model, when we could be assessing non-chemical (a.k.a. bat, beaver, bird conservation) interventions to replace unnecessary toxic controls,” says Max Sano, senior policy and coalitions associate at Beyond Pesticides.

“Increasing bat diversity in bat communities or protecting bat biodiversity is also very important,” says Russo. He continues: “What we found in [a recent study based in Portugal] for the processionary moth is that higher bat diversity and abundance, the lower the number of pine processionary moths recorded in their foraging areas, which tells you that we should protect rich bat communities if we want to magnify the pest control effect exerted by bats.”

There are additional examples provided by the other renowned speakers in the first session—Jo Ann Baumgartner, executive director of the Wild Farm Alliance (WFA) and coauthor of the recently released Protecting Birds in Agricultural Landscapes: Reduce risks to beneficial birds on the farm (2025); Sam Earnshaw is the author of Hedgerows and Farmscaping for California Agriculture: A Resource Guide for Farmers (2018); and Tony Able, retired EPA wetlands specialists and chair of the Southeast Beaver Alliance—in terms of the evidence-based biodiversity and pest management potential for birds, beavers, and holistic landscaping. See here to learn more about the speakers’ research and their biographies.

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

Source: U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

(Beyond Pesticides, December 16, 2025) Through a literature review and data analysis of almost 2,000 soil samples, the authors of a recent study find negative effects on the presence of plant-beneficial bacteria (PBB) in soil with pesticide exposure, particularly bacteria with plant growth-promoting traits that are essential for crop productivity. The study, published in Nature Communications, by researchers at China’s Shaoxing University and Zhejiang University of Technology, adds to scientific literature documenting the effects of pesticides on soil health.

“Pesticides not only reduce PBB diversity as individual factors, but they also exert synergistic negative effects with other anthropogenic factors… further accelerating the decline in PBB diversity,” the researchers state. They continue, “Increased pesticide risk also leads to a loss of functional gene diversity in PBB about carbon and nitrogen cycling within essential nutrient cycles, and a reduction in specific amino acid and vitamin synthesis.” In elucidating these impacts, this study reinforces previous research that connects pesticide use with deteriorating soil health, further stressing the urgent need for adopting a systems-wide transition to organic agricultural and land management practices.

Soil Microbiome Health

As the authors discuss, plant–soil–microbe interactions play a critical role in the growth, development, and overall health of plants, which can be disrupted with environmental contaminants like petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. When mixtures of pesticides are used, this “drives the microbial community toward a composition dominated by pesticide-degrading or resistant ‘opportunists’ and ‘specialists,’” the researchers report, which can lead to even higher applications of pesticides and accelerated soil nutrient loss. They continue, explaining: “The functional loss of nutrient-cycling genes can disrupt key ecosystem services by reducing soil fertility, plant nutrient availability, and microbial resilience. Over time, these changes may affect carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions, and overall ecosystem stability.”

In a previous Daily News post, titled Study Shows Value of Soil Microbiome, Nurtured in Organic Farming, Harmed by Chemical-Intensive Ag, Beyond Pesticides reiterates the importance of soil health after a study in the journal of Biology and Fertility of Soils confirmed once again that organic agriculture contributes significantly to soil health, improving ecological functions that are harmed by conventional, chemical-intensive farming practices. The research finds that organic soil amendments (fertilizers) that feed soil organisms increase beneficial protistan predators (among the most abundant and important single-celled eukaryotes in the soil) and support sustainable predator-prey relationships within the soil microbiome.

Organic farming creates a healthy ecosystem able to support a balance of life forms in the soil, while the use of chemical fertilizers for agricultural management disrupts the stable biological relationship between protistan predators and their bacterial prey in soils, adding to the argument for transitioning away from conventional systems that lean on toxic inputs. 

Another study published this year in Environmental Pollution finds that “more than ten pesticides were detected in 98.62% of the soil samples, which changed the soil environment” and threatens the health of the soil microbiome. Since the soil microbiome requires balance, contamination from toxic chemicals, particularly in mixtures, can affect the stability of the soil ecosystem with cascading impacts, ultimately, to human health. (See Daily News here.)

Study Methodology and Results

The current study in Nature Communications adds to these findings in analyzing 1,919 soil sample data points from 88 independent experiments. After dividing the samples into agricultural (1191) and non-agricultural (728) categories, the researchers calculated and compared the diversity of plant-beneficial bacteria (PBB) to pesticide risks. The results show that the diversity of the PBB is highest when pesticide risk is lower, and vice versa. “[P]esticide risk remained a significant driver of PBB community composition… highlighting its important role in shaping PBB microbial diversity,” the authors write.

They continue: “[The results] indicated that increased pesticide risk decreased beneficial bacterial functions essential for plant health, predicting a negative effect on soil health due to the overuse of pesticides. These findings suggest that pesticide risk decreased PBB diversity and that varying levels of pesticide risk distinctly shaped soil PBB community structures. As the risk of pesticide use increased, the PBB in soils decreased, highlighting the detrimental effects of pesticide overuse on soil microbial ecosystems.”

The genes within the PBB are also impacted by pesticide exposure. The data shows PBB functional gene richness is significantly lower with higher pesticide risks, revealing a “more pronounced loss in the evenness and diversity of functions across microbial communities.” The reduction in functional genes within the soil microbiome can in turn “severely affect soil ecosystem services, such as nutrient cycling and plant‒microbe interactions, affecting the establishment of soil multifunctionality and overall soil health.”

Genes associated with carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur are also impacted in soil microbial communities with increased pesticide risk. The researchers note an observed decline in key carbon cycle genes, which can impact the capacity of the soil to act as a carbon sink. “This reduction in carbon fixation impairs the ability of the soil to store carbon, leading to accelerated carbon release, increased atmospheric CO₂ levels, and the exacerbation of climate change,” the authors share.

Additional analysis of other anthropogenic factors, relating to climate and other human activities, reveals that when combined with pesticides, the interactions have a greater effect than just pesticides alone. These combined negative effects on bacterial diversity are most pronounced with precipitation and pesticides. “This indicates that the combined impact of precipitation and pesticide risk on PBB diversity loss was greater than the sum of their individual effects, potentially because of mechanisms such as increased pesticide leaching or bioavailability,” the researchers explain.

They continue: “Pesticide contamination not only diminishes the diversity and functionality of PBB but also increases their sensitivity to other anthropogenic factors, resulting in synergistic effects that further threaten soil health. This synergistic effect suggests that microbial community resilience is influenced by a complex interplay of environmental variables that can exacerbate pesticide-induced diversity loss in agricultural soils.”

Previous Research

As covered by Beyond Pesticides earlier this year, there is a growing interest in the soil microbiome, as environmental harm, including groundwater contamination, becomes increasingly apparent. Synthetic fertilizers cause a myriad of deleterious effects, including negative climate impacts, decreased soil carbon sequestration, and devastating harm to farmers. A wide body of science connects pesticide exposure to impacts on certain soil organisms, such as bacteria in the current study, as well as nematodes. (See Daily News Soil Nematodes Vital to Plant Health Threatened by Nontarget Pesticide Exposure, Study Finds.)

Last year, an international team of researchers reported that organic farming increases the quantity and diversity of crop plant microbiota, further safeguarding crops with enhanced pathogen resistance. Their research shows that the most significant richness of all bacteria and fungi is identified in organically managed farmland relative to conventional fields, as published in Plants, People, Planet. This study builds on the legacy of decades of peer-reviewed research and centuries of agricultural systems that do not rely on toxic, petrochemical-based products (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) as the driving force for agricultural productivity. (See Daily News here.)

Also shared in previous coverage by Beyond Pesticides, an analysis in the International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews emphasizes the role of biodiversity in agriculture and calls attention to the foundation of sustainable agriculture, beginning with healthy soil. The soil microbes underfoot, including bacteria and fungi, provide essential functions in nutrient cycling, organic matter decomposition, and disease suppression, among others, which are promoted in organic practices.

The Organic Solution

To improve and sustain microbial communities, and in turn protect the health of humans, wildlife, and the environment, the use of toxic pesticides and fertilizers must stop. In transitioning away from this chemical dependence, the adoption of organic agriculture and land management offers a holistic solution. Diversity in soil microorganisms helps maintain soil structure and fertility, which promotes healthy and resilient crops. “Feed the Soil, Not the Plant” is the mantra of organic land management.

By focusing on soil health, other issues, such as pests and climate change, are also mitigated through organic methods. Additional information is available in the Pesticides and You article, Thinking Holistically When Making Land Management Decisions. To learn more about the benefits of organic land management, see here and here.

Become a Parks Advocate for organic parks by engaging with your community leaders through the Parks for a Sustainable Future program and advertising your commitment to pesticide-free spaces with “Pesticide Free Zone” signs. Help support Beyond Pesticides’ mission by becoming a member or making a gift contribution today.

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

Source:

Qiu, D. et al. (2025) Global variation in plant-beneficial bacteria in soil under pesticide stress, Nature Communications. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65719-7.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 15, 2025) With recent proposals by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to register new pesticides that under international standards are classified as PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances), people and organizations are calling for Congress to reverse the agency’s action. Beyond Pesticides announced an action to Tell EPA and Congress to eliminate PFAS chemicals, including those used in pesticides. 

In its action Beyond Pesticides pointed to the long history of allowing pesticides on that market that have long residual lives and bioaccumulate in the environment, causing generations of exposure and adverse effects to health and ecosystems. DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) exemplifies the generational effect of a toxic pesticide whose effects ha endured for decades, even though it was hailed as a miracle solution for agriculture and public health.

PFAS, with a wide variety of uses—from nonstick pans to waterproofing fabrics to firefighting foams to pesticides—might similarly lead to the characterization as a “miracle” chemical. PFAS also share the less beneficial characteristics of DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic.

EPA links PFAS to an increased risk of many health effects, including decreased fertility and hypertension in pregnant people; increased risk of prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; hormonal irregularities; elevated cholesterol and risk of obesity; and reduced immune system response. Beyond Pesticides, in previous comments and Daily News coverage, has also highlighted these health threats, among others.  

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

EPA and other federal regulators have been behind the curve in preventing and responding to the threats posed by PFAS compounds. Despite evidence on the dangers of PFAS stretching as far back as the 1950s, federal agencies failed to respond as the plastics industry continued adding the material to new products. Now, there is a similar expansion of use with the registration of pesticides in the PFAS group. As drinking water health advisories issued by EPA show PFAS levels as low as .02 parts per trillion (ppt) have the potential to cause adverse health effects for public health. 

