(Beyond Pesticides, February 18, 2026) Research finds that widespread agricultural pesticide use increases chronic dietary exposure in poultry and leads to adverse reproductive effects, despite meeting legal residue limits. As published in Poultry Science by researchers in Poland, the study analyzes low-dose exposure of roosters (Gallus gallus domesticus) to the fungicide tebuconazole (TEB), the insecticide imidacloprid (IMI), and the weed killer glyphosate (GLP) individually and in mixtures, with all concentrations at or below the maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the European Union (EU). “Sub-MRL pesticide exposure impaired male reproductive function, with the most pronounced effects observed following combined treatments,” the authors report. They continue: “[E]xposure resulted in reduced semen quality, decreased fertility and hatchability, and increased embryo mortality, particularly in groups receiving IMI alone or in combination. These functional impairments were accompanied by detectable pesticide residues in reproductive tissues and body fluids, as well as modulation [modification/alteration] of local and systemic immune parameters.”

The results of the experiment highlight how combined pesticide exposure, resulting from common use of multiple pesticide active ingredients concurrently, produces “stronger and more persistent reproductive effects than individual compounds, indicating mixture-specific toxicity.” This study is particularly important, as it represents the chronic exposure to MRL-compliant pesticide residues in food that the researchers find are linked to compromised avian reproductive performance. “The persistence of residues in reproductive compartments and excreta further highlights potential environmental and biological risks, supporting the need to consider reproductive endpoints and chronic mixture exposure in pesticide risk assessment frameworks,” the authors state.

Background

As the use of pesticides in agriculture contaminates animal feed, there is a wide body of science connecting this exposure to adverse reproductive health effects in both mammals and birds. The majority of studies, however, utilize high pesticide doses. While the EU sets regulations for pesticide residues in foodstuffs, poultry feed, composed of diverse plant-based ingredients, contains many pesticide residues that can lead to adverse effects even when below established limits. (See studies here, here, here, here, and here.)

As previously covered by Beyond Pesticides in a Daily News titled Review of Science on Glyphosate Weed Killer in Poultry Production Highlights Extraordinary Health Threats, a scientific review in World’s Poultry Science Journal from last year highlights the adverse health effects on avian species from exposure to the widely used weed killer glyphosate (Roundupᵀᴹ) throughout the process of poultry production. The herbicide enters the poultry production system through residues in genetically engineered feed. An earlier article in Scientific Reports concludes that glyphosate’s (GLP) “widespread application on feed crops leaves residues in the feed,” while residues are “found to be common in conventional eggs acquired from grocery stores.”

In analyzing the biochemical, toxicological, and ecological impacts of glyphosate on poultry, particularly chickens, the authors find a wide body of evidence linking glyphosate and its metabolite (breakdown product) aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) to debilitating hazards. These sublethal effects include disruption of the gut microbiome and gastrointestinal disease; decreased productivity and diminished reproductive health; hepatic and kidney toxicity; growth and developmental impacts, including teratogenicity and embryotoxicity; endocrine disruption and oxidative stress; and impaired immune functions. Glyphosate residues in animal feed, as well as in water and through other exposure routes, pose risks to both animal and human health, as these residues can bioaccumulate and biomagnify throughout the food chain.

Study Methodology

In the present study, the three pesticides tebuconazole (TEB), imidacloprid (IMI), and glyphosate (GLP) are analyzed both singularly and in combination, based on “their extensive agricultural use, environmental persistence, and increasing evidence of adverse effects on reproductive health, even at low exposure levels.” TEB is a triazole fungicide known not to easily biodegrade, which leads to persistent contamination in soil, water, and food. (See studies here and here.) IMI is a neonicotinoid insecticide with high water solubility and environmental persistence. (See here and here.) Although IMI and other neonicotinoids are meant to target insect receptors, a multitude of studies have shown their negative effects on the mammalian reproductive system. While the EU banned outdoor agricultural uses of IMI in 2018, both the compound and its metabolites (breakdown products) are “frequently detected in soil, surface water, and feed samples, underscoring its environmental persistence and the continued occurrence of limited uses or legacy contamination.” The last active ingredient included in the study, GLP, is a nonselective herbicide used as a broad-spectrum weed killer and has a long history of adverse health and environmental effects. (See additional Daily News coverage here.)

The aim of the study is “to evaluate the effects of six weeks of dietary exposure to low, sublethal doses of tebuconazole, imidacloprid, and glyphosate—administered individually or in combination” and determine the impacts on reproductive performance in roosters. “Specifically, we assessed semen quality; fertilization and hatchability rates; embryonic mortality; and pesticide residues in the blood, semen, testicles, breast muscles, liver, and manure of roosters in vivo,” the researchers note. They continue: “In addition, we analyzed immune-related tissues (cecal tonsils and the spleen) to determine whether low-dose pesticide exposure modulates mucosal and systemic immune responses in poultry. These daily intake levels were derived from analytically confirmed pesticide concentrations in feed prepared at EU MRLs, reflecting environmentally realistic exposure scenarios.”

The study design includes eight groups, each with ten twenty-one-week-old roosters, exposed to the active ingredients in their feed for six weeks during Phase I, followed by a four-week pesticide-free recovery period for Phase II. The authors describe the experimental setup, saying: “Group 1 served as the control without pesticide residues in their diet. Group 2 received feed with the addition of TEB, group 3 with the addition of IMI, group 4 with the addition of GLP, group 5 with the addition of TEB + IMI, group 6 with the addition of TEB + GLP, group 7 with the addition of IMI + GLP, and group 8 with the addition of TEB + IMI + GLP.” This allowed for analysis of effects from each active ingredient individually and in pesticide mixtures.

Semen was collected throughout the experiment, in both phases I and II, and used to inseminate 40 hens (five females per group) to assess the “actual fertility of the roosters and the fertilization capability of their sperm in vivo.” Additionally, at both the six- and thirteen-week mark in the experiment, “five males from each group were euthanized, and samples of blood, tissues (testes, liver, and breast muscle), and manure were collected to assess pesticide residue levels.”

Results

After being fed the pesticide-supplemented diets for six weeks during Phase I, the roosters experienced several altered motility parameters, with the IMI+GLP combination group experiencing the “strongest negative effect, significantly reducing progressive motility.” During this time, IMI individually reduced sperm membrane integrity and led to a significant increase in embryonic mortality, and all groups with pesticide exposure showed a lower number of live sperm cells present in the samples. The authors also report that, “Six-week exposure to TEB, IMI, TEB+GLP, IMI+GLP, and TEB+IMI+GLP pesticides resulted in a significant reduction in fertility and hatchability compared with the control group.”

In the tissue samples, there is a significant accumulation of TEB in all examined tissues, with the highest levels detected in manure, followed by liver, breast muscle, and testes. IMI exposure “resulted in significant accumulation of this pesticide in the testes, liver, blood serum, semen, and manure,” while GLP “accumulated significantly in all analyzed tissues, body fluids, and manure compared with the control group.” For GLP, the highest concentrations occurred in manure and liver samples.

Other noteworthy results include that the “strongest reproductive impairments in fertility and hatchability rates were observed in the IMI+GLP and TEB+IMI+GLP groups” and that “after the interruption in pesticide exposure, the group receiving the combination of all three pesticides showed a decrease in sperm membrane integrity, indicating a persistent synergistic effect of their combined action.” All of these results indicate that exposure to low doses of pesticides in poultry feed, even within the MRLs set by the EU, can have clear adverse effects on reproductive endpoints.

In summary, the researchers say: “Our findings demonstrate that chronic exposure to sub-MRL levels of pesticides can compromise avian reproductive performance, as reflected by impaired sperm functionality, reduced fertilization success, altered embryo development, and decreased fertility and hatchability. Importantly, these reproductive impairments were accompanied by measurable pesticide residues in tissues and body fluids, along with alterations in peripheral immune organs… These findings further indicate that pesticide residues not only traverse the avian digestive system but also persist in excreta, thereby contributing to environmental circulation and potential long-term exposure pathways. In this context, current MRLs, largely derived from dietary risk assessments, may not fully capture risks to avian reproductive performance under chronic and combined exposures.”

Previous Research

Cited within the current study is additional research connecting pesticides to reproductive effects in multiple species. As the authors point out, pesticides are able to penetrate blood, semen, and tissues, and can lead to reproductive dysfunction. Noteworthy study results include:

• Long-term pesticide exposure adversely affects multiple systems, including the nervous system and the reproductive system, with specific detrimental effects on embryonic development.
• IMI markedly disrupts avian development and increases embryo mortality. (See here, here, and here.)
• IMI has also “been reported to significantly decrease hatchability and survival during early developmental stages in fish, such as Clarias gariepinus, and to induce morphological abnormalities in embryos and larvae.”
• Exposure to TEB in house sparrows (Passer domesticus) “results in its presence in eggs, which can disrupt embryonic development and reduce reproductive success.” (See research here.)
• TEB also disrupts “reproductive function in zebrafish by altering hormone levels and gene expression in the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal (HPG) axis, leading to reduced egg production and fertilization success.”
• There are negative impacts on reproductive capacity and hatchability from TEB exposure in multiple avian species. (See studies here and here.)
• Grey partridges with exposure to fungicides have decreased fertility, hatchability, and chick survival.
• Long-term exposure to GLP in broiler chickens leads to an accumulation in the egg yolk, as well as an increase in early embryonic mortality and delays in the development of surviving embryos. (See here.)
• For poultry, exposure to low levels of glyphosate residues in feed reduces egg hatchability.

Moving Forward

Given the complexities of the effects of pesticides and pesticide mixtures that are not adequately captured by regulatory processes, the consideration of alterative options is crucial. A holistic solution to the adverse health and environmental effects that occur as a result of chemical-intensive agriculture exists, and it is both commercially feasible and profitable. Organic agriculture prioritizes soil health, building a healthy foundation that eliminates the need for petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Organic land management methods safeguard the health of all, from poultry and wildlife to humans, as well as all ecosystems within the environment.

To make the full-scale transition to organic a reality, start by taking action: >>Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to become a cosponsor of the Opportunities in Organic Act, which has been reintroduced in early 2026 by U.S. Senator Peter Welch and U.S. Representative Jimmy Panetta. Learn more about organic poultry here and here, as well as additional health and environmental benefits of organic practices here.

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

Source:

Napierkowska, S. et al. (2026) Dietary exposure to pesticides in poultry: From semen quality to embryonic mortality and tissue accumulation, Poultry Science. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032579126000192.

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

Beyond Pesticides responded with a nationwide action to Tell members of the U.S. House of Representatives to stop provisions in the Farm Bill that shield chemical companies from liability for the harm caused by their products, intrude on local communities’ democratic right to restrict pesticides, and eliminate pesticide restrictions governing clean water, environmental impacts, and endangered species; with a request to support the transition to organic agricultural practices.

In January, Politico reported that, “Craig and other House Ag Democrats are hoping that Senate Agriculture Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) will put forward a more bipartisan bill in his chamber. Boozman has already said he’s likely to leave out some controversial provisions—including the labeling preemption for pesticide makers — in order to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.”

The chair of the Agriculture Committee, in releasing the Republican Farm Bill text in three separate sections: (i) prohibits lawsuits by farmers and consumers harmed by pesticides for which manufacturers failed to provide complete safety warnings (Section 10205); (ii) takes away the authority of local governments to protect residents and the local environment from pesticide use (Section 10206), and; (iii) repeals requirements in numerous federal statutes to protect against local pesticide contamination that could affect waterways, drinking water, federal projects, endangered species, migratory birds, and toxic waste (Section 10207).

Expected to be put to a committee vote as early as February 23, the basic right to sue chemical manufacturers for the harm caused by their toxic products and their failure to warn about those hazards is being threatened (Section 10205). Litigation has always been a tool for holding manufacturers accountable for the damages they cause, providing an important check on the marketing of products beyond baseline regulations issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While this has always been of fundamental importance, environmental and public health advocates say it is especially critical with the current dismantling of EPA and deregulation of the chemical industry. “Instead of destroying incentives to ensure corporate responsibility, Congress through the Farm Bill should be facilitating the transition to ecological-based practices, like federally defined organic methods, that address the existential health, biodiversity, and climate issues of our time,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. 

Beyond revoking this basic right to be warned of product hazards, the legislation preempts the authority of local governments to protect their residents from pesticide exposure, as determined by state governments (reversing a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier | 501 U.S. 597, 1991) (Section 10206). Furthermore, the bill exempts registered pesticides from further “permitting or approval requirements,” which could include permits to restrict pesticides under the Clean Water Act, requirements for an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act, or meet review standards under the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Act, and other statutes affecting pesticide storage, transportation, and toxic waste (Section 10207). 

Chemical manufacturers, led by Bayer/Monsanto, have been moving across the U.S. with state legislation to shield manufacturers from lawsuits by consumers and farmers who have been damaged by pesticides and not warned of hazards, like cancer. Now, they are moving their chemical company immunity campaign to the U.S. Congress, and then the Supreme Court. This follows years of successful litigation against Monsanto and over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements on adverse effects of the weed killer glyphosate/Roundup. 

Chemical-intensive agriculture is a significant contributor to human illness, environmental pollution, loss of biodiversity, and global climate change—principally through its dependence on chemical pesticides and fertilizers. These negative impacts—as well as property and crop damage to neighbors caused by drift—are known as “externalities” because their costs are not borne by those who profit from the practices that cause them. Certified organic agriculture, on the other hand, is specifically required by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) to eliminate those adverse effects. Thus, organic farmers internalize the costs of providing food without harm to people and the planet.

With the Farm Bill under consideration, the industry is engaged in a multi-pronged attack on long-standing protections. 

Liability and Failure to Warn (Reject Section 10205) 
The courts have ruled on the liability principle over the history of pesticide regulation. A 2005 Supreme Court decision, in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC | 544 U.S. 431 (2005), upheld the right of farmers in Texas, who followed the pesticide label and experienced crop loss, to sue for damages. The manufacturer argued unsuccessfully that because it registered its product with EPA, the farmers were preempted from suing them. The principle supporting opposition to industry efforts to legislate immunity for manufacturers’ failure to warn is similar. Those who suffer harm through no fault of their own must be able to sue for manufacturers’ failure to provide a warning on the product label. Earlier this year, it was reported in Politico that Agriculture Committee chair, Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA), was “pushing to pass a bill that would create federal preemption for pesticide labeling” so that manufacturers will not be held liable for hiding adverse effects information. He further said that the bill will be a critical opportunity to include the pesticide and agriculture industry-based measure.  

Preemption of State and Local Authority (Reject Section 10206) 
In an attempt to consolidate authority in the federal government, where the chemical industry wields tremendous influence, amendments to the Farm Bill will preempt local and state authority to allow more stringent standards governing pesticide use. Local restrictions on pesticide use in the face of ongoing poisoning and contamination have shown that effective land management does not require toxic pesticide use. Historically, localities have exercised their democratic right to protect public health and safety where state and federal standards are not adequately protective of their residents. Local governments have exercised this right in many areas affecting the health of people and the environment, such as with smoking, recycling, dog waste, and other standards. 