The detection of any level of PFAS is cause for concern, and the parallels with DDT continue. From widespread presence in farm fields and sewage sludge (biosolids) to contaminated water bodies throughout the U.S., PFAS have made their way into the environment and human bodies. PFAS are even present in remote environments like the Arctic, Antarctica, and the Eastern European Tibetan Plateau. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) determined that almost all Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream, which highlights PFAS as a chronic danger to people that, health advocates say, demands urgent regulatory action.  

Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. In a literature review published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety earlier this year, the authors highlight a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and endocrine-disrupting pesticides (EDPs) showing epigenetic effects from exposure, as the chemicals imitate the action of endocrine hormones and lead to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health. 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 result from complex mechanisms that are not yet fully assessed in EPA’s pesticide registration process, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed before products are approved.  

In a news release  on November 26, 2025,  EPA circulated what it called “a comprehensive fact-check addressing dangerous misinformation circulating about EPA’s recent pesticide approvals” that continues to deceive the public about the true risks for health and the environment from petrochemical pesticides, including, but not limited to, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Also published on November 26, coverage titled The EPA Is Embracing PFAS Pesticides. These Are The Health Risks in Time further highlights EPA’s deficiencies and the threats of PFAS. 

The controversy erupted as a result of EPA’s latest proposal to allow a new fluorinated pesticide, which adds to the list of four other similar compounds now widely available for use in homes and gardens, buildings, and agriculture. The newest pesticide proposed for EPA registration, epyrifenacil (agricultural weed killer), joins cyclobutrifluram (soil fungicide/nematicide), isocycloseram (household and agricultural insecticide), diflufenican (lawn and agricultural weed killer), and trifludimoxazin (agricultural weed killer), making a total of five PFAS pesticide proposals this year that have been associated with national and worldwide contamination of food, land, and water. Two of these, cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, have been approved.

Instead of curtailing the use of fluorinated pesticides—persistent and highly toxic compounds defined as PFAS internationally—EPA attempts to define away the problem. The definition of PFAS used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) encompasses a wide variety of fluorinated compounds and is “scientifically grounded, unambiguous, and well suited to identify these chemicals,” as described by scientists in a commentary published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. As the researchers describe, excluding certain fluorinated chemical subgroups does not properly represent the scope of PFAS, which they estimate to include millions of theoretical structures, but more practically, several thousand that are actually manufactured. 

The OECD chemical definition of PFAS states: “PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS.”  

This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that regulatory bodies like EPA do not include in their definitions.  

Thus, while the OECD defines PFAS as industrial chemicals that have at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom—which is a carbon atom with two or three fluorine atoms attached to it EPA—has narrowed the definition to those containing two fully fluorinated carbon atoms.  

It is time to act on lessons learned from DDT—the original “forever chemical.” 

In response to science, widespread contamination, and an expanding market of PFAS chemicals,  Beyond Pesticides realeased the following action: Tell EPA and Congress to eliminate PFAS chemicals, including those used in pesticides.  

Letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Are PFAS chemicals the new DDT? Once hailed as a miracle solution for agriculture and public health, DDT became recognized as the antithesis of that—a highly toxic, persistent chemical whose effects endured through generations. “PFAS” refers to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances whose wide variety of uses—from nonstick pans to waterproofing fabrics to firefighting foams to pesticides—might similarly lead to the characterization as “miracles.” PFAS also share the hazardous characteristics of DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic.

Like DDT, PFAS residues persist in food. Over six million U.S. residents regularly drink water with levels above the EPA health advisory level, with a wide range of health implications. PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. Like DDT, the effects of PFAS endure through generations—pregnant women can readily transfer compounds to the developing fetus through the placenta. 

U.S. regulators are overdue in preventing and responding to PFAS. Despite evidence of the dangers of PFAS stretching as far back as the 1950s, federal agencies failed to respond as the plastics industry continued adding the material to new products. Now we are seeing an expansion of use with the registration of PFAS pesticides. 

Parallels with DDT continue. From widespread presence in farm fields and sewage sludge (biosolids) to contaminated water bodies throughout the U.S., PFAS have made their way into the environment and human bodies—even in remote environments like Antarctica. CDC has determined that almost all Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream. 

Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. A literature review published this year highlighted a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) showing epigenetic effects leading to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health. 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 result from complex mechanisms not yet fully assessed in EPA pesticide registration, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed. 

EPA proposes to allow a new fluorinated pesticide to the list of four other similar compounds now widely available for use in homes and gardens, buildings, and agriculture. The newest PFAS proposed for EPA registration, epyrifenacil (agricultural weed killer), joins cyclobutrifluram (soil fungicide/nematicide), isocycloseram (household and agricultural insecticide), diflufenican (lawn and agricultural weed killer), and trifludimoxazin (agricultural weed killer), making a total of five PFAS pesticide proposals this year. Two of these, cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, have been approved.

Instead of eliminating fluorinated pesticides—persistent and highly toxic compounds defined as PFAS internationally—EPA attempts to define away the problem. The internationally accepted definition of PFAS states: “PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS.” This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that EPA does not include in its definition—narrowed to those containing two fully fluorinated carbon atoms.

It is time to act on lessons learned from DDT. Please do not register PFAS pesticides, as recognized internationally.

Thank you.

Letter to Congress
Are PFAS chemicals the new DDT? Once hailed as a miracle solution for agriculture and public health, DDT became recognized as the antithesis of that—a highly toxic, persistent chemical whose effects endured through generations. “PFAS” refers to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances whose wide variety of uses—from nonstick pans to waterproofing fabrics to firefighting foams to pesticides—might similarly lead to the characterization as “miracles.” PFAS also share the hazardous characteristics of DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic.

Like DDT, PFAS residues persist in food. Over six million U.S. residents regularly drink water with levels above the EPA health advisory level, with a wide range of health implications. PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. Like DDT, the effects of PFAS endure through generations—pregnant women can readily transfer compounds to the developing fetus through the placenta. 

U.S. regulators are overdue in preventing and responding to PFAS. Despite evidence of the dangers of PFAS stretching as far back as the 1950s, federal agencies failed to respond as the plastics industry continued adding the material to new products. Now we are seeing an expansion of use with the registration of PFAS pesticides. 

Parallels with DDT continue. From widespread presence in farm fields and sewage sludge (biosolids) to contaminated water bodies throughout the U.S., PFAS have made their way into the environment and human bodies—even in remote environments like Antarctica. CDC has determined that almost all Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream. 

Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. A literature review published this year highlighted a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) showing epigenetic effects leading to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health. 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 result from complex mechanisms not yet fully assessed in EPA pesticide registration, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed. 

EPA proposes to allow a new fluorinated pesticide to the list of four other similar compounds now widely available for use in homes and gardens, buildings, and agriculture. The newest PFAS proposed for EPA registration, epyrifenacil (agricultural weed killer), joins cyclobutrifluram (soil fungicide/nematicide), isocycloseram (household and agricultural insecticide), diflufenican (lawn and agricultural weed killer), and trifludimoxazin (agricultural weed killer), making a total of five PFAS pesticide proposals this year. Two of these, cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, have been approved.

Instead of eliminating fluorinated pesticides—persistent and highly toxic compounds defined as PFAS internationally—EPA attempts to define away the problem. The internationally accepted definition of PFAS states: “PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS.” This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that EPA does not include in its definition—narrowed to those containing two fully fluorinated carbon atoms.

It is time to act on lessons learned from DDT. Please do not register PFAS pesticides, as recognized internationally.

Thank you.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 12, 2025) A study concluding that the weed killer glyphosate did not cause cancer was retracted last week after it was revealed in lawsuit documents that the authors did not disclose their relationship with Monsanto/Bayer. The editor-and-chief, Martin van den Berg, PhD of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, which published the article 25 years ago, wrote in the journal, “Concerns were raised regarding the authorship of this paper, validity of the research findings in the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor and potential conflicts of interest of the authors.” 

The study, titled “Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans” and coauthored by three researchers in New York, The Netherlands, and Canada, was referred to as a “Landmark glyphosate safety study” in a recent article by U.S. Right to Know.  

While this retraction not only sheds light on Monsanto’s influence through ghostwriting, it adds to the wide body of evidence regarding the regulatory deficiencies currently in place. The revelation is a reminder of related incidents in which Monsanto (Bayer) and other companies have wielded excessive influence at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), undermining the integrity of the science needed to inform the regulatory decisions that safeguard health and the environment. (See Daily News Corruption Problems Persist at EPA.) 

EPA Deficiencies 

In addition to the initial registration process, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires that EPA conduct a registration review of all pesticide active ingredients every 15 years. As Beyond Pesticides has stated, EPA’s rationale for registration review—that ‘science is constantly evolving, and new scientific information can come to light at any time and change our understanding of potential effects from pesticides,’—should guide the agency in its decisions, especially when previous decisions have depended on limited actual data, data waiver request rationales, and purported absence of new data or adverse incidents reported.  

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

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

Recent Glyphosate Study Retraction 

As noted in the U.S. Right to Know article by Stacy Malkan on December 3, 2025, “A scientific study that regulators around the world relied on for decades to justify continued approval of glyphosate was quietly retracted last Friday over serious ethical issues including secret authorship by Monsanto employees—raising questions about the pesticide-approval process in the U.S. and globally.” This study, published in 2000, asserted that the weed killer glyphosate does not pose health risks to humans. Despite a wide body of scientific evidence that contradicts this study’s findings, both EPA and industry pointed to these results as further proof that glyphosate should continue to be allowed on the market. 

The study was revealed as being ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, with the data based only on unpublished studies from Monsanto, ignoring data from studies that more thoroughly evaluated chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity. The recent retraction “came years after internal corporate documents first revealed in 2017 that Monsanto employees were heavily involved in drafting the paper,” which is one of many examples in which researchers and journalists have exposed “the many ways Monsanto manipulated the scientific record, influenced regulatory agencies, interfered in the peer-review process and used deceptive tactics to shape how regulators and the public view glyphosate,” Ms. Malkan writes. 

Further coverage by Carey Gilliam in The New Lede calls attention to the issues behind the retracted study. As the article states: “The listed authors of the paper were three scientists who did not work for Monsanto—Gary Williams, [M.D. (professor emeritus at New York Medical College),] Robert Kroes, [PhD,] and Ian Munro, [PhD] and the paper was touted by the company as a defense against conflicting scientific evidence linking Roundup to cancer. The fact that it was authored by scientists from outside the company, from seemingly independent researchers, gave it added validity. But over the last decade, internal company documents that came to light in litigation brought by cancer victims have revealed that the paper actually was a product of three years of what one company official referred to as ‘hard work’ by several Monsanto scientists who helped craft the paper as part of a strategy Monsanto called ‘Freedom to Operate’ (FTO).” 

Carey Gilliam is the is the editor-in-chief of The New Lede, as well as the author of “Whitewash—The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science” that documents Monsanto’s corporate corruption of agriculture. Gillam also spoke at Beyond Pesticides’ National Pesticide Forum in 2018 in which she referred to glyphosate as the poster child for what was wrong with the pesticide registration system, emphasizing that EPA should not only do a better job of risk mitigation but more broadly challenging the dependency on the chemical at all. 

Adverse Effects of Glyphosate 

As Beyond Pesticides and other organizations have been documenting for decades, there is a long history of independent, peer-reviewed scientific literature, that has not been influenced by industry, in which deleterious effects from glyphosate are noted. Just this year, studies have connected glyphosate to human health threats including DNA and cellular damage, female reproductive dysfunction, kidney injury and cancer, blood cancer, and endocrine disruption, among others.  

Additional studies highlight the threats to biodiversity from glyphosate, particularly with synergistic effects, in pesticide mixtures, and to pollinators, that threaten entire ecosystems. Scientific literature also shows that glyphosate products (e.g., Roundup™) are more toxic than glyphosate alone and result in a number of chronic, developmental, and endocrine-disrupting impacts. The “inert” ingredients in Roundup™ formulations kill human cells at very low concentrations, and some glyphosate-based herbicide products are genotoxic. 

The ubiquitous nature of glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms is a result of the widespread application of this toxic chemical in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Both glyphosate and its main metabolite (breakdown product), aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), are detected in water, soil, and food, which then represent multiple pathways for exposure to nontarget organisms, including humans. Over 750 herbicides contain glyphosate as the active ingredient, and it also plays a large role in the production of genetically modified (GM) crops, with approximately 80% of GM crops bred specifically for glyphosate tolerance. See the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management for additional information on glyphosate and other pesticide active ingredients. 

A Holistic Solution is Urgently Needed 

The current issue of the industry-ghostwritten study runs parallel to the deficiencies in pesticide regulatory processes. EPA relies on chemical manufacturers to generate the underlying laboratory animal data that is used for pesticide registration and has been historically criticized for an inadequate audit process to ensure compliance with standard laboratory practices. (See previous Action of the Week on upholding scientific integrity in the pesticide regulatory process and “Ashamed to Put My Name to It”: Monsanto, Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, and the Use of Fraudulent Science, 1969–1985” for the history on scientific manipulation by the chemical industry, published in the American Journal of Public Health.) 

As shared in previous Daily News, Beyond Pesticides and fellow changemakers—including organic and regenerative organic farmers and advocates—have long argued that the failure of EPA to consider the viability, productivity, and profitability of organic practices and product alternatives to conventional pesticides means the agency’s registration and reregistration of toxic pesticides have not been subject to a complete assessment. In this context and given the availability of less and nontoxic alternatives, EPA has failed in its responsibility to ensure that pesticides registered for use under FIFRA will not cause unreasonable adverse effects. 

These inadequacies in the regulation of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers support the urgent need for the widespread adoption of safer alternatives. The holistic approach of organic agriculture and land management protects all organisms, including humans, and the environment through the elimination of harmful toxicants and the focus on building soil health. This also mitigates the current crises of biodiversity, public health, and climate change, among other benefits. In focusing on building soil health, that in turn creates a healthy system, with only allowable materials through the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the pesticide treadmill can be broken, and all workers, consumers, and wildlife can truly be protected. 

Be part of the organic solution by becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides today. You can also participate as a Parks Advocate to transition your community towards organic land management, grow your own organic food, or support local organic farmers. Stay up to date on the latest science and policy with the Daily News Blog and sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates to be delivered straight to your inbox to remain informed. 

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

Sources: 

Gillam, C. (2025) Citing “serious ethical concerns,” journal retracts key Monsanto Roundup safety study, The New Lede. Available at: https://www.thenewlede.org/2025/12/citing-serious-ethical-concerns-journal-retracts-key-monsanto-roundup-safety-study/.  

Malkan, S. (2025) Landmark glyphosate safety study retracted for Monsanto ghostwriting, other ethics problems, U.S. Right to Know. Available at: https://usrtk.org/pesticides/landmark-glyphosate-safety-study-retracted-for-monsanto-ghostwriting/.  

Williams, G., Kroes, R. and Munro, I. (2000) RETRACTED: Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715.  

(Beyond Pesticides, December 11, 2025) In an amicus brief published on December 1, 2025, the Office of the Solicitor General (SG) and the White House are calling on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to grant certiorari on Bayer’s petition to shield chemical companies that fail to warn people about the potential hazards of their pesticide products. The U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer (former Solicitor General of Missouri, home to Bayer-Monsanto’s U.S. headquarters), in siding with the Germany-based, multinational pesticide corporation, calls for SCOTUS to take on the case, which could lead to a prohibition on state-level failure-to-warn claims based on the arguments laid out in the amicus brief.

This move sets the stage for SCOTUS to undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for their harmful products, sending Bayer’s stock price to skyrocket 12 percentage points between December 2 and December 3 after the decision was made public. As of May 2025, Bayer has already paid at least 10 billion dollars in jury verdicts and settlements to cancer victims who have attributed their diagnoses to the use of Bayer/Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup weed killer products, according to Lawsuit Information Center. Two previous petitions for review have failed to be heard by the court. (See Daily News here and here.)

The petition was filed by Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), which, aligned with the Modern Ag Alliance (a chemical industry-agribusiness group) and its political allies, has to date been mostly unsuccessful in passing state-level failure-to-warn shield laws in 10 of the 12 states where legislation was introduced in 2025. (See here and here for previous Daily News coverage.) While continuing to pursue a state strategy, the industry is applying its same game plan at the federal level, supporting legislation that would shield chemical manufacturers from failure-to-warn litigation by those who have been harmed. A provision, Section 453, has been attached to Interior-Environment Appropriations legislation (H.R. 4754) passed by the Appropriations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives in July. It is expected that there will be an attempt to attach more comprehensive language preventing litigation in authorizing legislation, such as the Farm Bill, in early 2026.

A grassroots movement of public health and environmental advocates, farmers, farmworkers, medical professionals, businesses, and other partners is calling on Congress to protect the right to hold pesticide corporations accountable for not disclosing on their product labels warnings of chronic effects, like cancer. (See joint statement, Daily News, press release, and list of endorsing organizations for further details.)

History of Glyphosate Registration and EPA Inaction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” and continuously approves glyphosate-based Roundup product labels without cancer warnings. According to EPA, “In 1985, the initial peer review of glyphosate was conducted in accordance with the Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. The agency classified glyphosate as a Group C chemical (Possible Human Carcinogen), based on the presence of kidney tumors in male mice.” This position was reversed based on a finding that the tumors were not statistically significant. After the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) in 2015 (see Daily News here), EPA reaffirmed its position that the weed killer not carcinogenic and in 2019 refused to approve a cancer label warning under California’s Proposition 65. (See Daily News here.)

In January of 2020, EPA released an interim decision on glyphosate, asserting a “lack of evidence the chemical causes cancer in humans.” Perhaps anticipating the potential impacts of the maxim, “as goes California, so goes the nation,” former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, in the first Trump administration, commented, “It is irresponsible to require labels on products that are inaccurate when EPA knows the product does not pose a cancer risk. We will not allow California’s flawed program to dictate federal policy.” EPA’s stance on glyphosate is currently informed by the pro-business, anti-environment, public health–indifferent Trump administration.

In late September 2022, EPA announced the withdrawal of its 2020 Interim Decision on glyphosate (see EPA) after a court decision successfully challenged the agency’s findings on cancer and endangered species (see decision). The withdrawal of that Interim Decision was sparked by a U.S. Court of Appeals decision in the 9^th Circuit, which allowed EPA until 2026 to revisit its registration review. Beyond Pesticides has long been engaged in education on and advocacy against glyphosate use, and was a plaintiff in the 2020 lawsuit (see Rural Coalition v. EPA filing) against EPA, represented by the Center for Food Safety (CFS). 

EPA is anticipating a final registration review decision for glyphosate in 2026; however, it remains to be seen (and highly unlikely) whether regulators will account for the preponderance of evidence in the peer-reviewed independent literature on glyphosate, as they are not required to under current law. (See here for Beyond Pesticides Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management entry for glyphosate for reference.)

Solicitor General’s Amicus Brief

Should the Supreme Court take the case, the core question will be whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) shields manufacturers (registrants) from state-level failure-to-warn claims because labels do not include chronic effects, like cancer.

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

1. The Missouri Court of Appeals was incorrect in their decision in Durnell v. Monsanto (2023) because they argue that there is a prohibition on unilateral label changes for federal labeling requirements; therefore, state tort duties requiring additional warnings are expressly preempted. (More on this below.)
2. There are now opposing decisions in the Third Circuit and the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that state level failure-to-warn claims are expressly preempted by FIFRA.
3. FIFRA §136v(b) on “Uniformity” prohibits states from requiring pesticide manufacturers from having to contend with 50 different labeling requirements.

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

On the first point, Durnell claimed that Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto failed to provide an adequate cancer warning label under Missouri state tort law. In turn, a Missouri jury awarded $1.25 million, and the Missouri Court of Appeals held that FIFRA did not preempt the state failure-to-warn claim. Bayer appears to be attempting to reverse the current law, as clarified by SCOTUS in the previous court decision, specifically Bates v. Dow (2005). The court ruled the following:

“The long history of tort litigation against manufacturers of poisonous substances adds force to the basic presump­tion against preemption. If Congress had intended to deprive injured parties of a long available form of compen­sation, it surely would have expressed that intent more clearly. See Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238, 251 (1984). Moreover, this history emphasizes the im­portance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items.”

In pointing to the Bates case, the SG cites its focus as being crop damage, not human health risks. EPA waived an efficacy review, therefore not evaluating whether the label’s claim was accurate; by contrast, the SG alleges that EPA did fully consider human health risks and continued to conclude a cancer warning was not necessary.

The SG dismisses the relevance of the Bates decision, citing the fact that the case is about crop damage and does not address questions of adequate disclosure of adverse health effects on the product label. However, the question in the litigation underlying the jury verdicts against Bayer (Monsanto) focuses on whether EPA registration of the product, in alignment with the Bates decision, adequately informs product users of potential harm, regardless of whether that harm is to property or person. The question ultimately is whether the manufacturer is liable for harm even though it has registered its product with EPA.