Exemption of Pesticides from Reviews to Protect Water, Ecosystems, and Endangered Species (Reject Section 10207) 
With broad language, the bill exempts pesticides registered by EPA from all other permitting and approval requirements under other statutes intended to ensure protection of waterways, federal lands and related projects, endangered species, migratory birds, and pesticide storage, transportation, and toxic waste. Permitting and approval processes that could be affected include permits required to restrict pesticide discharges into waterways, environmental impacts statements to establish safer practices for federal lands and projects, and additional and higher standards of review to protect endangered species and biodiversity. 

Transition to Organic 
While seeking to retain these authorities and ensure accountability of harm and the right to protect communities from weak federal restrictions, there are opportunities in the Farm Bill to support the transition to organic land management. Important measures to incorporate in the Farm Bill include:  

• Full funding for the Organic Certification Cost Share Program; 

• The collection and reporting of organic dairy data, which is essential to the viability of organic dairy producers; 

• Adequate resources for the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) to effectively oversee and enforce organic standards; and, 

• Increased investment in organic research to keep pace with the growth of the organic sector. 

Tell members of the U.S. House of Representatives to stop provisions in the Farm Bill that shield chemical companies from liability for the harm caused by their products, intrude on local communities’ democratic right to restrict pesticides, and eliminate pesticide restrictions governing clean water, environmental impacts, and endangered species. Ask them to support the transition to organic agricultural practices. 

*If a member is on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, submitted letters will automatically adjust to recognize Committee membership. 

Beyond Pesticides urges people, in addition to submitting letters, to call their member of Congress. Click here for specific phone numbers for members of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, with a targeted message available below. *Committee members are highlighted if they DID NOT sign on to a letter calling on House leadership to reject pesticide preemption in the Farm Bill or any other legislative package in 2026. 

Letter to Members of the U.S. House of Representatives (not on the Agriculture Committee): 
As the Farm Bill comes up for a vote in the House Agriculture Committee in the next week, I am writing to ask you to reach out to your colleagues on the Committee and request that they:

1. Help keep chemical company liability shields out of the Farm Bill. (Reject Section 10205.) Please oppose and urge your colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee to reject in the Farm Bill chemical manufacturer immunity from liability associated with the harm caused by toxic pesticide use and manufacturers’ failure to warn users of potential hazards. This is bad for farmers and consumers, so help stop these provisions in the markup process and when the bill is put up for a floor vote.
2. Protect states’ authority to protect the public from pesticides, including on their own property, by keeping preemption language out of the Farm Bill. (Reject Section 20106.) Please ask your colleagues to stop the attack on local and state authority to restrict pesticides. As communities seek to exercise their democratic right to protect health and the environment in the face of pesticide exposure, it is clear that effective land management of parks, playing fields, and schoolyards does not require toxic pesticide use. As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States, and with respect to the legacy of individual rights and respect for the Constitution and balance of government between federal, state, and local branches, Congress should not be stepping into states to tell local governments that they cannot exercise this right, as communities have done with smoking, recycling, dog waste, and other standards. 
3. Protect water, ecosystems, and endangered species. (Reject Section 10207.) Help stop broad language that exempts EPA-registered pesticides from all other permitting and approval requirements under statutes intended to ensure protection of waterways, federal lands and related projects, and endangered species. Permitting and approval processes that could be affected include permits required to restrict pesticide discharges into waterways (Clean Water Act), environmental impact statements to establish safer practices for federal lands and projects (National Environmental Policy Act), and additional and higher standards of review to protect endangered species and biodiversity (Endangered Species Act).
4. Adopt provisions in the Farm Bill that support the transition to organic agriculture. Ask your colleagues on the Agriculture Committee to support:

• Full funding for the Organic Certification Cost Share Program;
• The collection and reporting of organic dairy data, which is essential to the viability of organic dairy producers;
• Adequate resources for the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) to effectively oversee and enforce organic standards; and,
• Increased investment in organic research to keep pace with the growth of the organic sector.

The agricultural sector, and communities across the nation, have been waiting since 2018 for a reauthorization of Farm Bill programs and priorities. Please tell your colleagues on the Agriculture Committee to prevent the adoption of poison pill liability immunity, preemption provisions, and weakened standards for the protection of waterways, ecosystems, and endangered species, while supporting the transition to organic agricultural practices.

Thank you!

Letter to U.S. House Agriculture Committee Members:
I am writing to ask you to:

1. Keep chemical company liability shields out of the Farm Bill. (Reject Section 20105.) Please oppose in the Farm Bill chemical manufacturer immunity from liability associated with the harm caused by toxic pesticide use and manufacturers’ failure to warn users of potential hazards. This is bad for farmers and consumers, so help stop these provisions in the markup process or when the bill is put up for a floor vote.
2. Help protect states’ authority to protect the public from pesticides, including on their own property, by keeping preemption language out of the Farm Bill. (Reject Section 10206.) Please stop the attack on local and state authority to restrict pesticides. As communities seek to exercise their democratic right to protect health and the environment in the face of pesticide exposure, it is clear that effective land management of parks, playing fields, and schoolyards does not require toxic pesticide use. As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States, and with respect to the legacy of individual rights and respect for the Constitution and balance of government between federal, state, and local branches, Congress should not be stepping into states to tell local governments that they cannot exercise this right, as communities have done with smoking, recycling, dog waste, and other standards.
3. Protect water, ecosystems, and endangered species. (Reject Section 10207.) Stop broad language that exempts EPA-registered pesticides from all other permitting and approval requirements under statutes intended to ensure protection of waterways, federal lands and related projects, and endangered species. Permitting and approval processes that could be affected include permits required to restrict pesticide discharges into waterways (Clean Water Act), environmental impact statements to establish safer practices for federal lands and projects (National Environmental Policy Act), and additional and higher standards of review to protect endangered species and biodiversity (Endangered Species Act).
4. Support provisions in the Farm Bill that advance the transition to organic agriculture. Please support:

• Full funding for the Organic Certification Cost Share Program;
• The collection and reporting of organic dairy data, which is essential to the viability of organic dairy producers;
• Adequate resources for the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) to effectively oversee and enforce organic standards; and,
• Increased investment in organic research to keep pace with the growth of the organic sector.

The agricultural sector, and communities across the nation, have been waiting since 2018 for a reauthorization of Farm Bill programs and priorities. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, please prevent the adoption of poison pill liability immunity, preemption provisions, and weakened standards for the protection of waterways, ecosystems, and endangered species, while supporting the transition to organic agricultural practices.

Thank you!

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

Beyond Pesticides responded with a nationwide action to Tell members of the U.S. House of Representatives to stop provisions in the Farm Bill that shield chemical companies from liability for the harm caused by their products, intrude on local communities’ democratic right to restrict pesticides, and eliminate pesticide restrictions governing clean water, environmental impacts, and endangered species; with a request to support the transition to organic agricultural practices. 

Expected to be put to a committee vote as early as February 23, the basic right to sue chemical manufacturers for the harm caused by their toxic products and their failure to warn about those hazards is being threatened (Section 10205). Litigation has always been a tool for holding manufacturers accountable for the damages they cause, providing an important check on the marketing of products beyond baseline regulations issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While this has always been of fundamental importance, environmental and public health advocates say it is especially critical with the current dismantling of EPA and deregulation of the chemical industry. “Instead of destroying incentives to ensure corporate responsibility, Congress through the Farm Bill should be facilitating the transition to ecological-based practices, like federally defined organic methods, that address the existential health, biodiversity, and climate issues of our time,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. 

Beyond revoking this basic right to be warned of product hazards, the legislation preempts the authority of local governments to protect their residents from pesticide exposure, as determined by state governments (reversing a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier | 501 U.S. 597, 1991) (Section 10206). Furthermore, the bill exempts registered pesticides from further “permitting or approval requirements,” which could include permits to restrict pesticides under the Clean Water Act, requirements for an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act, or meet review standards under the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Act, and other statutes affecting pesticide storage, transportation, and toxic waste (Section 10207). 

Chemical manufacturers, led by Bayer/Monsanto, have been moving across the U.S. with state legislation to shield manufacturers from lawsuits by consumers and farmers who have been damaged by pesticides and not warned of hazards, like cancer. Now, they are moving their chemical company immunity campaign to the U.S. Congress, and then the Supreme Court. This follows years of successful litigation against Monsanto and over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements on adverse effects of the weed killer glyphosate/Roundup. 

Chemical-intensive agriculture is a significant contributor to human illness, environmental pollution, loss of biodiversity, and global climate change—principally through its dependence on chemical pesticides and fertilizers. These negative impacts—as well as property and crop damage to neighbors caused by drift—are known as “externalities” because their costs are not borne by those who profit from the practices that cause them. Certified organic agriculture, on the other hand, is specifically required by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) to eliminate those adverse effects. Thus, organic farmers internalize the costs of providing food without harm to people and the planet.

With the Farm Bill under consideration, the industry is engaged in a multi-pronged attack on long-standing protections. 

Liability and Failure to Warn (Reject Section 10205) 
The courts have ruled on the liability principle over the history of pesticide regulation. A 2005 Supreme Court decision, in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC | 544 U.S. 431 (2005), upheld the right of farmers in Texas, who followed the pesticide label and experienced crop loss, to sue for damages. The manufacturer argued unsuccessfully that because it registered its product with EPA, the farmers were preempted from suing them. The principle supporting opposition to industry efforts to legislate immunity for manufacturers’ failure to warn is similar. Those who suffer harm through no fault of their own must be able to sue for manufacturers’ failure to provide a warning on the product label. Earlier this year, it was reported in Politico that Agriculture Committee chair, Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA), was “pushing to pass a bill that would create federal preemption for pesticide labeling” so that manufacturers will not be held liable for hiding adverse effects information. He further said that the bill will be a critical opportunity to include the pesticide and agriculture industry-based measure.  

Preemption of State and Local Authority (Reject Section 10206) 
In an attempt to consolidate authority in the federal government, where the chemical industry wields tremendous influence, amendments to the Farm Bill will preempt local and state authority to allow more stringent standards governing pesticide use. Local restrictions on pesticide use in the face of ongoing poisoning and contamination have shown that effective land management does not require toxic pesticide use. Historically, localities have exercised their democratic right to protect public health and safety where state and federal standards are not adequately protective of their residents. Local governments have exercised this right in many areas affecting the health of people and the environment, such as with smoking, recycling, dog waste, and other standards. 

Exemption of Pesticides from Reviews to Protect Water, Ecosystems, and Endangered Species (Reject Section 10207) 
With broad language, the bill exempts pesticides registered by EPA from all other permitting and approval requirements under other statutes intended to ensure protection of waterways, federal lands and related projects, endangered species, migratory birds, and pesticide storage, transportation, and toxic waste. Permitting and approval processes that could be affected include permits required to restrict pesticide discharges into waterways, environmental impacts statements to establish safer practices for federal lands and projects, and additional and higher standards of review to protect endangered species and biodiversity. 

Transition to Organic 
While seeking to retain these authorities and ensure accountability of harm and the right to protect communities from weak federal restrictions, there are opportunities in the Farm Bill to support the transition to organic land management. Important measures to incorporate in the Farm Bill include:  

• Full funding for the Organic Certification Cost Share Program; 

• The collection and reporting of organic dairy data, which is essential to the viability of organic dairy producers; 

• Adequate resources for the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) to effectively oversee and enforce organic standards; and, 

• Increased investment in organic research to keep pace with the growth of the organic sector. 

Tell members of the U.S. House of Representatives to stop provisions in the Farm Bill that shield chemical companies from liability for the harm caused by their products, intrude on local communities’ democratic right to restrict pesticides, and eliminate pesticide restrictions governing clean water, environmental impacts, and endangered species. Ask them to support the transition to organic agricultural practices. *If a member is on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, submitted letters will automatically adjust to recognize Committee membership. 

Beyond Pesticides urges people, in addition to submitting letters, to call their member of Congress. Click here for specific phone numbers for members of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, with a targeted message available below. *Committee members are highlighted if they DID NOT sign on to a letter calling on House leadership to reject pesticide preemption in the Farm Bill or any other legislative package in 2026. 

Letter to Members of the U.S. House of Representatives (not on the Agriculture Committee): 
As the Farm Bill comes up for a vote in the House Agriculture Committee in the next week, I am writing to ask you to reach out to your colleagues on the Committee and request that they:

1. Help keep chemical company liability shields out of the Farm Bill. (Reject Section 10205.) Please oppose and urge your colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee to reject in the Farm Bill chemical manufacturer immunity from liability associated with the harm caused by toxic pesticide use and manufacturers’ failure to warn users of potential hazards. This is bad for farmers and consumers, so help stop these provisions in the markup process and when the bill is put up for a floor vote. 

2. Protect states’ authority to protect the public from pesticides, including on their own property, by keeping preemption language out of the Farm Bill. (Reject Section 20106.) Please ask your colleagues to stop the attack on local and state authority to restrict pesticides. As communities seek to exercise their democratic right to protect health and the environment in the face of pesticide exposure, it is clear that effective land management of parks, playing fields, and schoolyards does not require toxic pesticide use. As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States, and with respect to the legacy of individual rights and respect for the Constitution and balance of government between federal, state, and local branches, Congress should not be stepping into states to tell local governments that they cannot exercise this right, as communities have done with smoking, recycling, dog waste, and other standards. 

4. Protect water, ecosystems, and endangered species. (Reject Section 10207.) Help stop broad language that exempts EPA-registered pesticides from all other permitting and approval requirements under statutes intended to ensure protection of waterways, federal lands and related projects, and endangered species. Permitting and approval processes that could be affected include permits required to restrict pesticide discharges into waterways (Clean Water Act), environmental impact statements to establish safer practices for federal lands and projects (National Environmental Policy Act), and additional and higher standards of review to protect endangered species and biodiversity (Endangered Species Act).
   
   
5. Adopt provisions in the Farm Bill that support the transition to organic agriculture. Ask your colleagues on the Agriculture Committee to support:

• Full funding for the Organic Certification Cost Share Program;
• The collection and reporting of organic dairy data, which is essential to the viability of organic dairy producers;
• Adequate resources for the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) to effectively oversee and enforce organic standards; and,
• Increased investment in organic research to keep pace with the growth of the organic sector.

The agricultural sector, and communities across the nation, have been waiting since 2018 for a reauthorization of Farm Bill programs and priorities. Please tell your colleagues on the Agriculture Committee to prevent the adoption of poison pill liability immunity, preemption provisions, and weakened standards for the protection of waterways, ecosystems, and endangered species, while supporting the transition to organic agricultural practices.

Thank you!

Letter to U.S. House Agriculture Committee Members:
I am writing to ask you to:

1. Keep chemical company liability shields out of the Farm Bill. (Reject Section 20105.) Please oppose in the Farm Bill chemical manufacturer immunity from liability associated with the harm caused by toxic pesticide use and manufacturers’ failure to warn users of potential hazards. This is bad for farmers and consumers, so help stop these provisions in the markup process or when the bill is put up for a floor vote.