However, the SG is contradicting this Supreme Court finding with the following:

“By imposing liability for petitioner’s failure to include such a warning, the state-court judgment subjected petitioner to a “requirement[] for labeling” that is “in addition to or different from those required under” FIFRA 7 U.S.C. 136v(b).”

The Bates decision was clear in the court’s intent to allow state strict liability law to be a parallel remedy to FIFRA regulation:

Private remedies that enforce federal misbranding requirements would seem to aid, rather than hinder, the functioning of FIFRA. Unlike the cigarette labeling law at issue in Cipollone, which prescribed certain immutable warning statements, FIFRA contemplates that pesticide labels will evolve over time, as manufacturers gain more information about their products’ performance in diverse settings. As one court explained, tort suits can serve as a catalyst in this process: “By encouraging plaintiffs to bring suit for injuries not previously recognized as traceable to pesticides such as [the pesticide there at issue], a state tort action of the kind under review may aid in the exposure of new dangers associated with pesticides. Successful actions of this sort may lead manufacturers to petition EPA to allow more detailed labeling of their products; alternatively, EPA itself may decide that revised labels are required in light of the new information that has been brought to its attention through common law suits. In addition, the specter of damage actions may provide manufacturers with added dynamic incentives to continue to keep abreast of all possible injuries stemming from use of their product so as to forestall such actions through product improvement.” Ferebee, 736

FIFRA §2 (7 U.S.C. § 136(q)) establishes that pesticide labels must not be false, misleading or lack adequate warnings (misbranded), meanwhile FIFRA §3 (7 U.S.C. § 136a) requires that pesticides must be registered with EPA and have an approved label before sale – the bottom line being that pesticide companies have a duty to update their labels, even if EPA does not request those label changes based on the most recent scientific evidence or if previous evidence was found to be false or fabricated.

Ironically, Bayer is being defended by the SG just as Bayer-Monsanto is in the news because a scientific journal article on glyphosate published in 2000 has been retracted by the publisher. The authors are alleged to have falsely submitted a piece ghostwritten by Monsanto without proper disclosure. (See recent U.S. Right to Know reporting for more details.)

Additionally, the SG is arguing that EPA is the final word on the labeling of glyphosate without a cancer warning, despite a finding by the 9^th Circuit U.S. District Court (cited above) that found EPA’s regulatory review of glyphosate is inadequate and in violation of the law. With this finding, the SG is pointing to a pesticide label that is now under the agency’s registration review and expected to be completed in 2026. A final completed review of glyphosate by EPA, however, does not negate the finding in Bates that upholds the right of those harmed by pesticides to sue manufacturers, despite having an EPA-approved pesticide label.

Congress and State Battles

An industry-led campaign in 2025 to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their “failure to warn” about the hazards of their pesticide products has failed to move forward in ten state legislatures with significant GOP majorities as of today’s publication (Iowa, Missouri, Idaho, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, Wyoming, Montana, North Carolina, and Oklahoma).

There are already bills filed in Missouri (SB 1005) and Florida (HB 443 and S 518) for the 2026 state legislative sessions, signaling that this battle is likely to continue (and expand) moving into the next calendar year.

After this failed effort at the state level, the momentum then shifted to Congress with Fiscal Year 2026 negotiations for the Interior-Environment Appropriations bill. While the House Committee-passed bill (H.R. 4754) did include failure-to-warn preemption language in the form of Section 453, the Senate version (S.2431) did not—setting up a fight as negotiations and voting around the next minibus (groups of fiscal year spending bills) continue. (See Daily News here, here, and here for additional context from July 2025 when the battle was in full force.) As of today’s publication, it is unclear the specific timeline on when the next minibus will pass and whether it will include Interior-Environment; however, Beyond Pesticides and partners continue to monitor the situation as information becomes available.

In response to the attacks on state-level failure-to-warn claims, Senator Booker (D-NJ) introduced the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act in August 2025, which would amend FIFRA to create a federal failure-to-warn claim provision. (See Daily News and associated Action of the Week calling on Senators to cosponsor the federal legislation.) If the statutory language amending FIFRA were to pass, it would override a SCOTUS decision based on a reading of the current law.

Call to Action

You can continue to stay apprised of the most pressing developments on various issues and campaigns by signing up for Weekly News Update and Action of the Week. You can also learn more about the history of pesticide preemption and failure-to-warn by reviewing the Failure-to-Warn resource hub.

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

Source: Office of the Solicitor General

(Beyond Pesticides, December 10, 2025) On November 21, 2025, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization (WHO), designated the endocrine-disrupting herbicide atrazine (as well as the herbicide alachlor) as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Manufactured by the multinational, China-based pesticide corporation Syngenta, atrazine has been linked to various adverse health effects and runoff into waterways across the continental United States for years. Tyrone Hayes, PhD, researcher and professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who studies the endocrine-disrupting properties of atrazine and other chemicals, has said that atrazine induces cancer by turning on the enzyme aromatase. Dr. Hayes told conferees of Beyond Pesticides’ 31^st National Pesticide Forum that: “[W]hat is concerning about aromatase expression and estrogen in mammals is breast cancer and prostate cancer. With regard to prostate cancer, there is an 8.4-fold increase in prostate cancer in men who work in atrazine factories and bag atrazine. There is at least one correlational study, which I didn’t publish, that shows women whose well water is contaminated with atrazine are more likely to develop breast cancer than women who live in the same community, but don’t drink the well water. (Kettles, M., et al. Environmental Health Perspectives. 1997 Nov; 105(11): 1222–1227) [I]t’s just a correlational study, but if you look at rats, testosterone goes down when you give them atrazine, and estrogen goes up. Syngenta’s own studies (1994) show that, if you give rats atrazine, there is an increase in breast cancer and mammary cancer.” (See Dr. Hayes’ talk here.)

Environmentalists have pointed to Dr. Hayes’ and others’ research for years in urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban atrazine, which the agency allows to be widely used in food production and landscape management. Beyond Pesticides called on EPA to ban the chemical in an action earlier this year. (See here.) The IARC designation of atrazine as a Group 2a carcinogen adds to the list of pesticide active ingredients previously designated as probable carcinogens, including but not limited to glyphosate in 2015 (see Daily News here), diazinon, and malathion.

IARC Designation

Published in their report in The Lancet Oncology, a group of nearly two dozen cancer researchers from 12 different nations identified various human epidemiological studies, in vitro studies, and other related assessments that link atrazine to DNA damage and oxidative stress.

“The Working Group evaluated both atrazine and alachlor as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A) on the basis of the combinations of (i) limited evidence for cancer in humans and sufficient evidence for cancer in experimental animals; and (ii) limited evidence for cancer in humans and strong mechanistic evidence in experimental systems,” reads the IARC press release. The release continues: “For atrazine, positive associations have been observed for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that is positive for the chromosomal translocation (14;18). Positive associations have been observed between alachlor and cancer of the larynx.”

The researchers conclude that “factory and agricultural workers have the highest exposures, which can occur during pesticide production and agricultural or horticultural activities, primarily via inhalation and dermal absorption.” Meanwhile, the average consumer’s “exposure occurs primarily via ingestion of drinking-water and foodstuffs, and is typically estimated to be low.” The authors continue: “In the general population, residential turf contact can result in higher short-term incidental dermal and oral doses than from food or drinking-water.”

Regulatory Background

The triazine herbicide is the second most widely used herbicide in the U.S. after glyphosate, despite its ban in the European Union in 2004 and in over 40 countries worldwide. Many organizations, including Beyond Pesticides, have called for the chemical to be banned in the U.S. and joined in litigation, spearheaded by the Center for Food Safety, against EPA in 2020.

The agency’s 2020 interim registration review, which was extended in 2024, lacks 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 an attempt to mitigate risks identified in its registration review. According to a release from the EPA, the decision was made not out of concerns related to human health and environmental protection, but 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.

Beyond Pesticides submitted comments earlier this year (see here), highlighting concerns from previous comment periods in 2022, 2020, and 2016 (see here) regarding the ecological and human health impacts of continuous use and exposure to this toxic herbicide. While EPA assures the public that its Herbicide Strategy Framework will address mitigation concerns, Sara Grantham, science, regulatory, and advocacy manager at Beyond Pesticides, highlights the fallacy of this approach in the 2025 comments:

“The utilization of the mitigation menu website, however, is a process so cumbersome and convoluted that it cannot be taught, implemented, or enforced. The expectation is placed on applicators, who may not be fully versed in math or English, to use a point system to determine if enough mitigation measures can be applied to allow for the use of the pesticide in a use limitation area. Users complain of technological problems with the website, while also commenting on the complexities involved in the process.”

Known Adverse Health and Ecological Effects

Exposure to atrazine is widespread in the environment and linked to adverse health effects in humans. 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 nonagricultural uses such as nursery/ornamental and turf,” emphasizing the various potential exposure pathways for consumers, workers, and farmers.

In terms of drift and exposure, atrazine has been found in various environments, including waterways. The latest Scientific Investigations Report for 2025 from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), entitled “National Water Quality Program: Multidecadal Change in Pesticide Concentrations Relative to Human Health Benchmarks in the Nation’s Groundwater,” finds moderate concentrations of five pesticides (including atrazine), with the highest percentages in agricultural wells. (See Daily News here.)

The Maryland Pesticide Education Network published a report in 2025 highlighting the ongoing stress to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed from pollutants, particularly pesticides such as atrazine. The Chesapeake watershed report notes that atrazine and metolachlor (also an estrogen/androgen disruptor and suspected human carcinogen) occur together frequently in the Chesapeake Bay. While many estrogen-related compounds in waterways are thought to come from wastewater treatment plants, agricultural runoff containing these pesticides can also trigger endocrine disruption. Among their possible victims are the world-famous Chesapeake Bay oysters, which are an important part of the Bay’s food web. Oysters filter millions of gallons of water a day. The report cites research showing that oysters lose their beneficial microbes when exposed to low concentrations of atrazine. This leads to opportunistic colonization by pathogenic microbes, posing a risk to the long-term survival of oysters and to the health of the bay generally. (See Daily News here.) Advocates continue to raise alarms given that nearly 13 million people get their drinking water from the watershed.

A similar dynamic has emerged in the Great Lakes region, with waterways that flow into the region experiencing year-round pesticide contamination that exceeds benchmarks meant to protect aquatic life, according to research published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry by scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Across every sampled tributary, pesticides were found. Accordingly, 96% (190 out of 198) of samples taken contained pesticides or their breakdown products. Herbicides represented the most frequently detected chemicals, with atrazine and its breakdown products (deethylatrazine and hydroxyatrazine) the most common of the bunch, detected in more than 75% of samples. (See Daily News here.)