2. Help protect states’ authority to protect the public from pesticides, including on their own property, by keeping preemption language out of the Farm Bill. (Reject Section 10206.) Please stop the attack on local and state authority to restrict pesticides. As communities seek to exercise their democratic right to protect health and the environment in the face of pesticide exposure, it is clear that effective land management of parks, playing fields, and schoolyards does not require toxic pesticide use. As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States, and with respect to the legacy of individual rights and respect for the Constitution and balance of government between federal, state, and local branches, Congress should not be stepping into states to tell local governments that they cannot exercise this right, as communities have done with smoking, recycling, dog waste, and other standards.

3. Protect water, ecosystems, and endangered species. (Reject Section 10207.) Stop broad language that exempts EPA-registered pesticides from all other permitting and approval requirements under statutes intended to ensure protection of waterways, federal lands and related projects, and endangered species. Permitting and approval processes that could be affected include permits required to restrict pesticide discharges into waterways (Clean Water Act), environmental impact statements to establish safer practices for federal lands and projects (National Environmental Policy Act), and additional and higher standards of review to protect endangered species and biodiversity (Endangered Species Act).

4. Support provisions in the Farm Bill that advance the transition to organic agriculture. Please support:

• Full funding for the Organic Certification Cost Share Program;
• The collection and reporting of organic dairy data, which is essential to the viability of organic dairy producers;
• Adequate resources for the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) to effectively oversee and enforce organic standards; and,
• Increased investment in organic research to keep pace with the growth of the organic sector.

The agricultural sector, and communities across the nation, have been waiting since 2018 for a reauthorization of Farm Bill programs and priorities. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, please prevent the adoption of poison pill liability immunity, preemption provisions, and weakened standards for the protection of waterways, ecosystems, and endangered species, while supporting the transition to organic agricultural practices.

Thank you!

(Beyond Pesticides, February 13, 2026) In a novel, continent-wide study of soil biodiversity throughout Europe published in Nature, researchers find 70% of the sampled sites contain pesticide residues, which “emerged as the second strongest driver of soil biodiversity patterns after soil properties,” particularly in croplands. As soil biodiversity is key for ecosystem functioning, agricultural and land management practices that safeguard biodiversity are imperative. This study, however, highlights how pesticides alter microbial functions, including phosphorus and nitrogen cycling, and suppress beneficial taxa, such as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and bacterivore nematodes, and adds to a wide body of science that links pesticide residues in soil to adverse effects on biodiversity.

In analyzing 373 sites across woodlands, grasslands, and croplands in 26 European countries, and examining the effects of 63 pesticides on soil archaea, bacteria, fungi, protists, nematodes, arthropods, and key functional gene groups, the data reveals “organism- and function-specific patterns, emphasizing complex and widespread non-target effects on soil biodiversity.” As the authors state, “[T]o our knowledge, ours is the first study to demonstrate the relative importance of pesticides in comparison to soil properties, ecosystem type and climate at a continental scale.”

Study Importance

As Kristin Ohlson describes in her book The Soil Will Save Us, soil holds much more than meets the eye: “[W]hen we stand on the surface of the earth, we’re atop a vast underground kingdom of microorganisms without life as we know it wouldn’t exist. Trillions of microorganisms, even in my own smallish backyard, like a great dark sea swarming with tiny creatures—it almost makes me feel a little seasick standing there, knowing how much business is being conducted right under my feet.” These organisms living belowground play a vital role in ecosystem functions and services, including food production, carbon storage, erosion control, and water regulation.

As the current study states: “In addition to hosting nearly 59% of the Earth’s biodiversity, soils also act as sinks for contaminants, such as pesticides applied aboveground. These pesticides can persist in soils for extended periods, depending on their chemical properties and soil adsorption and absorption capacities.” While a multitude of previous studies (see examples below) find negative effects on soil organisms from pesticide exposure, “these studies have been spatially limited by focusing on specific countries and agroeco-systems, selected soil biota, and by including a very limited number of pesticide compounds,” the researchers say. “Therefore, the effects of multiple pesticides on complex soil communities at large geographical scales and across different ecosystem types have not been addressed, but are crucially needed to better assess biodiversity under pesticide pressure.”

Current risk assessments do not comprehensively access the effects of pesticides on soil microbiota, as they primarily focus the exposure of individual active ingredients to representative species, such as earthworms (Eisenia fetida), nematodes (Caenorhabditis elegans) and collembolans (Folsomia candida), “with specific endpoints such as mineralization and nitrogen transformation (for microbes, nitrate formation), and do not consider a wide range of field conditions and the effects of long-term exposure.” (See study here.) This limits the ability to assess broader ecological impacts of pesticide use on soil life, especially in mixtures with potential synergistic effects, on the wide range of soil organisms that can have species-specific effects.

Methodology and Results

The authors, while assessing 373 total sites across woodlands, grasslands, and croplands, focus primarily on cropland soils where pesticides are directly applied to understand the influence of pesticide active ingredients and their metabolites on soil biodiversity. “We hypothesized that pesticides influence soil biodiversity, more so in these intensively managed ecosystems,” they note. “To test this, we assessed the relationships between each pesticide concentration and:

(1) the richness and diversity (Shannon index) of each taxonomic group;

(2) their combined diversity (multidiversity);

(3) the relative abundance of functional groups; and

(4) the diversity of the functional gene groups.”  

This takes into account other environmental drivers, including soil properties, climate, and ecosystem type, which then allows for the quantification of the relative importance of pesticide concentrations in shaping soil biodiversity in comparison.

All samples were collected during a single vegetation growing season from April to October in 2018, which occurred at “210 annual croplands (for example, maize and wheat), 34 permanent croplands (for example, vineyards, orchards and olive groves), 19 recently converted grasslands (that is, former croplands not cultivated for at least one year and not subjected to crop rotation, abandoned croplands and temporary grasslands), 97 extensive grasslands and 13 woodlands (including 6 coniferous and 7 broadleaved forests).” The study included sites other than those located in croplands to show how contamination can extend into surrounding ecosystems.

The results reveal:

• Throughout the five ecosystem types, a total number of 63 different pesticides are detected, with one or more pesticides at 70% of the sites.
• Of the 63 detected pesticides, 10 have been discontinued for use in the European Union at the time of sampling.
• 54% of the pesticides detected are fungicides, with 34.9% as herbicides and the remainder as insecticides (11.1%).
• “The highest numbers of residues and cumulative pesticide concentration were found in annual and permanent croplands, followed by grasslands and woodlands.”
• “The most sensitive gene groups affected by pesticides (fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides) in croplands were bacterial genes involved in the denitrification and chitin degradation.”
• The most commonly detected pesticides are the weedkiller glyphosate and its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), followed by the fungicide boscalid, herbicide pendimethalin, and fungicide epoxiconazole.
• “We found that the effects of pesticide concentrations in croplands (both annual and permanent crops) varied depending on organism taxonomical and functional group, and the pesticide involved.” For instance, fungi have multiple negative associations, with their richness particularly decreasing when exposed to four fungicides (boscalid, carbendazim, dimethomorph, and fluopyram) and the herbicide diflufenican.
• Bixafen concentrations cause a “decrease in fungal plant pathogens, a reduction in the richness of protists, nematodes and arthropods, as well as a reduction in the diversity of archaea, bacteria and arthropods.” Higher doses of carbendazim, fenpropidin, and epoxiconazole also reduce the relative abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF).
• Glyphosate causes declines in the “richness of protists and nematodes, the diversity of fungi and arthropods, and the abundance of archaeal nitrifiers and bacterivore nematodes.”
• AMF and bacterivore nematodes are negatively correlated with higher concentrations of the herbicide
• “As expected, the contribution of pesticides to explaining variation in soil biodiversity was consistently higher in croplands alone than when considering croplands together with other ecosystems. This pattern held across taxonomic groups, functional groups (up to 29.5% of variation explained in croplands and 17.4% across all ecosystems… These results confirm the central influence of pesticides on soil biodiversity in cropland systems and highlight the importance of including non-croplands to detect spillover effects and broader ecological patterns.”

The pesticide-driven changes documented in this study show a close link between taxonomic and functional diversity, as well as how soil biodiversity is influenced by pesticides in varied ways, “depending on the ecosystem, organism group, gene function, and type of pesticide, with both direct and indirect effects on many non-target groups and their roles in the soil.” As this study highlights, the relationship between pesticide residues and soil biodiversity is complex and organism-specific, with non-target effects that impact ecosystem functioning and stability.

Previous Research

Prior studies show that pesticides negatively affect the abundance and diversity of soil organisms, including soil invertebrates like earthworms, nematodes, and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Controlled experiments (see here and here) find that pesticides can disrupt soil food web functioning by simultaneously affecting several non-target organisms.

Daily News published last year, titled “Soil Nematodes Vital to Plant Health Threatened by Nontarget Pesticide Exposure, Study Finds,” shares research in Advances in Modern Agriculture documenting pesticide residues threatening the health of soil nematodes and causing phytotoxic effects in cucumber plants. In assessing both the sprayed vegetables and the organisms within the soil, the authors find a negative correlation between pesticide exposure and soil nematode populations that is proportional to the application rates of the chemicals, as well as alterations in plant development. These impacts highlight potential wider effects on crop productivity, biodiversity, and human health.

Additional research in the journal Biology and Fertility of Soils confirms once again that soil health is harmed by conventional, chemical-intensive farming practices, but that organic agriculture can improve the impacted ecological functioning. The study shows that 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. (See Daily News here.)

Protecting the Soil Microbiome and Health of All

Soil health is essential not only for biodiversity and ecosystem function but for sustainable food production. A plethora of studies prove organic agriculture provides soil health benefits, has a significantly lower environmental impact than conventional food production, is more profitable and productive, provides human health benefits, and mitigates the crises of climate change and wildlife biodiversity. See the Pesticides and You article, Supporting Life in the Soil—The Foundation of an Organic System, for more information.

Take Action: >> Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to become a cosponsor of the Opportunities in Organic Act, which has been reintroduced in early 2026 by U.S. Senator Peter Welch and U.S. Representative Jimmy Panetta.

***

This Valentine’s Day—Taste the Difference: Organic Wine for a Meaningful Impact 

This Valentine’s Day, as an alternative to flowers for your loved ones [please see our Action and don’t poison your valentine!], discover the wines from the Frey family—long valued sponsors of our National Forum series and a fourth-generation, family-owned and operated winery located at the pristine headwaters of the Russian River in Redwood Valley, Mendocino County, California.  

Frey Vineyards has generously partnered with us and our network to offer a special discount on their incredible selection of wines—part of which is donated to Beyond Pesticides [25%]! ✨ We raise a glass to you, Frey Vineyards, for your commitment to an organic future and allyship in leading the transition to a world free of toxic pesticides!  ↪️ Use promo code BEYOND20 at checkout to enjoy 20% OFF your Frey Wine purchase and FREE SHIPPING! https://www.freywine.com?couponCode=BEYOND20  

 Fan favorites from our staff include: the Organic Late Harvest Zinfandel (2022), “rich, jammy flavors of ripe blackberry and dark cherry, with notes of raisin, fig, and a hint of sweet spice, balanced by a velvety texture and a lingering, smooth finish,” the Organic Viognier (2018) with “succulent flavors of Asian pear and custard apple leading to a creamy mouthfeel,” and the Biodynamic Sauvignon Blanc (2022), with “notes of lemon custard, pineapple, and guava with deftly balanced acidity.” 

Since 1980, America’s first Organic and Biodynamic Winery has been producing award-winning Organic and Biodynamic wines without added sulfites. In the U.S., only wine made with organic grapes and naturally occurring sulfites can be labeled organic.   

Please remember to enjoy responsibly. For more information on the benefits of organic systems, click here:  https://www.beyondpesticides.org/programs/organic-agriculture/overview  

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

Source:

Köninger, J. et al. (2026) Pesticide residues alter taxonomic and functional biodiversity in soils, Nature. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09991-z.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 12, 2026) Editor’s Note. This is a piece about improving risk assessments and a proposal that could offer a more realistic characterization of the harm associated with the complexities of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides notes that risk assessment methodology, unless it is considered in the context of a rigorous alternatives assessment, begins with the mostly false assumption that petrochemical pesticides are needed (or are essential) to achieve cost-effective pest management, agricultural productivity and profitability, and quality of life, when, in fact, this is not the case. Therefore, improved risk calculations—as the article being reviewed here proposes—while important to characterizing the harm and the unknown adverse effects associated with pesticide use, still impose some level of harm deemed by the government to be acceptable. Even worse, the adverse effects of exposure cannot be fully characterized because of uncertainties or a lack of data on harmful endpoints, as is the case currently with endocrine-disrupting pesticides not fully evaluated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), or other regulatory bodies. These pesticides are known to induce cancer, reproductive harm, infertility, biodiversity decline, and other life-threatening, often multigenerational, effects. The authors do recognize the serious challenges in developing an accurate assessment of risk, acknowledging that field mixtures of pesticides constitute countless variations that would need to be anticipated. And, they recognize that risk mitigation measures typically respond to risk assessments, but are not sufficient to achieve an “acceptable” risk. However, we emphasize that the basic standard in federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), requires protection against “unreasonable adverse effects” to people and the environment, a standard that should not, but does currently, allow for hazards or uncertainties when less- or non-toxic alternatives are available. Even so-called health-based standards reliant on risk assessments, such as the tolerance setting process in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), accept a level of harm and uncertainty despite the availability of practices and products that eliminate the identified risk. We urge better assessment of harm and full disclosure of what is not known so that clear-eyed decisions can be made to take meaningful precautionary steps to adopt alternative practices and products, now available, to tackle the existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises of our time.

A University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) report, Building Capacity for Robust Pesticide Regulation: Part I – Cumulative Impacts, underscores some of the critical gaps in federal and state pesticide law and the opportunity for comprehensive reform to strengthen cumulative impact assessments for pesticide products. The main authors of this report—Timothy Malloy, JD, professor at UCLA School of Law, and Patrick Allard, PhD, professor at UCLA Institute for Society and Genetics— build on three previous reports (see here, here, and here) to assess these gaps and opportunities from regulatory, scientific, legal, policy, and environmental justice perspectives. The main goal for this specific report is to develop a toolbox of scientific methodologies/approaches for California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and the local permitting process by county agricultural commissioners (CACs) to engage in more comprehensive and cumulative impact assessments under their purview.

Even in a state like California, which has passed legislation requiring the assessment of cumulative impacts by DPR’s pesticide registration process and CAC’s local permitting system, implementation remains insufficient due to a lack of clear methods and guidance from the top down. The report calls for a paradigm shift from the whack-a-mole approach focusing on regulating individual pesticides to a cumulative risk framework, citing various cumulative risk assessment methodologies.

Public health and environmental advocates continue to call for a transition to organic land management practices that are consistent with the precautionary principle of no tolerance for pollution from synthetic and fossil-fuel-based agrichemicals, given the failure of risk assessment-based systems to adequately address the public health, biodiversity, and climate crises. In a regulatory and political environment riddled with industry influence, communities are seeking to protect themselves from toxic chemical exposure and the threats of biodiversity collapse and the climate crisis through the adoption of nature-forward pest management consistent with organic principles. (See here, here, and here for examples.)

Key Concepts from the Report

The authors first distinguish between some key concepts, including cumulative exposure, cumulative risk, cumulative impact, and pesticide mixtures. This is followed by the authors’ proposal for alternative methodologies, incorporating cumulative impact assessment of pesticide mixtures into regulatory review.

Cumulative exposure refers to the various pathways (e.g., soil, air, water) and routes (e.g., ingestion, dermal, inhalation) through which pesticide exposure occurs. Cumulative risk is the combined risk from multiple exposures, with cumulative impact stacking on additional dimensions (or “stressors,” as the report refers to them), including socio-economic status or heat stress, among others.

The report also describes three types of pesticide mixtures, some of which individuals or communities simultaneously face. These include the following:

• Product mixtures, where one registered pesticide product is a pre-mixed formulation of multiple active ingredients, “inert” ingredients, adjuvants, and other substances. For example, the new (as of 2024) Roundup Weed and Grass Killer “Exclusive Formula” consists of triclopyr, fluazifop, and diquat—three different active ingredients registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) within one product.
• Field mixtures, where multiple pesticide products are added to a tank and simultaneously sprayed on crops—either because the EPA-registered label is “silent with respect to mixing, leaving the decision to the grower or applicator” or “the application instructions on the product label require or encourage mixing with other pesticides or with materials such as emulsifiers or wetting agents.”
• Coincidental mixtures, when separate applications from individual pesticide products and field mixtures from adjacent fields form into new combinations that could lead to additive (synergistic) or subtractive effects.

Legal and Regulatory History

California’s pesticide regulatory regime is a two-tiered system—DPR at the state level registering pesticide products and CACs at the county level permitting their use. As stated in the report,

“With very limited exceptions described below, DPR does not evaluate the impacts of any of the three cumulative exposure scenarios. DPR guidance and website statements do not discuss the agency’s approach to cumulative exposures. Indeed, in evaluating the DPR’s risk assessment process, the National Research Council concluded in 2015 that ‘[t]he extent to which DPR has considered such cumulative risk assessments is unclear.’”

The most significant legal development in recent memory was a state court decision (PANNA v. DPR 2017) that clarified the scope of state regulatory agencies engaged in risk assessment for pesticides in the context of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)’s mandate for evaluating cumulative environmental impacts for agency decision making.

Before this case, it was unclear whether DPR’s pesticide registration regulatory process was subject to CEQA; the court’s decision clarified that DPR must analyze cumulative effects for new pesticide active ingredients, and CACs cannot ignore cumulative impacts in their local permitting decision-making. While federal pesticide registration law governed by FIFRA does not require cumulative impact assessment, under the federal tolerance setting process, EPA is required to conduct a cumulative risk assessment for food use pesticides that have a “common mechanism of toxicity.” The governing law for the setting of food tolerances, FFDCA [Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v)—21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(D)(v)], requires that the cumulative analysis for food use pesticides includes non-dietary exposure. (See EPA guidance.)

Cumulative Impact Assessments for Pesticide Mixtures

There are several cross-cutting principles that created the foundation for the report’s main recommendations:

• Understand the strengths and weaknesses of the regulatory bodies in question; for example, DPR has more scientific and regulatory capacity, CACs have local knowledge but limited staff with scientific expertise, and the state’s scientific health agency (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA) has expertise in environmental risk assessment more broadly and data analysis;
• Take inventory and use existing data and resources, as mentioned in the above point about the strengths and weaknesses of various regulatory bodies in the state;
• New registration and risk assessment models must be efficient and targeted to avoid regulatory or industry burden; and,
• Long-term funding from the California legislature is necessary.

Given the failure to abide by legal requirements and constraints under the current scientific risk assessment process for cumulative assessment of field or coincidental mixtures, the report calls for four new common features of cumulative impact assessments, including:

1. The creation of new cumulative assessment groups (CAGs) based on potential shared health outcomes, including a trigger measure for regulatory action based on the findings that multiple pesticides cause a common toxic effect(s) on an organ, organ system, or “act through a common mechanism of action at the molecular level.” The authors cite this approach as a way to clear up vagueness from a regulatory perspective and ensure regulatory compliance is cost-effective by taking action at strategic times;
2. The development of a tiered assessment and default assumptions for regulatory bodies. For example, each approach in the tiered system would start with default assumptions based on what is already known about the chemicals;
3. Utilize existing data sets and tools, such as California’s Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) database, CalEnviroScreen community scores, epidemiological studies, and DPR’s air monitoring programs, to ensure that regulatory decisions are evidence-based while also emphasizing a proactive approach; and,
4. Integrate CalEnviroScreen (a state-level cumulative impact tool similar to EPA’s former Environmental Justice screening tool) to inform registration and permitting decisions for DPR and CACs, respectively. DPR could leverage CalEnviroScreen to observe if a disproportionately impacted community will face additional burdens, and CACs can utilize some geographical tool to mandate enhanced protections like no-spray zones or prohibit additional permits based on existing pollution burdens.

In terms of the various pesticide mixtures, the report offers different recommendations based on product mixtures, field mixtures, and coincidental mixtures.

For product mixtures that contain multiple active ingredients and/or other components, the authors recommend whole product assessments, component-based assessments, or a hybrid assessment that combines elements of both. Whole product assessment could be significant in that, for any new registered product, DPR could require chronic toxicity studies before approving its use; component-based assessment is fairly similar to the status quo, although the authors point out that manipulating the hazard index or relative potency factor methods could help inform cumulative risk once combined. The authors mention a handful of hybrid assessment models, including one in which DPR could require a specialized test for a product with two ingredients that may impact the same organ (e.g., liver) to see if the combination is synergistic. (For more details on this section, see pages 25 to 29 of the report.)

Field mixtures are tougher to regulate since there are countless variations that may be challenging for regulators to anticipate; however, DPR could identify the most prevalent or concerning combinations of products to require testing before their use can be permitted by CACs at the county level. A more precautionary approach is a component-based/additive model where DPR assumes that any field mixture could have an additive effect and uses a hazard index calculation to assess which cumulative exposures meet the sum risk threshold. The report ultimately recommends a hybrid assessment process where DPR considers cumulative risks of intentional mixtures and decides not to approve a label encouraging a tank mixture or explicitly state which other active ingredients are allowed or prohibited from being mixed. DPR would take more of a leadership role for CACs in that they would develop a standardized approach for CACs to assess new tank mixtures. (For more details on this section, please see pages 30 and 31 of the report.)

The report recommends a combination of two approaches for coincidental mixtures, beginning with the interim use of qualitative tools that would lead to an extended component-based assessment. DPR and California’s Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) would collaborate to develop a cumulative risk assessment screening tool that “relies upon existing component based risk assessment methods and well-established exposure models” and “draws upon the expertise and resources of DPR and OEHHA while enabling the CAC staff to better exercise their mandate to consider local conditions in restricted material permitting.” As this tool is being developed and implemented, CACs would utilize a qualitative cumulative risk assessment tool rooted in the concept of control banding that industrial hygienists employ when there are limited data and resources available. (For more details on this section, please see pages 31 to 36 of the report.)

Risk Management

The authors recognize that risk calculations are considered in regulatory decision-making as part of a risk management decision that seeks to mitigate risks to an “acceptable” level. While pointing to the likely risk mitigation measures that may reduce hazards, they suggest that safer alternatives may be among the measures considered.

The authors state: “The goal of risk management is to identify a set of options that can reduce hazard and exposure. It also aims to evaluate those options to determine if they provide acceptable protection of human health and the environment. Risk management often presents trade-offs that complicate decision-making. Effective risk management must craft a combination of mitigation measures that reduce hazard and exposure to acceptable levels, are enforceable in the field, allow for effective pest management, and do not result in other unacceptable health or environmental impacts. Mitigation measures can include, among other things, controls on timing and frequency of application; limits on crops to be treated; use of feasible, safer alternatives; use of personal protective equipment by workers; and required buffer zones to protect people or wildlife near the application site. If mitigation measures cannot reduce the risk to acceptable levels, DPR can deny registration of the pesticide product. Mitigation measures may be implemented through regulations, permit conditions, or labels (in conjunction with the United States EPA).”

Call to Action

You can take action today by asking your mayor to adopt a policy and program for organic management of your community’s parks and public spaces.

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

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

Source: Building Capacity for Robust Pesticide Regulation: Part I – Cumulative Impacts

(Beyond Pesticides, February 11, 2026) The first U.S. jury trial on the weed killer paraquat against global chemical companies Syngenta Crop Protection, Chevron U.S.A., FMC Corporation, and their predecessors was scuttled last month due to a settlement on the eve of the case being heard in court. Settlements are commonly used by pesticide manufacturers seeking to avoid public disclosure of internal documents on chemical hazards and wrongdoing that could result from a public trial. In Mertens et al. v. Syngenta, Chevron, and FMC, the six plaintiffs suing three corporations allege that exposure to paraquat-based herbicide products contributed to their Parkinson’s Disease diagnosis.

While the terms of the settlement have not yet been disclosed, Lawsuit Information Center states that the paraquat class action multidistrict litigation (MDL) includes 8,257 cases as of January 16, 2026. In 2021, multiple cases were settled for more than $187 million.

Background on Mertens Complaint

In their complaint, the plaintiffs point to five causes of action, including “strict products liability design defect” (Count 1), “strict products liability failure to warn” (Count 2), negligence (Count 3), breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count 4), and punitive damages (Count 5).

• Count 1—Strict Products Liability Design Defect: In the first count, plaintiffs allege that paraquat products “designed, manufactured, distributed and sold did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected…when used in the intended or a reasonably foreseeable manner.” In other words, when used in accordance with label instructions, the product “was likely to be inhaled, ingested and absorbed into the bodies of persons who used it, who were nearby while it was being used, or who entered fields or orchards where it had been sprayed (or areas near where it had been sprayed)” when “it was likely to cause neurological damage that was both permanent and cumulative, and repeated low-dose exposures were likely to cause neurodegenerative disease, including Parkinson’s disease.”

The plaintiffs also maintain that the product design is defective “in that the risk of danger inherent in the challenged design outweighed the benefits of such design, considering, among other relevant factors, the gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design. . .”

• Count 2—Strict Products Liability Failure to Warn: In the second count, “failure to warn,” the corporations or their predecessors knew about the scientific evidence “that was generally accepted in the scientific community” that paraquat would enter the bodies of plaintiffs as described in Count 1. Moreover, the average consumer would not have known the potential risk of long-term neurological damage from chronic exposure to the herbicide at low doses, even when such exposure “presented a substantial danger to users of paraquat when the product was used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.”
• Count 3—Negligence: In the third count, “negligence,” the defendants failed to:

(i) “design, manufacture, formulate” paraquat so as to make it unlikely to be “inhaled, ingested, or absorbed;”

(ii) protect through its design, manufacture, and formulation thus making it “likely to cause neurological damage that was both permanent and cumulative;”

(iii) design the product to be used to prevent exposure pathways, including inhalation, ingestion, and absorption;

(iv) conduct “adequate research and testing” on the products potential to drift; 

(v) conduct “adequate research and testing to determine the extent to which Paraquat was likely to cause or contribute to cause” permanent and cumulative neurological damage;

(vi) protect against exposure to “persons who used it, who were nearby while it was being used, or who entered fields or orchards where it had been sprayed or areas near where it had been sprayed,” and

(vii) “warn that Paraquat was likely to cause neurological damage that was both permanent and cumulative, and repeated exposures were likely to cause clinically significant neurodegenerative disease, including Parkinson’s disease.”

In summary, plaintiffs suffered injuries when the corporations “knew or should have known that users would not realize the dangers of exposure” and “negligently failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the foreseeable risk of harm.”

• Count 4—Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability: The fourth count, breach of warranty, alleges that the pesticide manufacturers sold goods that failed to meet reasonable quality standards or are unfit for their ordinary purpose. This is often referred to as “fair value for money spent.” (See Federal Trade Commission webpage for more information.) The grounds on which the paraquat products (“goods”) failed to meet reasonable safety standards are referenced in the above descriptions for the other counts.
• Count 5—Punitive Damages: The fifth count, “punitive damages,” alleges that the corporations’ conduct “was done with oppression, fraud, and malice,” and that, “Defendants were fully aware of the safety risks of Paraquat.” The count continues, “Nonetheless, Defendants deliberately crafted their label, marketing, and promotion to mislead farmers and consumers.” Furthermore, the plaintiffs allege that this was not by accident and that the defendants “knew that [they] could turn a profit by convincing the agricultural industry and medical community that Paraquat did not cause Parkinson’s disease, and that full disclosure of the true risks of Paraquat would limit the amount of money Defendants would make selling Paraquat.”

The plaintiffs allege that, “Defendants were aware that low-dose Paraquat exposure could cause or significantly increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease or its symptoms by the 1970s.” Additionally, “There is no indication that Defendants will stop their deceptive and unlawful marketing practices unless they are punished and deterred.”

There were six plaintiffs in the Mertens complaint that was set to go to trial on January 29, 2026, including Bill Mertens, David Steele, Joseph Wochner, Barbara Burns, Jerry Miller, and Lauriana Barajas from Pennsylvania, Washington, Florida, and Illinois. In terms of more specific background on each plaintiff:

• Mertens was a commercial pesticide applicator in New Jersey (at the time) who mixed and sprayed paraquat as part of his practice during the 1980s and 1990s, alleging exposure to products developed by Syngenta (or SCPLLC), Chevron, and FMC Corporation that led to his 2021 diagnosis;
• Steele was a farmworker and owner in Washington who sprayed paraquat from a backpack and “30-gallon trailer tank”, alleging exposure to products developed by Syngenta and Chevron that led to his 2017 diagnosis;
• Wochner lived and worked on a family farm in Illinois that sprayed paraquat from a crop duster plane and maintained farm equipment that contained or sprayed the herbicide, alleging exposure to products developed by Syngenta and Chevron that led to his 2009 diagnosis;
• Burns worked on a farm from 1983 to 1993, where she sprayed paraquat from both tractors and by hand, alleging exposure to products developed by Syngenta and Chevron that led to her 2019 diagnosis;
• Miller lived and worked on a farm based in Washington, regularly mixing and spraying paraquat from a backpack sprayer between 2000 and 2015, alleging exposure to products developed by Syngenta and Chevron that led to his 2016 diagnosis; and
• Barajas worked on a farm in Washington between 1983 and 1989, mixing and spraying paraquat from both backpack and tractor sprayers, alleging exposure to products developed by Syngenta and Chevron that led to his 2018 diagnosis.