Meanwhile, approximately four in ten private wells in the state of Wisconsin contain toxic pesticides and pesticide metabolites, according to findings released earlier this year from a 2023 survey, entitled Wisconsin Agricultural Chemicals in Wisconsin Groundwater, conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) in partnership with U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Atrazine is one of the 22 detected pesticides in this report. (See Daily News here.)

Pesticide exposure may also be close to home, or worse, inside dwellings! A 2025 study published in Environmental Science and Technology found that there are 47 current-use pesticides (CUPs)—products with active ingredients that are registered by EPA —detected in samples of indoor dust, drinking water, and urine from households in the state of Indiana. Thirty-three CUPs were detected in drinking water samples, with atrazine and its breakdown products making up “over 50% of the total herbicide concentrations” accounted for in this study. (See Daily News here.)

Advocates raise alarm bells given the continuation of publications highlighting specific risks associated with atrazine exposure, including disproportionate risk to women. Individuals living near chemical-intensive agricultural environments have a heightened risk of Alzheimer’s disease relative to the general population, according to a 2024 study published in Psychiatry Research. One of the pesticides of concern in this Spain-based study is atrazine. (See Daily News here.) A study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety finds that atrazine promotes breast cancer development through suppression of immune cell stimulation, and thus function, and upregulation of enzymes mediating tumor development. The study notes, “This study demonstrated that atrazine accelerated the cell cycle and encouraged the proliferation and invasion of breast cancer tumor cells. Furthermore, atrazine can reduce anti-tumor immunity by decreasing lymphocyte infiltration and modulating cytokine production inside the tumor microenvironment, thereby promoting tumor immune escape and breast cancer progression. To fully understand the mechanism underlying atrazine’s immunosuppression of breast cancers, further research is needed.” (See Daily News here.)

There are additional adverse health effects linked to atrazine exposure. A 2021 study published in Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry finds atrazine exposure worsens lung disease outcomes in individuals with idiopathic (spontaneous) pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a group of incurable lung diseases involving damaged/scarred lung tissue. Furthermore, chemotherapeutic products used to treat lymphoma (immune system cell cancer), like bleomycin, can induce pulmonary fibrosis complications exacerbated by pesticide exposure. (See Daily News here.) Research from the Silent Spring Institute in 2020 identifies 28 registered pesticides, including atrazine, linked with the development of mammary gland tumors in animal studies. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

The connection between the climate crisis and synthetic chemical dependency has also been corroborated through peer-reviewed research. A new, simultaneous chemical identification method employed in 2020 found the presence of the weed killer atrazine and 200+ other hazardous chemicals in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) wastewater or produced water, according to collaborative research published in the Journal of Separation Science by scientists at the University of Toledo (UToledo) and the University of Texas at Arlington. Although produced water is a waste product of fracking, EPA allows many states to reuse produced water in agriculture and other industries or dispose of it into waterways. (See Daily News here.)

Rather than continue the whack-a-mole of addressing individual pesticide exposures like atrazine in your community, advocates across the country continue to call for a wholesale transition to organic pest management for agricultural and nonagricultural contexts, like parks and playing fields. Beyond Pesticides has developed and actively maintains the Keeping Organic Strong resource hub, a one-stop shop for you to learn about changes in organic regulations and how to take action.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity; U.S. Right to Know; The Lancet Oncology

(Beyond Pesticides, December 9, 2025) In the Journal of Environmental Quality, researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report that a 4-year organically managed corn-soybean-oat system reduces nitrogen (N) loads by 50 percent with corn and soybean yields “equivalent to or higher than conventional [chemical-intensive] in most years.” The findings from a 7-year study comparing nitrate loss in organic and chemical-intensive management found that organically managed perennial pasture reduced nitrogen loads significantly. The study, which focused on nitrate pollution in agriculture that harms biodiversity, threatens waterways, drinking water, and public health, and releases nitrous oxide (an extremely potent greenhouse gas), was conducted at USDA’s National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment.

Organic and regenerative organic farmers and businesses posit that if commodity crops can be grown in organically managed systems with competitive yields, then this supports their argument for alternative systems not only feasible but economically sustainable and responsible.

Background and Methodology

The researchers note that, in the eastern and U.S. Midwest, “subsurface tile drainage” (the practice of manually draining fields below the surface soil to assist fields that are otherwise challenging to drain due to wet areas/highly compacted soils) has exacerbated nitrogen and nutrient runoff, ultimately leading to diminished soil health. The authors state: “Thus, developing strategies to mitigate nitrate () losses to surface waters while maintaining crop yields is crucial to long-term agroecosystem sustainability,” says the authors. They continue: “Practices inherent to organic farming, such as diversified crops (cover crops or perennial crops) and use of alternative N-sources (e.g., legumes, green manures, composts, and animal manure), have potential to manage losses.”

The authors highlight, based on USDA data, that the Midwest “accounts for about 25% of the total U.S. acres under organic production.” Despite this, “little research on losses via leaching exists for the region.” This study aims to fill the research gap, as well as address the fact that nitrate leaching losses in the Midwest have not been extensively studied in organic systems. Europe-based studies on nitrate leaching and crop yields have not fully evaluated the benefits of organic.

The study is an extension of the USDA organic water quality experiment, which was launched in 2011. The site was previously managed as conventional corn-soybean fields until 2006. The experimental design of the fields was randomized “with five replications” and “each phase of the crop rotation was present each year for a total of 30 plots, each 30.5 meters x 30.5 meters in size.” For further information on the measurement criteria of agronomic management and crop yields, tile water sampling and analysis, and soil sampling and analysis, refer to Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4, respectively. The parameters of the statistical analysis can be found in Section 2.5.

The researchers are based at the National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment in Ames, Iowa–a research lab under USDA-ARS (Agricultural Research Service)–and the Department of Agronomy and Department of Horticulture at Iowa State University. “The authors declare no conflicts of interest” in terms of conducting this study.

Results

The researchers highlight the four main conclusions of their 7-year study:

• “Four-year organic rotation reduced N loads by 50% compared to conventional corn–soybean.
• Diversified rotation and annual precipitation accounted for 55% of variability in N drainage losses.
• Organic corn yields were similar to or higher than conventional in 4 of 7 years.
• Organic soybean yields were similar to or higher than conventional in 6 of 7 years.”

In the conclusion section, the authors highlight additional significant findings:

• “It is noteworthy that on average 44% more N was lost during the soybean phase of organic rotation than during the corn phase, reflecting greater N uptake by corn plants coupled with mineralization-immobilization of manure and alfalfa N affecting multiple growing seasons.
• Differences in annual precipitation were a driving factor for annual variability in N leaching losses; however, losses were different for different crops, with the highest N loss observed under conventional corn–soybean rotation.
• Overall, under a highly fertile, artificially drained Mollisol [type of soil based in temperate grassland environments], organic farming practices that combine use of animal manure and inclusion of small grains, forage legumes, and green manure can reduce N losses while maintaining crop yield.”

The authors believe that these findings support “the adoption of organic systems in tile-drained regions to enhance water quality without compromising productivity,” which presents significant implications for the future of American agriculture if not heeded by farmers looking to preserve and maintain their farmland as the climate crisis worsens.

Previous Coverage

Researchers for decades have engaged in interdisciplinary, evidence-based field studies on the competitiveness of organically managed cropping systems, reinforcing public and environmental health advocates’ calls for a wholesale transition to organic land management.

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

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

The findings of this most recent study are reinforced by another recent study based in Kenya. In a sixteen-year field trial based in Central Kenya, researchers have found higher crop yield stability in low-input organic systems with previously degraded soil than in high-input organic and nonorganic agricultural systems. The experimental design was a randomized complete block design in agricultural plots, with the fields split up into four farming systems: organic high input (Org-High), conventional high input (Conv-High), organic low input (Org-Low), and conventional low input (Conv-Low). High versus low inputs refer to the quantity and types of soil inputs, mulch, irrigation, and pest management tools (pesticides). The authors report:

“Based on the findings of our study, organic farming systems have the potential to achieve yields that match or exceed those of conventional farming systems, particularly in the long term when given adequate time for soil adaptation and improvement in soil fertility.” (See Daily News here.)

Organically managed corn and soybean fields are not the only crops that have a competitive edge over chemical-intensive counterparts—researchers have identified organic cotton, coffee, and bananas through peer-reviewed field studies as also holding advantages.

A study published in European Journal of Agronomy, based on a 16-year, long-term experiment (LTE) in Madhya Pradesh, India, finds that organic crops (cotton production with wheat and soybean rotations) in tropical climates are competitive with chemical-intensive (conventional) systems when evaluating systems’ resilience (to weather and insect resistance), input costs, and profitability. The study followed a 16-year rotational crop cycle between 2007 and 2022. The experimental design of the plots was randomized with four systems: BIOORG (organic according to European Union and U.S. standards), BIODYN (biodynamic standards that run stricter than organic certification), CON (conventional without the use of genetically engineered Bt Cotton, using local practices alongside synthetic inputs), and CONBtC (conventional with the Bt cotton and synthetic inputs). Each treatment was replicated four times for posterity and data gathering reassurances. In terms of crop yields:

1. Organic cotton was more stable during pink bollworm outbreaks relative to the other three farming models in terms of conventional options. Additionally, organic cotton was not as competitive relative to conventional yields (although yields were sometimes comparable in non-Bt conventional plots).
2. Organic soybeans yielded on average 102% of chemical-intensive yields, which researchers note as an intrinsic benefit of biological nitrogen fixation, permitting organic soybeans to thrive without synthetic fertilizer in this system.
3. Organic wheat generally underperformed compared to chemical-intensive alternatives (77-80% of conventional yields), with the critical limiting factor being the slow release of nutrients and nitrogen deficiency post-cotton harvest. A follow-up experiment could intercrop leguminous plants, grasses, and/or other natural nitrogen fixers for one season before planting the wheat crops to see if there is a positive difference in yields.
4. The diversification of chickpeas as the second rotation instead of wheat reduced potential risk and strengthened the profitability of the organic system as a whole. (See Daily News here.)

Researchers found in a new coffee production study published in Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy that certified organic coffee producers in Peru have a lower carbon footprint than transitional organic coffee farmers. “The results indicate that the average emissions for the production units classified as ‘in transition’ are equivalent to 1.11 kg CO₂e [carbon dioxide equivalent] per kilogram of green coffee, while for the organic production units, the average emissions associated with 1 kg of green coffee are equivalent to 0.68 kg CO₂e,” the authors write. (See Daily News here.) Organic banana production, meanwhile, is significantly more conducive to microbial decomposition than its chemical-intensive counterparts in the Caribbean nation of Martinique, according to a study published in Applied Soil Ecology (2024). “Macrofaunal decomposition was increased more (55%) than microbial decomposition (20%), indicating that organic farming removes a constraint of conventional farming especially affecting macrofauna,” according to the authors. (See Daily News here.)

Organically managed food systems serve as both a social good and a multifaceted climate solution. A life-cycle analysis study published in Nature compared the impact of organic and conventional food production using eight environmental health indicators and found that organic food has a significantly lower environmental impact than conventional food production for six of the eight indicators, including a lower potential for contributing to acidification of the environment, energy use, and biodiversity loss. (See Daily News here.) Additionally, a comprehensive study in the Journal of Cleaner Production (2023) identifies the potential for organic agriculture to mitigate the impacts of agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the fight to address the climate crisis. The authors determine that “a one percent increase in total farmland results in a 0.13 percent increase in GHG emissions, while a one percent increase in organic cropland and pasture leads to a decrease in emissions by about 0.06 percent and 0.007 percent, respectively.” (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

Groundbreaking studies, like the one covered in this Daily News, have the potential to transform policy and regulations in the long term and demand time, money, and political will.

You can support the continuation of this critical research by calling on your elected officials in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to endorse and sponsor the newly reintroduced Organic Science and Research Investment (OSRI) Act. (See Action of the Week here.) Learn more about your potential exposure to toxic pesticides and chemicals in over 90 non-organic crops, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and related items in the Eating With a Conscience database; you can also engage in the protection and expansion of organic standards through Keeping Organic Strong—while the Fall 2025 National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting was canceled due to the federal government shutdown, we will continue to update issues before the NOSB, USDA’s National Organic Program, and opportunities public engagement.

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

Source: Journal of Environmental Quality

(Beyond Pesticides, December 8, 2025) In response to the Trump administration’s proposed new rules to limit protections for critical habitats under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Beyond Pesticides is calling for public action to “Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) not to adopt regulations that weaken protection of threatened and endangered species.” According  to environmentalists, four new rules will allow an expansion of oil drilling, logging, and mining in critical habitats.

A week before Thanksgiving, which honors habitats supporting life, FWS, part of the Department of Interior (DOI), and NMFS, part of the Department of Commerce, announced proposed revisions to the rules implementing ESA that raises serious questions about the future restrictions of the nation’s foundational environmental law. Passed with bipartisan support in 1973, the ESA establishes “a prohibition on ‘take’ of a species, the requirement that all federal agencies ensure that the actions they carry out will not jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, and the drafting and implementation of recovery plans for at risk species,” according to the National Agricultural Law Center. See ESA current regulations. 

Secretary of DOI Doug Burgum describes the action: “This administration is restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent, protecting species through clear, consistent and lawful standards that also respect the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources.” However, the purposes of the ESA, as laid out in the statute,  appears to be inconsistent with the proposed rules: “The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.” 

Among the findings stated by Congress in passing the ESA are the following: 

(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation; 

(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction; and

(3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people; . . . 

Thus, the original intent was not to relieve burdens on industries whose actions threaten biodiversity, but to ensure that such actions are tempered by “adequate concern and conservation.” Thus, the proposals weaken the basic protections provided threatened and endangered species and narrow the definition of critical habitats. As summarized by Earthjustice, the proposed rules would: 

• Deprive newly listed threatened animal and plant species from automatically receiving protections from killing, trapping, and other forms of prohibited “take.” Species now proposed for listing, like the Florida manatee, California spotted owl, Greater sage grouse, and Monarch butterfly, could be left unprotected for years even after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalizes the listings. 
   
• Narrow the definition of “critical habitat” to exclude currently unoccupied but historic habitat. Historic habitat is vital for recovery of imperiled species, especially as the areas where they currently live shrink due to the rapidly changing climate and the chain effects of ongoing biodiversity loss. 
   
• Loosen compliance measures for federal agencies to make it easier to greenlight destructive actions, like logging or drilling, that put a protected species in harm’s way. 
   
• Violate the letter of the law by allowing “economic considerations” in decisions about whether to protect species that are scientifically shown to be at risk of extinction. With this rule, the federal government could decide against protecting an endangered species after considering lost revenue from prohibiting a golf course or hotel development to be built where the species lives. 

For Beyond Pesticides’ action, the organization proposed the following comments on the four proposals:

#1—FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0029-0001 eliminates newly listed threatened animal and plant species from automatically receiving protections from killing, trapping, and other forms of prohibited “take.” 

Last month, the Trump administration proposed revisions to four rules implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that will severely weaken endangered species. Passed with bipartisan support in 1973, the ESA establishes “a prohibition on ‘take’ of a species, the requirement that all federal agencies ensure that the actions they carry out will not jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, and the drafting and implementation of recovery plans for at risk species,” according to the National Agricultural Law Center.  

Secretary of DOI Doug Burgum describes the action: “This administration is restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent, protecting species through clear, consistent and lawful standards that also respect the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources.” However, the purposes of the ESA, as laid out in the statute, are inconsistent with the proposed rules: “The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.” 

Among the findings stated by Congress in passing ESA are the following: 

(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation; 
(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction; AND
(3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people; . . . 

Thus, the original intent was not to relieve burdens on industries whose actions threaten biodiversity, but to ensure that such actions are tempered by “adequate concern and conservation.” Thus, the proposals undermine the basic protections provided threatened and endangered species and narrow the definition of critical habitats. 

I oppose the rule changes in this docket, which would deprive newly listed threatened animal and plant species from automatically receiving protections from killing, trapping, and other forms of prohibited “take.” Species now proposed for listing, like the Florida manatee, California spotted owl, Greater sage grouse, and Monarch butterfly could be left unprotected for years even after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalizes the listings—some even before they have been named, such as some of the 80% of insect species not yet identified. 

The Earth is facing an extinction crisis, which must be addressed by strong ESA regulations. 

Thank you. 

#2—FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0039-0001 narrows the definition of “critical habitat” to exclude currently unoccupied but historic habitat. 

Last month, the Trump administration proposed revisions to four rules implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that will severely weaken endangered species. Passed with bipartisan support in 1973, the ESA establishes “a prohibition on ‘take’ of a species, the requirement that all federal agencies ensure that the actions they carry out will not jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, and the drafting and implementation of recovery plans for at risk species,” according to the National Agricultural Law Center.  

Secretary of DOI Doug Burgum describes the action: “This administration is restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent, protecting species through clear, consistent and lawful standards that also respect the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources.” However, the purposes of the ESA, as laid out in the statute, are inconsistent with the proposed rules: “The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.” 

Among the findings stated by Congress in passing ESA are the following: 

(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation; 
(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction; AND
(3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people; . . . 

Thus, the original intent was not to relieve burdens on industries whose actions threaten biodiversity, but to ensure that such actions are tempered by “adequate concern and conservation.” Thus, the proposals undermine the basic protections provided threatened and endangered species and narrow the definition of critical habitats. 

I oppose the rule changes in this docket, which would narrow the definition of “critical habitat” to exclude currently unoccupied but historic habitat. Historic habitat is vital for recovery of imperiled species, especially as the areas where they currently live shrink due to the rapidly changing climate and the chain effects of ongoing biodiversity loss.  

The Earth is facing an extinction crisis, which must be addressed by strong ESA regulations. 

Thank you. 

#3—FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0044-0001 makes it easier for federal agencies to greenlight destructive actions. 

Last month, the Trump administration proposed revisions to four rules implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that will severely weaken endangered species. Passed with bipartisan support in 1973, the ESA establishes “a prohibition on ‘take’ of a species, the requirement that all federal agencies ensure that the actions they carry out will not jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, and the drafting and implementation of recovery plans for at risk species,” according to the National Agricultural Law Center.  

Secretary of DOI Doug Burgum describes the action: “This administration is restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent, protecting species through clear, consistent and lawful standards that also respect the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources.” However, the purposes of the ESA, as laid out in the statute, are inconsistent with the proposed rules: “The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.” 

Among the findings stated by Congress in passing ESA are the following: 

(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation; 
(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction; AND
(3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people; . . . 

Thus, the original intent was not to relieve burdens on industries whose actions threaten biodiversity, but to ensure that such actions are tempered by “adequate concern and conservation.” Thus, the proposals undermine the basic protections provided threatened and endangered species and narrow the definition of critical habitats. 

I oppose the rule changes in this docket, which would loosen compliance measures for federal agencies to make it easier to greenlight destructive actions, like logging or drilling, that put a protected species in harm’s way. 

The Earth is facing an extinction crisis, which must be addressed by strong ESA regulations. 

Thank you. 

#4—FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0048-0001 allows “economic considerations” in decisions about whether to protect species that are scientifically shown to be at risk of extinction.  

Last month, the Trump administration proposed revisions to four rules implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that will severely weaken endangered species. Passed with bipartisan support in 1973, the ESA establishes “a prohibition on ‘take’ of a species, the requirement that all federal agencies ensure that the actions they carry out will not jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, and the drafting and implementation of recovery plans for at risk species,” according to the National Agricultural Law Center.  

Secretary of DOI Doug Burgum describes the action: “This administration is restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent, protecting species through clear, consistent and lawful standards that also respect the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources.” However, the purposes of the ESA, as laid out in the statute, are inconsistent with the proposed rules: “The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.” 

Among the findings stated by Congress in passing ESA are the following: 

(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation; 
(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction; AND
(3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people; . . . 

Thus, the original intent was not to relieve burdens on industries whose actions threaten biodiversity, but to ensure that such actions are tempered by “adequate concern and conservation.” Thus, the proposals undermine the basic protections provided threatened and endangered species and narrow the definition of critical habitats. 

I oppose the rule changes in this docket, which would violate the letter of the law by allowing “economic considerations” in decisions about whether to protect species that are scientifically shown to be at risk of extinction. With this rule, the federal government could decide against protecting an endangered species after considering lost revenue from prohibiting a golf course or hotel development to be built where the species lives. 

The Earth is facing an extinction crisis, which must be addressed by strong ESA regulations. 

Thank you. 

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 5, 2025) A study published this month in Environmental Pollution analyzes the role of neonicotinoid insecticide exposure on bird populations, finding a significant negative effect of imidacloprid use on insectivorous bird abundance. In comparing the effects of the insecticide imidacloprid on bird abundance in France before and after the 2018 ban, the researchers show a weak recovery of bird populations after 2018. The persistent nature of imidacloprid, however, as well as the continued use of other petrochemical pesticides that have adverse effects on bird species, continues to impact populations of all types of birds and other wildlife, leading to cascading impacts on biodiversity.   