All the plaintiffs “had no reason to suspect [that their diagnoses were] connected to…past Paraquat exposure” and were “never told, either by a medical professional, by media, or by the Defendants, that exposure to Paraquat could cause [them] to suffer Parkinson’s disease.” As a result of their exposure, they have been unable to maintain regular employment and suffer general and economic damages as a result of their diagnosis.

Paraquat’s Link to Parkinson’s Disease

The complaint describes what is known about the associations between paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease. There are numerous hallmarks of Parkinson’s that can be linked back to the effects paraquat has, based on the known science and evidence at the time of its registration with EPA and subsequent production, manufacturing, sale, and marketing. The lawyers for the plaintiffs explain:

“It has been scientifically known since the 1960s that Paraquat (due to its redox properties) is toxic to the cells of plants and animals. The same redox properties that make Paraquat toxic to plant cells and other types of animal cells make it toxic to dopaminergic neurons in humans—that is, Paraquat is a strong oxidant that interferes with the function of, damages, and ultimately kills dopaminergic neurons in the human brain by creating oxidative stress through redox cycling. ”

Animal studies and “hundreds of in vitro studies” find that paraquat creates oxidative stress, which can result in the “degeneration and death of dopaminergic neurons.” The plaintiffs describe this as “one of the primary pathophysiological hallmarks of Parkinson’s disease.” 

“Epidemiological studies have found that exposure to Paraquat significantly increases the risk of contracting Parkinson’s disease,” according to the complaint. They continue: “A number of studies have found that the risk of Parkinson’s disease is more than double in populations with occupational exposure to Paraquat compared to populations without such exposure.”

The complaint raises important points of information on federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), for the jury’s consideration. “As a general rule, FIFRA requires registrants, the chemical companies registered to sell the pesticides, to perform health and safety testing of pesticides,” according to the complaint. It continues: “However, FIFRA does not require the EPA itself to perform health and safety testing of pesticides, and the EPA generally does not perform such testing.” In addition, “FIFRA further provides that, ‘In no event shall registration of an article be construed as a defense for the commission of any offense under [FIFRA]. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(f)(2).’”

Previous Coverage

The impacts of paraquat on public health are widely discussed in peer-reviewed science and an investigative analysis of its supply chains.

For example, the report, Designed to Kill: Who Profits from Paraquat, and accompanying interactive storymap, unpack the supply chain of the infamous herbicide paraquat and underscore the true costs of pesticide products, from manufacturing to use in the fields. This report is part of a larger initiative, the Pesticide Mapping Project—“a collaborative research series that illustrates the health and climate harms of pesticides across their toxic lifecycle: including fossil fuel extraction, manufacturing, international trade, and application on vast areas of U.S. land.”

The report also explores the supply chain and adverse health effects of the various ingredients that go into the manufacturing and production of the active ingredient, as well as infrastructure in the United States. The Syngenta agrochemical facility in St. Gabriel, Louisiana, “formulates and packages Gramoxone and more than a dozen other herbicides for sale.” This area is located squarely in Cancer Alley, home to “about 200 fossil fuel and petrochemical operations” that contribute to cumulative toxic exposure across multiple classes of chemicals. Simultaneously, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2022 identified the Syngenta facility in St. Gabriel “for heightened risk of a chemical disaster” since communities living in proximity face significant damage from “flooding, storm surges, and category 4 and 5 hurricanes.” The facility “stores large quantities of ammonia, chlorine, sulfur dioxide, and hydrocyanic acid on an industrial campus in the direct path of frequent hurricanes.” (See Daily News here.)

The current administration continues to stonewall and fail to take proactive action to review the registration of paraquat, going so far as to spread misleading information about taking further action when there are no stated plans to do so, as highlighted in recent coverage by The New Lede. “The agency is not starting a new safety assessment, according to an EPA spokesperson,” says Carey Gillam. She continues: “The spokesperson confirmed there are no new actions behind [EPA Administrator Lee] Zeldin’s Jan. 9 tweet, and that the status of paraquat remains unchanged from November when the agency asked paraquat manufacturers to provide additional data on paraquat volatilization to help understand exposure risks to people living beyond areas where paraquat is sprayed.”

Call to Action

Public health and environmental advocates are increasingly shifting to advocate for the transition to alternative pest management systems, including organic as defined by federal law, in their local communities. You can take action by asking your mayor to adopt organic land management of public parks and spaces. In the event that your local mayor is not in the system, please email this message to them personally!

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

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

Source: Mertens et al. v. Syngenta, Chevron, and FMC

(Beyond Pesticides, February 10, 2026) Species that are integral to pest management allow for crucial ecosystem services that negate the need for pesticides in agricultural or land management practices. In a study published in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, researchers from France find pesticide-free fields promote carabid beetles and spiders, generalist arthropod predators that consume slugs, aphids, and mites, that in turn support healthy, organic systems. The study findings highlight the importance of utilizing farming practices that promote biodiversity and foster natural enemy populations as a pest management strategy.  

“In this study, we assessed the assemblages of emerging and circulating ground-dwelling carabids and spiders during four months in a continuous mosaic of pesticide-free winter-sown crops under contrasted tillage regimes (minimum vs. conventional tillage) and sown flower strips bordering fields,” the authors describe. They continue: “We detected clear patterns, with high in-field carabid and spider overwintering densities than in adjacent flower strips… Our results also demonstrate the key role of pesticide-free fields under minimum tillage, acting both as a high-quality overwintering site for some dominant carabid species and as a source habitat, as several predator species activity-density responded positively to the increased area of minimum tillage fields in the surroundings.”

Background

While conventional agriculture and other land management utilize synthetic chemical inputs, a wide body of science shows that these chemical-intensive practices are “associated with a decline of farmland biodiversity, with cascading detrimental effects on the delivery of regulating ecosystem services upon which agricultural production relies.” Instead of using petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, the use of organic methods offers a holistic solution. In having pesticide-free land with additional land management practices that support the soil and organisms that provide ecosystem services, crop yields are able to be maintained, and synthetic inputs become obsolete. (See studies here and here.)

As the researchers point out: “Reversing the decline of organisms that provide pest control services requires transforming how we envision and manage agricultural systems. This transition embraces a broad range of alternative farming practices or management systems. Among those, organic farming, conservation agriculture, crop diversification, cover cropping and adjacent non-crop habitats such as flower strips have been shown to enhance pest control services.” These management practices, that do not rely on synthetic inputs, address the ongoing “insect apocalypse,” as well as the overall biodiversity decline that affects ecosystem functioning and stability.

Arthropods are invertebrates with a segmented body, a hard chitinous exoskeleton, and jointed limbs. Within this group, insects are a major class (Hexapoda) and serve critical functions within various ecosystems. “In arable agriculture, ground-dwelling carabid beetles (Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) are generalist predators that are known to be key pest control service providers,” the authors state. They continue: “Both taxa are highly abundant and active during the crop growing season and although they are often considered as agrobiont [organisms dominating agricultural environments], the two groups are globally negatively affected by intensive farming management. Activity-densities of adults are generally negatively affected by practices such as soil tillage operations and intensive pesticide use.” (See research here, here, here, and here.)

Current available literature on the impact of pesticides on these species primarily focuses on active adults, referred to as circulating individuals, assessing populations and diversity through the use of pitfall traps. “Adult habitat occupancy however results from both emerging assemblages, i.e. individuals that overwinter and emerged within a habitat, and circulating assemblages, i.e. individuals active in a habitat where they do not necessarily have overwintered, and that is especially true for arthropods exhibiting high dispersal abilities and/or larval development that is very different from the adults,” the researchers write. The current study analyzes both emerging individuals and circulating individuals to obtain a clear picture of arthropod diversity within the different management systems.

Study Methodology

This study assesses emerging and circulating carabid beetles and spiders in both semi-natural field margins and pesticide-free winter-sown crops, managed under contrasted tillage regimes to identify effects on biodiversity. This was conducted on an experimental farm near Dijon, France, on the pesticide-free CA-SYS agroecological long-term experiment. The farm itself is a 125-hectare area of arable agriculture, many acres of which are surrounded by a dense network of 3-meter-wide perennial flower strips.

On the farm, two main cropping systems are utilized. The authors note: “The first one is inspired from organic agriculture, is pesticide-free and relies on tillage with the use of inversion ploughing (one year out of three)… The second one is inspired from conservation agriculture, but is pesticide-free and relies on cover cropping during the summer fallow period and direct seeding with no-till when possible or with a seldom use of shallow tillage once before sowing.”

The assessment includes 17 fields with winter-sown crops in 2023, seven with minimum tillage (MT) and ten with shallow tillage (ST), and their adjacent, densely vegetated flower strips. These fields were sown with multiple types of crops, such as wheat, rye, barley, alfalfa, and beans. Sampling of arthropods occurred in both fields and flower strips, with emergence traps and pitfall traps, 68 of each, to capture both overwintering (resident) and circulating ground dwelling carabids and spiders. “Adult carabid identification was conducted at species level using taxonomic keys, whereas spider identification was conducted to species level for adults,” the researchers say.

Results

The authors share the results of the experiment, including:

• High carabid and spider overwintering densities occur in the pesticide-free fields, while flower strips shelter numerous agrobiont and rare overwintering spider species.
• “We caught 5,792 emerging adult carabid beetles belonging to 59 species in emergence traps, among which 3,228 individuals of 55 species in the bottle traps and 2664 individuals of 36 species in pitfall traps… In addition, we captured 10,585 circulating adult carabids belonging to 48 species, with few dominant species such as Poecilus cupreus, Anchomenus dorsalis and Harpalus affinis.”
• “In parallel, we caught 3,211 emerging adult spiders belonging to 93 species and 18 families within emergence traps, among which 1,833 individuals of 77 species in bottle traps and 1,378 individuals of 60 species in pitfall traps. In pitfall traps (exterior to emergence traps), we captured 6,570 circulating adult spiders belonging to 93 species and 19 families.”
• Overwintering carabid beetles are more abundant in areas with minimum tillage. “Here, despite the fact that our study focused on winter-sown crops, we detected some effect of soil tillage regime on carabid beetles and spiders. Differences were less marked for overwintering densities estimated in our pesticide-free fields under conventional soil tillage, more or less comparable with densities found by Djoudi et al. (2019) in organic tilled fields and twice higher than densities estimated in conventional tilled wheat fields.” (See additional study here.)
• Surrounding flower strips exhibit a positive effect on the in-field activity-density of arthropod species. Specifically, two dominant species (the carabid Poecilus cupreus and the spider Agyneta rurestris) prefer these habitats when near tilled fields, suggesting they offer refuge from disturbed environments.

In summary, the researchers state: “Our results confirm the importance of within-field habitats for arthropod overwintering, in the context of this study carried out with annual arable crops grown in open field landscapes. They also reveal a marked beneficial effect of pesticide-free and minimum tillage-based farming as hypothesized, through the provision of high-quality overwintering sites for many carabid species and as source habitat from which individuals redistribute to other habitat types. These effects were globally more pronounced for carabids than for ground-dwelling spiders and there were strong differences between individual species.” (See studies here, here, and here.) This highlights the differential impact of landscape management on nontarget species, particularly for pest predator species of carabid beetles and spiders.

The Organic Solution

As cited in the study, prior research reveals that farm management can impact arthropod diversity. Research (see examples here and here) finds that reducing “the intensity of farming management in-field can enhance arthropod overwintering, either by organic or minimum tillage management, which tend to be more suitable than conventional management.” Additional studies, as covered by Beyond Pesticides in previous Daily News, also highlight the impacts of chemical-intensive agriculture on arthropods, as well as the benefits of organic systems.

One study, entitled “Organic farming fosters arthropod diversity of specific insect guilds – evidence from metabarcoding” and published in Conservation Genetics, showcases the negative effect of chemical-intensive, conventional farm management on insect populations when compared to organically managed meadows. The researchers find that the diversity and biomass of flying insects are higher with organic land management by 11% and 75%, respectively. “We report a higher diversity on organic meadows in comparison with conventional ones, all over the diversity of flying insects and not only based solely on a few species-poor groups as in previous studies,” the authors state. They continue: “We found significant richness differences between management types and increased functionality on organic meadows. Our results imply the superiority of organic farming in comparison to conventional farming in the conservation of insect diversity.” (See Daily News here.)

This research, including the current study, adds to the wide body of science on the benefits of organic practices. Amidst the current crises of biodiversity, climate change, and public health, organic offers a holistic solution to land management, both in agriculture and other areas, that protects the environment and all organisms within it. Add your voice to the organic movement and Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to become a cosponsor of the Opportunities in Organic Act, which was reintroduced in early 2026 by U.S. Senator Peter Welch and U.S. Representative Jimmy Panetta. To learn more ways to take action and stay informed, sign up now to get our Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered right to your inbox!

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

Source:

Bannwart, P. et al. (2026) Pesticide-free fields under minimum tillage and flower strips enhance carabid beetles and spiders through increased overwintering and spill over processes, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016788092600037X.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 9, 2026) Every year during the lead-up to Valentine’s Day, the story of pesticide-intensive practices in the flower industry is told. The hazards of pesticides used in flower production and their resulting residues are well-documented. At the same time, the benefits of flowers to one’s psychological well-being have been studied, with findings that suggest flowers are a positive stimulus for emotional well-being, beyond the beauty that they bring to a home, wedding, office, or hospital room. One scientific study shows that flowers perform a socio-emotional function, while a survey done by the American Society for Horticultural Science finds that, “Consumers consistently reported positive effects of cut flowers on mood, morale, and stress reduction.” People want to share this positivity through the giving of flowers, especially on Valentine’s Day. Despite these benefits, the few studies that have been conducted show elevated pesticide exposure for florists through inhalation and dermal absorption. Beyond Pesticides’ network, recognizing that flowers can be grown with organic practices, is asking EPA and Congress to eliminate pesticide use in flower production and resulting residues, while supporting the transition to organic management practices. Similar to food production, the organization says that health and the environment do not have to be compromised for beautiful flowers.

This is not just an annual Valentine’s Day story. According to market research, “The global market for Cut Flowers was valued at US$37 Billion in 2024 and is projected to reach US$50.1 Billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR [compound annual growth rate] of 5.2% from 2024 to 2030.” So, Valentine’s Day is a mere reminder that cut flowers in everyday life are an agricultural product, which are grown with chemical-intensive practices. And, like other sectors of agriculture, the industry would like to be thought of as “sustainable.” To that end, the certification program Florverde Sustainable Flowers was founded in 1996 and “guarantees responsible practices in the production of flowers and ornamentals. . . [with] three fundamental pillars: environmental sustainable, social responsibility, economic efficiency.” The program cites 10,000 certified hectares and certification processes underway in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Peru, Nicaragua, Ecuador, El Salvador and Colombia. The program, according to its public facing information, does not certify organic practices, but says it aligns with pesticide use management practices that are characterized as “integrated pest management,” and points to their acceptance under the “Walmart U.S. Pollinator Health Position, demonstrating strong adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and environmental stewardship practices.” While Walmart has pledged to reduce the use of bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticides by its suppliers, under its IPM system pesticides on the market are allowed to be used. Beyond Pesticides is urging all purveyors of agricultural and processed food, like Walmart, to help eliminate toxic chemicals in food production by selling only certified organic products. With studies showing that chemical pollution exceeds safe planetary limits, Beyond Pesticides points to the organic solution as a critical social good that requires the support of responsible corporations.