“Our study shows that imidacloprid is a major covariate of the abundance of birds, in addition to other pesticides that are also negatively related to bird populations, and that these effects are not uniform across species,” the authors report. They continue in saying that the relationship between neonicotinoids and bird abundance varied across bird diets, as “the abundance of insectivorous birds was consistently lower under increasing pesticide use, in particular imidacloprid.”

Background

As shared in the study and on Beyond Pesticides’ Birds page, bird species can be exposed to pesticides directly through ingestion of seeds that have been treated with pesticides, or indirectly through consumption of small insects and other animals that have ingested the pesticides themselves, leading to secondary poisoning of the bird. They can also be indirectly affected through the overall decline in insect populations from pesticide exposure. When the insect population is reduced, which is currently occurring in an ‘insect apocalypse’ according to scientists, this natural food source for birds is also reduced. See Daily News Indiscriminate Poisoning of Neonicotinoid Insecticides Contributes to Insect Apocalypse, Study Finds and Continued Decline in Insect Species Biodiversity with Agricultural Pesticide Use Documented for more information. Some birds also forage for nectar, which has been contaminated in plants grown from pesticide treated seeds or drenched in production, a common problem with systemic pesticides like imidacloprid.

“Direct contamination, with lethal or sublethal effects, affects demographic parameters as well as bird behavior, such as predator avoidance or migration timing, with negative consequences on individual fitness and population dynamics,” the researchers say. They continue: “Pesticides also impact birds indirectly by decreasing the amount and diversity of food sources namely insects for most bird species, but also seeds. Major losses have been documented both in insects and seed plants and some of them were linked to high pesticides use.” (See additional research here.)

Of the many pesticide classes, neonicotinoid insecticides are particularly linked to population declines in birds. Neonicotinoids (neonics) are a class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affects the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. Studies show that neonicotinoid residues accumulate in the pollen and nectar of treated plants and are a threat to the health of pollinators. Neonicotinoids are also persistent in the environment and are so toxic that as little as one neonic-treated seed is enough to kill a songbird. This class of pesticides is also known to contaminate waterways, posing additional risks as these compounds are highly toxic to aquatic organisms.

“Imidacloprid, in particular, has widely contaminated the environment worldwide and is commonly found in both aquatic and terrestrial eco-systems, as well as in birds,” the authors share. (See studies here, here, here, and here.) They continue: “In France, imidacloprid was the primary neonicotinoid used, as well as the most frequently detected in surface waters and arable soils… Despite the ban of neonicotinoids for flowering crops in 2013 and for all crops in 2018, annual exemptions were granted in France for sugar beet in 2021 and 2022. Imidacloprid continues to be detected in the environment and others neonicotinoids have been found in birds, suggesting the persistence of these active substances in the environment and their potential adverse effects on birds.”

Study Methodology and Results

While previous research links neonicotinoid use to population impacts, the “potential for population recovery after ban has not been investigated,” the researchers state. “Here, we investigated this relationship in France over the 2013–2022 period, focusing on 57 bird species from insectivorous, granivorous [animals feeding on grain] and generalist guilds, surveyed across a large number of plots (n = 1983).”

In analyzing publicly available data on pesticide sales and bird monitoring, the authors are able to calculate the Total Applied Toxicity (TAT) from toxicity to specific taxonomic groups (e.g. birds, nontarget arthropods) to indicate not only the direct effects of pesticides on birds but also on bird food sources (insects). “We also assessed whether the 2018 neonicotinoid ban was sufficient to trigger recovery in bird populations,” the researchers add.

For estimating bird abundance, data from the French Breeding Bird Survey from 2013 to 2022 was utilized, with the bird species separated into trophic guilds, which are defined by similar diets. Pesticide pressures were assessed through data on pesticide sales from the French National Database of Sales of Plant Protection Products by Authorized Distributors.

As a result, the authors find:

• “Both bird abundances and pesticide use exhibited strong spatial patterns. The spatial distribution of common birds differed across diets, with higher abundance of insectivorous birds in central, north-western and eastern France, while granivorous birds were more abundant in southern France, and generalists were more abundant in northern France.”
• “Pressure from other pesticides, estimated by TAT indices, showed spatial patterns similar to those for imidacloprid use.”
• “The relationship between imidacloprid, or other pesticide use, and bird abundance varied depending on bird diet and time period. For insectivorous birds, abundance during the 2013–2022 period was best explained by imidacloprid amounts… Across the entire period, insectivorous bird abundance was, on average, 9.0% lower in areas with high imidacloprid use vs. areas with no imidacloprid use.”
• “When analyzing the effect of imidacloprid use before and after the ban on insectivorous bird abundance, we found a significant negative effect of imidacloprid use before the ban (2013–2018 period) on bird abundance, which persisted into the time period after the ban. As expected, insectivorous bird abundance before the ban (2013–2018) was 12.7% lower at sites with high vs. no imidacloprid during the same period and the imprint of this imidacloprid use before the ban was still detectable on insectivorous bird abundance after the ban (2019–2022), with 9.1% lower abundance in sites with high pre-ban imidacloprid use.”
• “Additional analysis to investigate population recovery shows that the difference in abundance of insectivorous birds between pre- and post-ban periods is negatively correlated with the difference in imidacloprid use between these two same periods, indicating a greater recovery in insectivorous bird abundance in areas with sharper reduction in imidacloprid use. However, this difference is marginally significant, indicating a still fragile recovery of insectivorous birds with the ban on neonicotinoids.”
• “Interestingly, we found a persistent effect of imidacloprid use on insectivorous birds for at least four years after its ban, as pre-ban use remained the best predictor of post-ban abundance. However, the effect was weaker (-9%) than the effect on insectivorous bird abundance before the ban (-12.7%), suggesting the beginning of potential recovery.”

These results confirm the detrimental impact of neonicotinoids, imidacloprid in particular, on insectivorous birds. While bird population metrics since the ban of imidacloprid in France show slight improvement, this study highlights that pesticide bans of single active ingredients or pesticide classes is not enough to ensure full biodiversity recovery to protect all species.

“To conclude, our findings reinforce evidence of the strong and long-lasting cascading impacts of neonicotinoids in food webs, with primary impacts on insects propagating to insectivorous birds,” the researchers note. They continue: “Additionally, our study exemplifies that banning neonicotinoid does not guarantee immediate biodiversity recovery. Such lag effects highlight the need to maintain current ban and to reinforce large-scale, long-term monitoring—particularly of insect populations—if we are to witness recovery.”

Coverage of this study, published in The Guardian, includes quotes from the lead researcher, Thomas Perrot, PhD, at the Fondation pour la recherche sur la biodiversité (FRB) in Paris, in which he also says: “Even a few percentage [points’] increase is meaningful–it shows the ban made a difference. Our results clearly point to neonicotinoid bans as an effective conservation measure for insectivorous birds.” Dr. Perrot continues in saying, “The weak recovery after the ban makes sense… Neonicotinoids persist in soils for years and can keep affecting insects.”

Previous Research

Cited within this study, additional scientific literature finds alarming declines in bird populations. “Pesticides have been identified numerous times as one of the potential causes of these declines, along with changes in land use or climate.” (See research here, here, here, here, here, and here.) For more information on how the changing climate exacerbates the impacts of pesticides, see here.

As seen in earlier studies, the significant effects of neonicotinoids on insectivorous birds in the current study are consistent, indicating “that neonicotinoids contribute to declines in insectivorous bird abundance by approximately 3.5%–5% per year.” (See here and here.) The weak recovery of bird abundance after the 2018 ban is also “consistent with expectations for bird populations exposed to long-term use of persistent pesticides,” the authors share. “For example, more than a decade was required for bird populations to recover from DDT, and similar delays have been observed in insects.” Additional studies, covered in Daily News, can be seen here.

A Holistic Solution

These slow, partial recoveries, however, are not enough, given the dramatic decline of insect and bird populations. Banning single active ingredients or pesticide classes fails to address the larger issue of dependence on chemical-intensive practices, where the elimination of one toxic chemical leads to replacing it with another, potentially more toxic, chemical. In this case, the pesticide treadmill continues to be perpetuated, and full-scale recovery of any wildlife species requires a systems-wide transition to organic land management to be implemented.

In The Guardian article, Frans van Alebeek, policy officer for rural areas at BirdLife Netherlands, is quoted as saying: “Neonicotinoids are part of a trend in which industry is getting better and better at finding chemicals that are extremely effective at low concentrations–you use less but the toxicity is not going down… To me, it shows that our system of testing pesticides before they are allowed on the market is not good enough. We have done it for 50 years for all kinds of pesticides–we go through the same process every 10 years and learn very little from history.” This adds to the long history of regulatory deficiencies, which Beyond Pesticides has covered for decades.

Also shared in The Guardian, James Pearce-Higgins, PhD, director of science at the British Trust for Ornithology, says when commenting on the current research: “It’s a study that shows there may be early signs of weak population recovery but the results are uncertain and could be down to other correlated factors… This study highlights the value of long-term monitoring so we can better understand these trends in the future.”

This begs the question: Is there time to wait and study the potential long-term impacts of banning single pesticides or pesticide classes? There is an urgent need to protect health and the environment, so the time is now to make the transition to organic land management, in which science has proven is more productive and cost-effective than conventional agriculture. More importantly, organic practices prevent pesticide risks and protect and enhance biodiversity, safeguard public health, and mitigate climate change.

Visit the Eating with a Conscience database to learn more about why food labeled “organic” is the right choice. For more on the threats to health of pesticides and the organic solution, stay tuned for the recording of Beyond Pesticides’ second session of the 42^nd National Forum Series, The Pesticide Threat to Environmental Health: Advancing Holistic Solutions Aligned with Nature, from December 4.

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

Sources:

Perrot, T. et al. (2025) Weak recovery of insectivorous bird populations after ban of neonicotinoids in France, hinting at lasting impacts, Environmental Pollution. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749125015064.

Weston, P. (2025) France’s birds start to show signs of recovery after bee-harming pesticide ban, The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/17/france-wildlife-insect-bird-numbers-rise-neonicotinoid-pesticide-ban-aoe.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 4, 2025) In a news release last week on November 26, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “issued a comprehensive fact-check addressing dangerous misinformation circulating about EPA’s recent pesticide approvals” that, according to health and environmental advocates, continues to deceive the public about the true risks for health and the environment from petrochemical pesticides including, but not limited to, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Also published on November 26, coverage titled The EPA Is Embracing PFAS Pesticides. These Are The Health Risks in Time further highlights EPA’s deficiencies and the threats of PFAS, which Beyond Pesticides has extensively covered. (See here and here.) 