The Guardian’s pre-Valentine’s Day piece reads: “Unlike in food, there is no upper limit on the amount of pesticide residue levels in flowers. But after French officials linked the death of a florist’s child to exposure in pregnancy, many in the industry are now raising the alarm.” The piece cites Pesticide Action Network Europe’s website warning, “Valentine’s Day: don’t poison your loved one, avoid toxic flowers.” They write: “Our member PAN Netherlands tested 13 bouquets — tulips, roses, and mixed bouquets — by a certified laboratory. Residues of pesticides were found in all bouquets. A total of 71 different active substances were found in the 13 bouquets examined, of which 28 (39%) are banned in the EU. They found that, on average, each bouquet contained 25 toxic substances. Two-thirds of the chemicals posed risks to the health of flower growers, buyers, and biodiversity. A third of them, like the bee-toxic imidacloprid, were banned in the EU.”

An earlier review reported in Environmental Pollution (2021) finds “201 chemicals present on flowers, 93 are banned in the European Union.” The same piece cites the range of adverse effects in the areas where flowers are grown: “Studies covering environmental impacts of flower production show evidence of pesticide contamination in water resources surrounded by flower crops, causing changes in color and odor, as well as compromising survival of aquatic organisms (Breilh, 2012; Jansen and Harmsen, 2011). However, water bodies are not the only ones to be affected. In soil, pesticides can contribute to decreased fertility and have negative effects on organisms (Aguirre, 2003). In the atmosphere, these compounds can be long-range transported by air masses, reaching food crop areas and even natural parks, essential for biodiversity conservation (Dunn et al., 2013).”

Although workers growing flowers and florists handling them suffer the most from exposure to pesticides on flowers, residues are still present when delivered. The Sustainable Floristry Network reports, “Pesticide use in floriculture has been linked to respiratory issues and skin conditions, reproductive disorders, birth issues, and adverse health effects in residents of flower production areas such as poorer neurobehavioral development.”  In addition, pesticides may interfere with immune system functioning, making a thoughtful gift into a threat. 

Although USDA’s Organic Integrity Database has 1884 listings of certified organic flower growers in the U.S., Beyond Pesticides has been unable to find a reliable online retail provider of organic flowers and recommends verification or certification that any purchase is indeed organic. Alternatively, for Valentine’s Day, there are many places to purchase organic chocolate, fruit baskets, or wine online [see more on our partnership with Frey Vineyards below!]. Organic food can be purchased from local food stores to make a unique gift basket! 

Tell EPA and Congress to eliminate pesticide use in flower production and resulting residues, while supporting the transition to organic management practices. [In another related action, Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to become a cosponsor of the Opportunities in Organic Act, which has been reintroduced by U.S. Senator Peter Welch and U.S. Representative Jimmy Panetta.]

Letter to Congress
As Valentine’s Day approaches, I am concerned that flowers I might give to loved ones may be hazardous to their health. Unlike pesticides applied to foods, pesticide residues on flowers are not limited. As a result, flowers may have high residues of several pesticides, including those banned for most uses. One review found that of 201 chemicals present on flowers, 93 are banned in the European Union. Although workers growing flowers and florists handling them suffer the most from exposure to pesticides on flowers, residues are still present when delivered. The Sustainable Floristry Network reports, “Pesticide use in floriculture has been linked to respiratory issues and skin conditions, reproductive disorders, birth issues and adverse health effects in residents of flower production areas such as poorer neurobehavioral development.”

Cut flowers are given on Valentine’s Day, and on other special occasions. They are also sent to people in the hospital or at home who are ill or recuperating. In addition to the effects mentioned above, the pesticides may interfere with immune system functioning, making a cheerful message into a potentially dangerous threat—to both patients and caregivers.

EPA must not allow pesticide residues on flowers. USDA’s Organic Integrity Database contains 1884 listings of certified organic flower growers in the U.S. and more abroad. Thus, allowing hazardous pesticides to be used—and contaminate—cut flowers sold in the U.S. is a violation of the no unreasonable adverse effects standard in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Please tell EPA to eliminate the use or residues of hazardous pesticides on cut flowers grown in the U.S. or imported.

Thank you.

Letter to EPA Administrator
As Valentine’s Day approaches, I am concerned that flowers I might give to loved ones may be hazardous to their health. Unlike pesticides applied to foods, pesticide residues on flowers are not limited. As a result, flowers may have high residues of several pesticides, including those banned for most uses. One review found that of 201 chemicals present on flowers, 93 are banned in the European Union. Although workers growing flowers and florists handling them suffer the most from exposure to pesticides on flowers, residues are still present when delivered. The Sustainable Floristry Network reports, “Pesticide use in floriculture has been linked to respiratory issues and skin conditions, reproductive disorders, birth issues and adverse health effects in residents of flower production areas such as poorer neurobehavioral development.”

Cut flowers are given on Valentine’s Day, and on other special occasions. They are also sent to people in the hospital or at home who are ill or recuperating. In addition to the effects mentioned above, the pesticides may interfere with immune system functioning, making a cheerful message into a potentially dangerous threat—to both patients and caregivers.

EPA must not allow pesticide residues on flowers. USDA’s Organic Integrity Database contains 1884 listings of certified organic flower growers in the U.S. and more abroad. Thus, allowing hazardous pesticides to be used—and contaminate—cut flowers sold in the U.S. is a violation of the no unreasonable adverse effects standard in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Please do not allow the use or residues of hazardous pesticides on cut flowers grown in the U.S. or imported.

Thank you.

***

This Valentine’s Day—Taste the Difference: Organic Wine for a Meaningful Impact 

This Valentine’s Day, as an alternative to flowers for your loved ones [please see our Action and don’t poison your valentine!], discover the wines from the Frey family—long valued sponsors of our National Forum series and a fourth-generation, family-owned and operated winery located at the pristine headwaters of the Russian River in Redwood Valley, Mendocino County, California.  

Frey Vineyards has generously partnered with us and our network to offer a special discount on their incredible selection of wines—part of which is donated to Beyond Pesticides [25%]! ✨ We raise a glass to you, Frey Vineyards, for your commitment to an organic future and allyship in leading the transition to a world free of toxic pesticides!  ↪️ Use promo code BEYOND20 at checkout to enjoy 20% OFF your Frey Wine purchase and FREE SHIPPING! https://www.freywine.com?couponCode=BEYOND20  

 Fan favorites from our staff include: the Organic Late Harvest Zinfandel (2022), “rich, jammy flavors of ripe blackberry and dark cherry, with notes of raisin, fig, and a hint of sweet spice, balanced by a velvety texture and a lingering, smooth finish,” the Organic Viognier (2018) with “succulent flavors of Asian pear and custard apple leading to a creamy mouthfeel,” and the Biodynamic Sauvignon Blanc (2022), with “notes of lemon custard, pineapple, and guava with deftly balanced acidity.” 

Since 1980, America’s first Organic and Biodynamic Winery has been producing award-winning Organic and Biodynamic wines without added sulfites. In the U.S., only wine made with organic grapes and naturally occurring sulfites can be labeled organic.   

Please remember to enjoy responsibly. For more information on the benefits of organic systems, click here:  https://www.beyondpesticides.org/programs/organic-agriculture/overview  

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 6, 2026) The United States, under Donald Trump’s direction, has withdrawn from 66 international organizations, the most important for health being the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. International organizations committed to the application of the best available science and policy development via consultation and consensus serve as a vital check against rampant personal and industry nest-feathering at the expense of global health. The Trump administration has removed this check while expanding his and his associates’ self-dealing and dismissing the critical interactions of crises such as climate change and synthetic chemicals.

Although Trump announced this move on inauguration day last year, the completion of the process last week puts the stamp of finality on his total abandonment of public health. This in turn threatens the collapse of WHO—and even the U.N.—altogether, which has wide implications for agriculture, particularly pesticide policies, climate action (and inaction), and infectious disease monitoring, including vaccines and pandemic prevention. [See commentary: On Public and Environmental Health and Worldwide Collaboration.]

Other U.N. environmental, health, and agricultural organizations on the list are groups focused on forest degradation, freshwater and oceans, mining, minerals, metals, and sustainable development, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Non-U.N. organizations being ditched include a lead and zinc study group, renewable and energy groups, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the Pacific Regional Environment Program.

According to reporting by StatNews and Ars Technica, Trump’s first-term abandonment of WHO was reversed by the Biden administration, but in January 2025, he immediately refused to engage at all with the agency, complaining about dues payments, favoritism of China, and mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic. The U.S. owes the WHO $278 million in dues for the 2024-2025 budget cycle, stiffing the agency after a promise that the dues would be paid before the U.S. left; NPR reports that Trump has no intention of keeping that promise.

Of the many centers of research and international collaboration maintained by WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) focus most on the hazards of pesticides. Curiously, in April 2025, Trump cut off U.S. funding from FAO but did not withdraw the U.S. from it at that time. Instead, on February 3 this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced an agreement to deliver U.S.-grown foods such as soy and lentils to FAO’s Food for Peace program. These products will undoubtedly be grown by conventional agriculture and laden with pesticide residues.

Trump has thrown the baby out with the bathwater, supporting conventional agriculture and refusing to participate in regulatory infrastructure that health and environmental advocates say should be improved, not destroyed. One problem crying out to be corrected is industry influence.

As Beyond Pesticides has stressed many times, numerous investigations prove that the chemical industry routinely manipulates U.S. chemical policy. For example, Beyond Pesticides analyzed the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2018 report on the corruption of science by industry at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

More infamously, Monsanto (now Bayer) has long exerted control of EPA’s glyphosate regulations. Its influence extends beyond U.S. borders as well. In 2015, WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans. The IARC glyphosate monograph swiftly triggered a concerted attack on the agency by many corporate groups and pro-industry experts. In addition, an October 2017 investigative report by Reuters journalist Kate Kelland alleged that the monograph had been changed between a draft and the final version to suggest carcinogenicity in rodents when there was none, and that the agency’s process was entirely opaque.

But Monsanto’s eliding of rodent tumor evidence began long before IARC’s monograph. See this investigative report by Valerie Brown and Elizabeth Grossman in In These Times—published a month after Ms. Kelland’s—demonstrating that EPA scientists were convinced, based on rodent tumor studies, of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity during its preparation for registration review in 1985. EPA suppressed this evidence in favor of Monsanto’s interests.

IARC published a defense of its monograph in 2018, noting that Ms. Kelland’s information derived primarily from a review provided to her by Monsanto, whose authors were affiliated with industry consultancies and the Glyphosate Task Force (now the Glyphosate Renewal Group), a group of corporate proponents of glyphosate.

IARC itself has long been criticized by many experts and stakeholders for procedural weaknesses and failure to reveal the names and affiliations of members of its working groups. In the case of the glyphosate working groups, the panel members’ names were widely available, including the name of the chair—Aaron Blair, PhD, MPH, former chief of the National Cancer Institute’s Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. A 2003 The Lancet editorial pointed out that agency weaknesses worked mostly to the advantage of industry: “[I]ndustry often tried to slip in their unpublished data on the condition that such data remained confidential.” According to The Lancet, in another journal the year before, a former chief of an earlier IARC program reported that of 17 monographs, “nearly a third of about 250 monograph authors were ‘aligned’ to industry, as were eight of 19 chairpersons or vice-chairpersons.”

Yet industry has tried to turn the frustration with monograph panels’ procedural challenges to its own advantage. In 2017, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) launched a “Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research” to “correct” the IARC’s monograph program’s “lack of transparency, minimal consideration of the weight of scientific evidence, misapplied conflict of interest policies, and confusing communication of its monograph decisions.” That campaign appears to now be moribund, its URL now leading to the Foundation for Chemistry and Initiatives, itself an ACC entity.

However, attempts to rationalize the debate on glyphosate remain a focus of industrial resentment, and critiques continue. In 2024, a former National Cancer Institute statistician, Robert E. Tarone, called the IARC glyphosate report “weaponized incompetence” at the industry-funded website Genetic Literacy Project and in a post at the Substack Firebreak, which specializes in attacking “the media, foundations and NGOs [nongovernmental organizations].”

Despite these attempts, the power gradient between science and industrial manipulation was dramatically reversed (at least temporarily) by the retraction in 2025 of a Monsanto-funded review published in 2000. The review—a typical means of industrial undermining of actual scientific studies—was published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology by one academically-affiliated author and two industry consultants. It found no human health hazards whatsoever from glyphosate. The journal editor retracted the review—better a quarter-of-a-century late than never—because its authors had misrepresented their contributions and failed to reveal both the study sponsor (Monsanto) and their own conflicts of interest.

U.S. citizens are not completely bereft of connection with efforts to protect international environmental health. The Governors Public Health Alliance (GPHA), comprising governors of 14 states and Guam, warns that Americans will be at far greater risk from disease without WHO membership. The group was formed to buttress public health within the country as Trump dismantles all federal capacity to respond to chronic health effects from environmental exposures, as well as new and emerging infectious diseases, but the GPHA intends to “liaise with the global health community” in the vacuum left by federal abandonment.

Neither international nor national regulatory and scientific agencies are faultless. But claiming that scientists and regulators make decisions behind closed doors while ignoring the conflicts of interest posed by industry behind those doors is viewed by advocates as specious, hypocritical, and deeply harmful. Despite their flaws, Beyond Pesticides does not call for the abolishment of EPA, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, the Food and Drug Administration, or the Department of Agriculture. The organization calls for improvements and reform because the underlying need for the institutions and their missions is critically important. Trump takes a wrecking ball to international agreements and institutions that play a valuable role, despite their limitations, in a global world where health, biodiversity, and climate challenges are intricately linked across borders and worldwide.

Beyond Pesticides believes WHO and IARC are important forces in fostering human and biosphere health. IARC has made decisions that are more protective than EPA. In addition to glyphosate, EPA last month dismissed IARC’s finding that the herbicide atrazine is probably carcinogenic to humans. As with any governmental or quasi-governmental organization, advocates believe that there is certainly room for criticism of some of WHO’s decisions, including those excessively influenced by regulated industries. At the same time, they affirm WHO’s stated commitment “to working with all countries in pursuit of its core mission and constitutional mandate: the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right for all people.”

You can take action and tell Congress to support and fund international organizations critical to the global health of humans and the biosphere, AND Tell Governors/Lieutenant Governors to join (as well as thank them for joining) the Governors Public Health Alliance and to expand their support for international agencies that protect biodiversity and mitigate the climate crisis (IUCN, IPBES, and IPCC).