The controversy erupted as a result of EPA’s latest proposal to allow a new fluorinated pesticide to the list of four other similar compounds now widely available for use in homes and gardens, buildings, and agriculture. The newest pesticide proposed for EPA registration, epyrifenacil (agricultural weed killer), joins cyclobutrifluram (soil fungicide/nematicide), isocycloseram (household and agricultural insecticide), diflufenican (lawn and agricultural weed killer), and trifludimoxazin (agricultural weed killer), making a total of five PFAS pesticide proposals this year that have been associated with national and worldwide contamination of food, land, and water. Two of these, cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, have been approved.

“Instead of constraining the use of fluorinated pesticides—persistent and highly toxic compounds defined as PFAS internationally—EPA is opening the door to further threats to health with generational harm,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “The agency is allowing public and worker exposure and environmental contamination of food and water to chemical compounds that cause hormonal disruptions, developmental issues, and cancer, despite the availability of productive and profitable alternative practices and nontoxic products,” he said. 

While EPA is politicizing a serious public health and environmental issue, with EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin calling news reports on PFAS pesticides “fake news from Democrats and their media allies,” at the root of the issue is the classification of fluorinated chemical compounds (containing the element fluorine) that put the agency at odds with international regulatory bodies. Beyond the classification of the compounds are issues of hazards to health and the environment, given the scientific findings tying the chemical to highly threatening adverse effects. See a press release by Beyond Pesticides here.

In a news release, EPA says, “E]very approved pesticide undergoes thorough safety evaluation and poses no health risks when used as directed. BOTTOM LINE: EPA-Approved Single Fluorinated Compounds Are NOT Forever Chemicals and Pose No Safety Concerns When Used According to Label Instructions.” 

When a Chemical is Classified as PFAS  

In its argument, EPA is ignoring the widely accepted definition of PFAS, supported by scientists, through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). As previously covered by Beyond Pesticides in Daily News, titled Artificially Narrow EPA Definition of PFAS Mischaracterizes Widespread Threat to Health and Environment, the definition of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence, continues to be debated in the regulatory arena, with many scientists arguing that certain types of chemicals in this vast group are not accurately captured in EPA risk assessments. 

The definition of PFAS used by OECD encompasses a wide variety of fluorinated compounds and is “scientifically grounded, unambiguous, and well suited to identify these chemicals,” as described by scientists in a commentary published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. As the researchers describe, excluding certain fluorinated chemical subgroups does not properly represent the scope of PFAS, which they estimate to include millions of theoretical structures, but more practically, several thousand that are actually manufactured. 

The OECD chemical definition of PFAS states: 

PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS. 

This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that regulatory bodies like EPA do not include in their definitions. 

As the Time article points out: “[T]here is no firm definition of exactly what a PFAS is—at least in the United States. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which works with 38 member nations including the U.S. to foster international cooperation and economic growth, defines PFAS as industrial chemicals that have at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom—which is a carbon atom with two or three fluorine atoms attached to it. There are about 15,000 species of chemicals that meet that standard. But the EPA has pushed back, broadening the definition to two fully fluorinated carbon atoms.” 

EPA is pointing to the Biden administration for approving the single fluorinated compound fluazaindolizine with a clear signal that single fluorinated compounds are not PFAS. The Trump Administration, however, has already doubled that approval rate, allowing the registration of cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram within the term’s first year and within two weeks of each other. Three other PFAS have been proposed by EPA, which could bring the total approved PFAS active ingredients to five within a short time frame. Beyond Pesticides submitted comments on the proposals of cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, with 20 signatories, prior to their approval, as well as comments on diflufenican, trifludimoxazin, and for the latest comment period for epyrifenacil just this month.   

Risks of PFAS Exposure 

As referenced in the Time article, “PFAS have been linked by the EPA itself to an increased risk of a host of health effects, including decreased fertility, hypertension in pregnant people, increased risk of certain cancers (especially kidney cancer), developmental delays in children, hormonal irregularities, elevated cholesterol, reduced effectiveness of the immune system, and more.” Beyond Pesticides, in previous comments and Daily News coverage, has also highlighted these health threats, among others. 

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

It is evident that EPA and other federal regulators have been behind the curve in preventing and responding to the threats posed by PFAS compounds. Despite evidence on the dangers of PFAS stretching as far back as the 1950s, federal agencies effectively sat on the sidelines as the plastics industry continued adding the material to new products. Now we are seeing a similar expansion of use with the registration of pesticides in the PFAS group. 

The detection of any level of PFAS is cause for concern. As drinking water health advisories issued by EPA show, PFAS levels as low as .02 parts per trillion (ppt) have the potential to cause adverse health effects for public health. From widespread presence in farm fields and sewage sludge (biosolids) to contaminated water bodies throughout the U.S., PFAS have made their way into the environment and human bodies. PFAS are even present in remote environments like the Arctic, Antarctica, and Eastern European Tibetan Plateau. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) determined that almost all Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream, which highlights PFAS as a chronic danger to people that demands urgent regulatory action. 

In a literature review published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety earlier this year, the authors highlight a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and endocrine-disrupting pesticides (EDPs) showing epigenetic effects from exposure, as the chemicals imitate the action of endocrine hormones and lead to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health. 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 result from complex mechanisms that are not yet fully assessed in EPA’s pesticide registration process, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed before products are approved. 

EPA Deficiencies 

In the Time article, Nathan Donley, PhD, points to the effect of defining away the PFAS pesticide problem. Dr. Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, states: “[The EPA definition of PFAS creates] an enormous decrease in the number of chemicals that are subject to regulation as PFAS… We’re talking about defining away over 10,000 chemicals. The OECD definition was a definition agreed upon by scientists. Now, the EPA has come up with a regulatory definition that in my opinion, ignores the science and is more designed to make [the chemical industries’] lives easier.” 

EPA states: “In 2023, EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics officially defined PFAS, after conducting a comprehensive public rulemaking process, as chemicals containing two or more fluorinated carbons. This deliberate exclusion of single fluorinated carbons was based on extensive scientific evidence and public input demonstrating that molecules with only one fluorinated carbon lack the persistence and bioaccumulation properties that are commonly associated with forever chemicals. The recent false claims that EPA approved a ‘forever chemical’ represents a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry and toxicology.”   

Fluorinated Pesticides in General Threaten Health 

In its news release, EPA’s resource on Pesticides Containing a Single Fluorinated Carbon is also referenced, which contains additional misleading and biased information. Even if EPA will not accept all fluorinated compounds as PFAS, there is scientific evidence connecting fluorinated pesticides to negative impacts on health and the environment. 

While EPA claims that “Extensive scientific evidence and public input demonstrate molecules with only one fluorinated carbon generally lack the persistence and bioaccumulation properties that are commonly associated with forever chemicals,” peer-reviewed (and not industry-supported) research shows both persistence and health effects with exposure to fluorinated chemicals. As stated in previous comments to EPA, Beyond Pesticides notes that fluorinated pesticides are a broad category of chemicals that encompass PFAS and contain very strong carbon-fluorine bonds that are more resistant to degradation. Also of concern is the creation of additional fluorinated degradates (breakdown products) that have the potential to be more toxic than the parent compound. 

Research in Pest Management Science highlights that fluorinated molecules are often resistant to degradation, representing an environmental challenge with heightened risks to soil organisms. As the authors state, these chemicals are “suspected of being environmental contaminants and endocrine disruptors, although only a small number are currently monitored and regulated. However, due to limited epidemiological evidence, experimental toxicology studies, and mechanistic evidence, many of the specific functions, underlying mechanisms, and contributing factors remain poorly understood.” 

A study this year in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology finds concentration-dependent results with fluorine-containing pesticide exposure in earthworms. The data shows exposure elevates reactive oxygen species (ROS), activating antioxidant enzymes and increasing lipid peroxidation and DNA damage biomarkers. Mitochondrial function also declines, with impairments in energy metabolism. Tissue damage within the epidermis, gut structures, and reproductive organs of the earthworms is also noted, showing biochemical stress as a result of exposure to fluorinated pesticides. All results were heightened at higher concentrations, indicating severe ecological threats.  

In 2020, fluorinated agrochemicals comprised about nine percent of the pesticide market, and have now reached almost 70 percent of newly-approved pesticides, according to a 2025 review in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Additionally, commentary by Donley et al. in Environmental Health Perspectives showcases how between 2012 and 2018, EPA granted 223 of 229 waiver requests (97%) for immunotoxicity testing of pesticide active ingredients. The article states: “Troublingly, the number of active ingredients that are fluorinated or that meet the definition of PFAS has increased considerably from 2012 to the present—the very time period that the US EPA granted 97% of waiver requests for immunotoxicity study requirements. This suggests that fluorinated or PFAS active ingredients may be more likely to be immunotoxic than other types of active ingredients and that any associated immunotoxicity may not be accounted for owing to the lack of requirement for scientific study.” 

Also on the Pesticides Containing a Single Fluorinated Carbon page, EPA states: “As part of its obligation to ensure that all pesticide products and uses are safe, EPA evaluates them using gold-standard science, robust data requirements, and comprehensive assessment methodologies. This process ensures that EPA’s pesticide reviews allow farmers and other users to have the tools they need to control pests to provide for a safe and abundant food supply while maintaining the highest standards to ensure human health and the environment are protected.” This messaging continues to ignore thousands of studies that show currently registered pesticide active ingredients are associated with deleterious and deadly implications for humans, wildlife, and all ecosystems. 

The Organic Solution 

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

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

Join us TODAY at 1 PM Eastern for the second session of Beyond Pesticides’ 42nd National Forum, The Pesticide Threat to Environmental Health: Advancing Holistic Solutions Aligned with Nature. The first session recordings and materials are available here. 

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

Sources: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2025). FACT CHECK: EPA Debunks False Claims that Agency Recently Approved ‘Forever Chemical’ Pesticides. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/fact-check-epa-debunks-false-claims-agency-recently-approved-forever-chemical.  

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2025). Pesticides Containing a Single Fluorinated Carbon. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/pesticides-containing-single-fluorinated-carbon.  

Kluger, J. (2025) The EPA Is Embracing PFAS Pesticides. These Are The Health Risks, Time. Available at: https://time.com/7336883/epa-pfas-pesticides-health-risks/.