Sources:

Tell Congress To Fund International Organizations Critical to Global Health and Governors To Step Up
Beyond Pesticides
https://secure.everyaction.com/SPSdlOVXzUKk0yvhRNRtow2

As Trump Steps Back from Global Health and Environmental Crises, Congress and States Asked To Step Up
Beyond Pesticides, February 2 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2026/02/as-trump-steps-back-from-global-health-and-environment-crises-congress-and-states-asked-to-step-up/

Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States
The White House
January 7, 2026
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-international-organizations-conventions-and-treaties-that-are-contrary-to-the-interests-of-the-united-states/

Withdrawal from Wasteful, Ineffective, or Harmful International Organizations
Press Statement
Marco Rubio, Secretary of State
January 7, 2026
https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/01/withdrawal-from-wasteful-ineffective-or-harmful-international-organizations

Trump Sinks to New Low by Announcing US Withdrawal from 66 International Organizations, Including UNFCCC and IPCC
Union of Concerned Scientists
January 8, 2026
https://www.ucs.org/about/news/trump-sinks-new-low-announcing-us-withdrawal-66-international-organizations-including

Governors Warn U.S. Withdrawal from World Health Organization Undermines Public Health Preparedness & Reaffirm Their Commitment to Protecting Health
Governors Public Health Alliance
January 22, 2026
https://www.govsforhealth.org/news/governors-warn-u-s-withdrawal-from-world-health-organization-undermines-public-health-preparedness-reaffirm-their-commitment-to-protecting-heath/

How Monsanto Captured the EPA—And Twisted Science—To Keep Glyphosate on the Market
Valerie Brown and Elizabeth Grossman
In These Times, November 1, 2017
https://inthesetimes.com/article/poisoned-science-epa-food-monsanto-glyphosate-milk-usda

[Update on February 9, 2026: In a press release on Friday, February 6, titled “EPA Implements Strongest Protections in Agency History for Over-the-Top Dicamba Use on Cotton and Soybeans for Next Two Growing Seasons,” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to ignore the wide body of science that documents harms from dicamba, as well as the viability of alternative methods, in establishing what the agency is boasting are “the strongest protections in agency history for over-the-top (OTT) dicamba application on dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean crops” as a direct response to the “strong advocacy of America’s cotton and soybean farmers.” These so-called “strong protections” are described as a way to ensure farmers can access the tools they “need” while also protecting the environment from dicamba’s harmful drift. In using “gold-standard science and radical transparency,” EPA created new label restrictions for the next two growing seasons that include “cutting the amount of dicamba that can be used annually in half, doubling required safety agents, requiring conservation practices to protect endangered species, and restricting applications during high temperatures when exposure and volatility risks increase.” Relying on unenforceable label restrictions and mitigation measures, however, fails to adequately protect health and the environment. See here and here for further analysis on the failure of EPA’s mitigation measures.]

***
(Beyond Pesticides, February 5, 2026) As shared in coverage on January 30, 2026, by The Washington Post, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to reapprove dicamba, “an herbicide for genetically modified soybean and cotton crops, even while acknowledging continued concerns from some growers about spillover effects, according to two EPA staffers and a draft statement obtained by The Washington Post.” Despite EPA’s previous two approvals of dicamba that were vacated in federal courts, this comes as part of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, in which EPA’s Administrator Lee Zeldin pushes for the use of harmful pesticides in conflict with stated MAHA goals.

In a recent article by The New Lede, Nathan Donley, PhD, and Environmental Health Science Director for the Center for Biological Diversity, says this will be the next round of ‘MAHA-washing’, as “Zeldin’s MAHA-washing paints the same rosy picture to distract from decisions that harm public health.” The Washington Post, based on an unreleased statement from EPA, reports that “EPA characterizes the new use guidelines as ‘the most protective dicamba registration in agency history’ and notes the inclusion of ‘several measures’ to head off ‘ecological risks.’” This follows the latest proposed registration from July 2025, in which the agency said it would address volatility (tendency to vaporize/turn into a gas) concerns and runoff risk. “The statement seen by The Post did not say which of those measures would be in the final version, but one employee said it would be very similar to the proposal,” says Amudalat Ajasa, environmental health news reporter for The Washington Post.

Based on the Dicamba Market Size, Share, and Growth Forecast 2026 – 2033 by Persistence Market Research, the global dicamba market is projected to reach $702.9 million in 2026 and $1,212.5 million by 2033. These estimates are “primarily driven by the rising incidence of glyphosate-resistant weeds and the broader adoption of dicamba-tolerant crops, particularly soybean and cotton.” The report also notes that North America leads the dicamba market with ~39.4% share. With the reapproval of dicamba on the horizon, these numbers could become a stark reality.

Dicamba’s History of Health and Environmental Implications

As Beyond Pesticides references in the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management entry for dicamba, this chemical is suspected of causing cancer, along with a myriad of other documented health and environmental effects, such as neurotoxicity, reproductive dysfunction, kidney/liver damage, birth/developmental effects, detection in groundwater, leaching, and toxicity to birds and fish/aquatic organisms. There is a “strong association between dicamba use and an increased risk of developing various cancers, including liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and acute myeloid leukemia.” (See study here.) Additional research suggests that dicamba causes DNA damage (causing DNA mutations and inducing oxidative stress – two pathways known to cause cancer) and is also linked to antibiotic resistance.   

As highlighted in Beyond Pesticides’ comments to EPA in September 2025, with a subsequent Action of the Week to Tell EPA To Ban Drift-Prone Herbicides, dicamba is highly prone to drift and harms people, crops, and wildlife. The term “drift” applies to airborne movement off the target site, though pesticides can also move as runoff and in soil carried by water or wind. Drift may consist of particles or droplets of pesticide as it is applied or vapors that evaporate and are carried in the air. Farmers and applicators may take steps to avoid drift—including buffer zones, thickening agents, and attention to wind direction—but drift-prone pesticides like dicamba are not always controlled by these actions.

Dicamba has been the focus of many court cases for this reason, as it is responsible for millions of acres of crop damage and harm to numerous organisms including endangered species. New problems with nontarget dicamba drift, contamination, and crop damage were identified in 2016 when EPA registered a new formulation of dicamba to control weeds in cotton and soybean crops that have been genetically engineered (GE) to tolerate the chemical. In 2020, the Ninth Circuit nullified “EPA’s 2018 conditional registration of three dicamba weed killer products for use on an estimated 60 million acres of DT (dicamba-tolerant through genetic modification/engineering) soybeans and cotton.” (See here.) The previous court case found that EPA did not adequately consider adverse effects from over-the-top (OTT) dicamba in approving the conditional registration. 

Soy crops are particularly sensitive to pesticide drift from dicamba, and use of dicamba increased even after GE soy crops began being utilized. As the Center for Biological Diversity states: “Since dicamba was approved for ‘over-the-top’ spraying its use has increased twentyfold. The EPA estimates 65 million acres (two-thirds of soybeans and three-fourths of cotton) are dicamba-resistant, with roughly half that acreage sprayed with dicamba, an area nearly the size of Alabama. Much of the unsprayed crops are planted ‘defensively’ by farmers to avoid dicamba drift damage.”

With the documentation of drift damage for off-target crops, new formulations of dicamba were created to attempt to prevent drift damage, but still proved too drift-prone and problematic to be used without incident. Damage to habitats and food sources for various organisms, most notably birds and insects, occurs as a result of dicamba drift. Multiple studies and court filings show dicamba’s ability to drift well over a mile off-site after an application.

Dicamba creates “an ‘ecological disaster’ in the name of profit” and damages other crops, such as fruit trees. Despite a court ruling in 2022 that “EPA failed to account for how ‘dicamba use would tear the social fabric of farming communities’… EPA sided with moneyed interests over the well-being of average Americans in farming communities.” (See here.) Farmers rely on their crop production to make a living, and yet continued use of dicamba occurs despite “4 percent of soybean fields [being] damaged by off-target dicamba movement in 2018” and “damage from dicamba [being] reported on approximately 1 in every 13 fields [about 8%]” in some states, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Beyond Pesticides finds the ‘high benefits’ of dicamba are overstated and improperly considered, as EPA’s benefit and risk assessments rely heavily on unenforceable mitigation measures and do not adequately consider acute impacts on aquatic species and ecosystem services from impaired habitats. (See here and here.) The previously proposed mitigation measures are insufficient to protect public health, as well as the health of wildlife and the environment.

All dicamba formulations have the potential to volatilize since dicamba has a high vapor pressure, with increases in air temperature causing dicamba to turn into a gas even after successful application on target surfaces. Since volatilization increases as temperatures increase, this is more and more concerning as temperatures are rising higher each year. The length, intensity, and onset of seasons have changed, which can be attributed to climate change. The longer and hotter summers will exacerbate dicamba volatilization and lead to more drift—especially for post-emergent and OTT applications.

Daily News Coverage

For decades, Beyond Pesticides has documented the troublesome history of dicamba, including both adverse health and environmental effects as well as the regulatory deficiencies allowing for unreasonable exposure to this product. See below for a roundup of Daily News articles on dicamba from the past two years.

• EPA To Allow Dicamba Herbicide Used in Genetically Engineered Crops, Prone to Drift and Weed Resistance (August 2025) With more than 90 percent of soybeans (also corn and the most common species of cotton) planted in varieties genetically engineered to be herbicide-tolerant, the agrichemical industry and industrial agribusiness are lining up to bring back agricultural spraying of the controversial weed killer dicamba—linked to crop damage associated with the chemical’s drifting off the target farms. The courts in 2020 and 2024 vacated EPA’s registration authorizing OTT spraying of dicamba, leading to these uses being stopped in the 2025 growing season.

Genetically engineered crops, widely adopted in 1996 with Monsanto’s glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) soybean seeds and plants, have been plagued by weed resistance to the weed killers, movement of genetic material, chemical drift, and health and environmental hazards associated with pesticide exposure. Despite the problems and escalating herbicide use in chemical-dependent no-till (no tillage) agriculture, regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have facilitated the astronomical growth of a genetically engineered food system. The industry makes the environmental argument that less disturbance to soil is better for soil health. However, the purveyors of toxics downplay the adverse effects of the petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, and are silent on the fact that certified organic food production prohibits genetically engineered seeds and plants (as well as synthetic fertilizers) with competitive yields and increased economic returns, while protecting health, biodiversity, and climate.  

• Herbicide Dicamba Linked to Crop and Plant Damage and Cancer Subject of Deregulation Despite Court Ruling (August 2025) On June 30, 2025, Kyle Kunkler started work as deputy assistant administrator for pesticides in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Mr. Kunkler is an experienced agribusiness lobbyist, having come directly from the American Soybean Association, where he was director of government affairs. He joins Nancy Beck, PhD, herself a migrant from the American Chemistry Council. Not coincidentally, a mere three weeks after Mr. Kunkler’s appointment, EPA opened the floodgates to allow use of the controversial herbicide dicamba to flow unrestricted once again through the nation’s ecosystems. Dicamba has been associated with phytotoxic crop/plant damage (leaf damage, stunted growth, or death) and cancer.
• Children’s Health Threatened as Rates of Pediatric Cancers are Linked to Agricultural Pesticide Mixtures (March 2025) A study in GeoHealth of pediatric cancers in Nebraska links exposure to agricultural mixtures with the occurrence of these diseases. The authors find statistically significant positive associations between pesticide usage rates and children with cancer, specifically brain and central nervous system (CNS) cancers and leukemia. The study results show: “that every 10% increase in pesticide mixture was associated with a 36% increase in the rate of brain and other CNS cancers in children. The magnitude of this association was slightly greater for brain and other CNS cancers than for overall cancer and leukemia.” The pesticides, notably mostly herbicides, contributing the most to this joint association of agrichemical mixtures and cancer rates include dicamba, glyphosate, paraquat, quizalofop, triasulfuron, and tefluthrin.
• Biodiversity Threatened by Pesticide Drift, Study Finds; Organic Agriculture Cited as a Holistic Solution (January 2025) Pesticides that are sprayed and become airborne significantly disrupt ecological balances and affect nontarget species that are crucial for maintaining biodiversity, according to an article in Environmental Pollution. In this review of studies throughout countries in North and South America, Europe, and Asia, among others, researchers from Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Poland reinforce the science about pesticides’ direct effect on species and the cascading effects of pesticide drift through various trophic levels within food webs that lead to overall devastating population effects. “Evidence shows that pesticides are driving severe biodiversity declines, often acting in concert with additional stressors,” the researchers postulate. They continue: “Herbicides, particularly glyphosate, dicamba, and 2,4-D sprays, have caused significant damage to many non-target plant species.”
• Weed Killers Dicamba and 2,4-D Found in Pregnant Women in Midwest USA, Linked to Serious Effects (May 2024) In a first-of-its kind series of biomonitoring studies published in Agrochemicals, researchers identified the presence of the herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D in all pregnant participants from both cohorts in 2010-2012 and 2020-2022. The findings from this research are not surprising, given the explosion of toxic petrochemical pesticides in the Midwest region of the United States. “The overall level of dicamba use (kilograms applied in one hundred thousands) in the U.S. has increased for soybeans since 2015 and slightly increased for cotton and corn,” the authors report, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics Service surveys.
• EPA and Court Allow Violations and Hazards of Weed Killer Dicamba Under Existing Stock Order (March 2024) Buried in a court decision in February that determined that EPA violated the law in allowing harm associated with the herbicide dicamba’s registration is language that permits the damages to continue through this year’s growing season. The judge’s ruling, deferring to EPA’s interpretation of the existing stock provision in the federal pesticide law, continues a pattern of “existing stock” allowances that permit hazards to continue well after a finding of harm or noncompliance. This process contrasts with the issuance of a product recall, which is typically done when pharmaceuticals are found to violate safety standards.

Despite the finding of dicamba’s harm and EPA’s failure to comply with standards, the continued use of the weed killer through the 2024 growing season is effectively authorized in a decision of the U.S. District Court of Arizona, which vacates the EPA’s 2021 authorization of the use of three OTT uses of dicamba-based herbicide products. In response, EPA issued an existing stocks order. EPA’s pattern of allowing the use of existing stocks has long been a concern for public health and environmental advocates, who have called for the discontinuance of use upon findings of elevated risk factors or illegal uses that do not comply with statutory standards.

• Court Strikes Down EPA’s Allowance of Weedkiller Dicamba after Scathing Inspector General Report (February 2024) Last week, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona struck down the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2021 approval of three dicamba-based herbicides. This is the second lawsuit since 2020 to call out EPA’s violation of both the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to authorize the use of OTT dicamba-based herbicide products from Bayer and other petrochemical pesticide companies. This rejection of dicamba-based herbicides fuels advocates’ push for stronger regulatory actions by EPA for all petrochemical pesticides and their push for the more widespread adoption of organic practices that do not use these chemicals. The case was filed by the Center for Food Safety (CFS), the Center for Biological Diversity, the National Family Farm Coalition, and Pesticide Action Network North America. Beyond Pesticides has covered the dicamba tragedy for years, including the EPA Office of the Inspector General’s critical 2021 report, EPA Deviated from its Typical Procedures in Its 2018 Dicamba Pesticide Registration Decision. The report identifies EPA’s abandonment of science and assault on agency integrity.

See additional Daily News here.

The Organic Solution

Consistent with regulatory standards, cancellation of dicamba is needed to prevent further harmful effects. EPA should deny any proposals for dicamba use due to the adverse effects on the environment, risks to health, and given the availability of cost-effective alternatives and the statutory duty of the agency to comply with the “unreasonable risk to man or the environment” standard under FIFRA. The overwhelming scientific evidence of the consequences of dicamba usage should be enough to permanently ban dicamba, and yet the EPA regulatory system cannot be relied upon to provide adequate protections. The only true holistic solution is to remove all uses of dicamba, and other harmful petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, and to implement a widespread transition to organic agriculture and land management.

The public does not benefit from the approval and use of dicamba, given the availability and viability of alternative management practices and products as defined by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Organic management practices and organic compatible products eliminate the hazards (and risks) that EPA is accepting and will be accelerating with the reapproval of dicamba on food commodities. Under OFPA, organic producers are prohibited from using synthetic inputs unless found by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) that their use: “(i) would not be harmful to human health or the environment; (ii) is necessary to the production or handling of the agricultural product because of the unavailability of wholly natural substitute products; and (iii) is consistent with organic farming and handling.” Under this USDA organic standard, nearly all petrochemical pesticides and all synthetic fertilizers, as well as sewage sludge (biosolids), are prohibited.

A plethora of studies prove organic agriculture provides soil health benefits, has a significantly lower environmental impact than conventional food production, is more profitable and productive, provides human health benefits, and mitigates the crises of climate change and wildlife biodiversity. This holistic approach protects all organisms, including humans, and the environment through the elimination of harmful toxicants and the focus on building soil health, which in turn creates a healthy system that negates the need for any pesticides and breaks the pesticide treadmill.

Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic here and here, join Beyond Pesticides’ mission of eliminating petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers in the next ten years, and take action to support the organic movement.

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

Source:

Ajasa, A. (2026) EPA set to re-register dicamba, herbicide previously banned by courts, The Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2026/01/30/dicamba-registration-epa-pesticides/.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 4, 2026) Using data from the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) database launched in 1993 by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, research study results “show greater diabetes risk“ from exposure to organochlorine, organophosphate, and carbamate insecticides, phenoxy and other herbicides, and the fumigant carbon tetrachloride/disulfide exposure. The study, published in Environment International, evaluated nearly 4,000 diabetes cases drawn from AHS follow-up surveys between 1999 and 2021.

Results

Researchers found evidence of an association between 18 pesticide active ingredients and diabetes. These included two phenoxy herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4,5-TP, and seven organochlorine insecticides (DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, heptachlor, toxaphene, and lindane). While all these organochlorine pesticides are banned for use in the U.S. (with the exception of pharmaceutical uses of lindane), legacy residues of the chemicals and/or their metabolites continue show up in the environment, food, and the human body, and 2,4,5-T and its TCDD dioxin contaminant has multigenerational effects.

There was exposure risks among other pesticides were identified as well, including:

• 3 organophosphate insecticides (diazinon, malathion, and phorate);
• 2 carbamate insecticides (carbofuran and carbaryl);
• 3 other herbicides (butylate, metribuzin, and chlorimuron ethyl); and
• the fumigant carbon tetrachloride/disulfide.

The median age of diagnosis was 66 years old, with 98 percent of cases identifying as male and non-Hispanic white, 46 percent qualifying as obese, and 41 percent qualifying as past smokers. For further details, please see Sections 3.1 to 3.3.

Background and Methodology

The Agricultural Health Study pulls from approximately 52,394 “licensed pesticide applicators enrolled in 1993-1997. Participants were re-contacted in four follow-up surveys (Phases 2–5: 1999–2003, 2005–2010, 2013–2015, and 2019–2021), and the eligible study sample included those who completed at least one follow-up survey response on diabetes (N=39,197 applicators).”

Diabetes risk association was tested for “ever-use” and “intensity-weighted lifetime days (IWLD) use.” Ever-use pesticide data refers to a Yes/No of whether the applicator had used the pesticide since the previous conducted survey, whereas IWLD use refers to the number of days a pesticide was used multiplied by the concentration applied since the previous conducted survey. “In the analysis sample, 91.2% of respondents had [“ever-use”] exposures updated in 1999–2003, 4.8% were missing exposures in 1999–2003 but were updated in 2005–2010, leaving 4.0% missing updated exposure data among those with incident diabetes or at end of follow-up in 2013–2015 or 2019–2021,” say the authors. They continue: “Intensity-weighted lifetime days (IWLD) of pesticide use were derived from cumulative lifetime days (days per year times the years of use) for 22 pesticides listed on the enrollment questionnaire and 28 pesticides with additional data on the take-home survey, and updated for pesticides still in use by the first two follow-up surveys, weighted by a score incorporating application practices and use of personal protective equipment impacting potential exposure level.”

The authors declare that “[a]ssociations were not confounded by BMI and weight gain,” contributing to the robustness of the analysis. For further details on the methodological approach and statistical analysis, please see Sections 2.1 through 2.5. Researchers for this study were based at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, University of Texas, and DLH Corporation, a research consulting group. In terms of conflict of interest, “the authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.”

Previous Coverage

A systematic review of studies on pesticides as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on body weight, published in Biomedicines, evaluates 36 clinical and preclinical studies and links their agricultural use to obesity. Endocrine disruption and obesity are public health concerns, and there is a wide body of science linking pesticide exposure to these effects (see more here). “Obesity is considered to be a worldwide pandemic that leads to an increase in medical costs and thus becomes a public health problem,” the researchers state. They continue, “[Obesity] is also associated with the increased production of environmental chemicals, also called environmental obesogens, used mainly in agriculture, as disease vector control, helping to prevent harmful effects caused by fungi, bacteria, or even pests, using pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides, or endocrine disruptors (ED), which interfere in different processes.”

In analyzing five human cross-sectional studies, 24 animal studies, and seven in vitro studies published since 2000, the authors investigate how environmental and dietary pesticide exposure is associated with anthropometric parameters, such as weight and body mass index (BMI), and metabolic changes that promote fat accumulation and adipogenesis (the process of creating fat cells). “Participants with obesity were found to have higher urinary concentrations of 2,4-D and 2,5-D. Higher concentrations of these pesticides were associated with increased BMI and waist circumference,” the authors note. “As in children, the adult study showed a higher prevalence of obesity with higher urinary levels of 2,4-D and 2,5-D.” Additional studies find that carbendazim, thiophanate, benomyl, metalaxyl, propineb, and chlorpyrifos show a statistically significant association with obesity prevalence. (See Daily News here.)

A comprehensive research review published in Environment & Health analyzes existing research demonstrating the link between an increase in obesity and the proliferation of synthetic chemicals that “interfere with lipid metabolism.” The study documents over 50 obesogens with high-level human exposure rates, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), phthalates (PAEs), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), that can lead to lipid metabolism disruption, including health impacts on the liver and insulin resistance, among other metabolic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and dyslipidemia. (See Daily News here.)

A study in Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry finds permethrin, a commonly used synthetic pyrethroid insecticide, to be disruptive to the gut microbiome, altering microbiota and leading to increased formation of fat cells (adipogenesis) and metabolic disorders. With an aim to “comprehensively elucidate the effects of permethrin on gut microbiota, lipogenesis, and the associated molecular mechanisms,” the study explores the adverse effects of permethrin exposure in adult mice through multiple experiments. (See Daily News here.)

A study published in World Journal of Pediatrics finds an association between antibiotic and neonicotinoid (neonic) exposure and the onset of pediatric (childhood) type 1 diabetes (T1D) through effects on the gut microbiome. Individuals with type 1 diabetes are at higher risk of other autoimmune disorders, including thyroid and celiac disease. Over the past 20 years, neonicotinoids replaced four major chemical classes of insecticides in the global market (organophosphates, carbamates, phenyl-pyrazoles, and pyrethroids). (See Daily News here.) Another study published in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology finds organophosphate, organochlorine, and pyrethroid pesticides have links to insulin resistance associated with metabolic disorders like diabetes, obesity, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and hypertension. (See Daily News here.)

In addition, a meta-analysis published in Toxics finds an association between exposure to organophosphate pesticides (OPs) and respiratory diseases and diabetes mellitus (DM). Specifically, wheezing and asthma are the most common respiratory manifestations of organophosphate pesticide exposure, while fluctuation in weight and fat/glucose levels are the most common metabolically related manifestations. Concerning diabetes, the study suggests organophosphate pesticides could cause an excessive increase in body weight, impaired leptin (the protein that alerts the brain when there is enough fat stored, playing a role in body weight regulation) production, and fat and glucose dysregulation–all common precursors for diabetes, obesity, and other metabolic disorders. Additionally, the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) by OPs could also mediate insulin resistance. (See Daily News here.)

For additional coverage on scientific literature assessing the pesticide-diabetes connection, see here.

Call to Action

The best solution to the multiple problems associated with pesticide reliance is providing incentives and further support for farmers and land managers to transition to and maintain organically managed systems.

You can take action today by contacting your members of Congress to become a cosponsor of the Opportunities in Organic Act, which was reintroduced on January 29, 2026, by a cohort of 14 federal lawmakers led by U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) and U.S. Representative Jimmy Panetta (D-CA). Beyond Pesticides is one of many organizations endorsing this piece of legislation, per the press release by Senator Welch’s office.

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

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

Source: Environment International

(Beyond Pesticides, February 3, 2026) In analyzing the direct and indirect effects of pesticides that act simultaneously upon macrozoobenthos communities (invertebrates living in or on sediment) in standing small water bodies (SWBs) in Germany, researchers find high risks to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Published in Hydrobiologia, the experiment finds high risks to invertebrates and highlights how both direct and indirect effects are vital to comprehensive assessments of pesticides. While typically overlooked in regulatory reviews, SWBs are defined as shallow standing or running freshwaters “with a surface area of less than 50 hectares (ha),” such as lakes or ponds, including farm ponds, as well as headwater streams, springs and flushes, and ditches.

SWBs are biodiversity hotspots that contribute to numerous ecosystem services and are adversely affected by agricultural land use effects such as pesticide contamination. “Holistic assessments of pesticide effects on invertebrate communities in standing small water bodies have, however, not yet been successful,” the authors note. To address this, the researchers developed an indicator for evaluating pesticide impacts on macrozoobenthos communities, populated with aquatic invertebrates, such as snails, worms, crayfish, and clams, through indirect toxic effects on aquatic plants called INPOND: INdirect Pesticide impacts ON Diversity in standing small water bodies.

As the researchers state: “The indicator development process included structural and functional biodiversity indices, tested for correlations with toxic units for invertebrates, algae, and aquatic plants. Our results indicate low direct pesticide toxicity risks for macrozoobenthos in most of the investigated water bodies. However, INPOND reveals a high risk to invertebrates through pesticide-induced changes in aquatic plant communities, an essential habitat component shaping invertebrate assemblages.”

Background

Standing small water bodies (SWBs) are “highly abundant, with over 277 million SWBs worldwide, making up to 90% of the total water body count and about 16% of the water surface of all inland freshwater bodies,” the authors note. They continue: “In Germany, there are around 292,000 SWBs, of which 58,000 are located in agriculturally dominated areas. The most common SWB type in northeastern Germany is kettle holes. Kettle holes are depressions in the landscape that were formed by melting of dead ice, i.e., old glacial boulders, at the end of the Last Ice Age. Overlying sediment settled in these depressions and formed sinkholes filled with water.”

SWBs, as compared to other water bodies such as rivers, have higher biodiversity of macrophyte (aquatic plant) and invertebrate communities, as well as higher numbers of rare and endangered species. These small bodies of water are also “stepping stones for the dispersal of organisms and could support shifts in species distribution due to changes in climate and seasons,” the researchers state. “Thus, kettle holes are essential for biodiversity on a landscape level, especially given the current global decline in insect diversity, abundance, and biomass.” Kettle holes, and other SWBs, also contribute further ecosystem services such as water retention and carbon sequestration, both of which are increasingly important with climate change.

“Despite their global abundance and importance in regard to species conservation and the climate crisis, there is only little research on SWBs and impacts on community compositions and their ecological functions under anthropogenic influence,” the authors note. In analyzing macrozoobenthos in SWBs, this provides insight into these data gaps, as macrozoobenthos are bioindicators of ecosystem health. As these organisms have species-specific needs, habitat diversity is linked directly to the diversity of macrozoobenthos and overall community composition. Impacts on habitat diversity, and thus macrozoobethos, from pesticides are identified in previous research. (See here, here, here, here, and here.)

Pesticides and other environmental contaminants can enter surface water, and subsequently SWBs, during and after application via several input pathways, including drift, run-off, erosion, exchange with groundwater, and inflow from drainages, and adversely impact the diversity of macrozoobethos. “It has also been found that macrozoobenthos communities in SWBs are at greater risk from the input of pesticides than those in larger water bodies,” the researchers explain. “In a similar way, nutrients from agricultural fertilization can enter surface water and can have an effect on macrozoobenthos communities, potentially decreasing their biodiversity.” (See studies here and here.)

Study Methodology and Results

To assess the ecological status of standing SWBs in agricultural areas of northeastern Germany, the authors compare pesticide contamination in kettle holes to the diversity of macrozoobenthos within the water bodies. “In order to obtain pesticide and macrozoobenthos diversity data, 84 agriculturally influenced standing SWBs in the federal states of Brandenburg (n = 60) and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (n = 24) were sampled,” the researchers say. They continue, “Each water body was surrounded by at least 90% agricultural land within a radius of 500 m, in order to ensure a primary influence by agricultural methods via water quality and habitat structure.”

Water sampling at multiple locations for each of the water bodies were collected and analyzed for 91 pesticide substances commonly used in agriculture, including fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides. Biodiversity data was also collected at each site, as well as reference sites to offer a comparison. This includes data on habitat types within the SWBs and sampling of “all invertebrate organisms living on bottom substrates with grain sizes larger than 0.5 mm, for example, aquatic insects, snails, mussels, and crustaceans.”

Both direct and indirect pesticide effects were calculated, using calculations for acute pesticide load, toxicity, and biodiversity indexes, as well as the INPOND (INdirect Pesticide impacts ON Diversity) indicator. As a result, the authors find that:

• Based on indirect effects and the INPOND indicator, 35 of the 84 SWBs in Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania are classified as either poor or bad condition. 11 SWBs are classified as poor or bad based on the direct pesticide effects for invertebrate toxicity.
• The pesticides responsible for toxicity to aquatic plants that led to the water body classifications of poor or bad include the insecticide chlorpyrifos, the herbicides chloroluron, dimethanamid-P, flufenacet, foramsulfuron, nicosulfuron, prosulfuron, tebuconazole, and the fungicides epoxiconazole and terbuthylazin.
• Six of the eight SWBs in the bad category are characterized primarily by chlorpyrifos contamination, while the other two are characterized by tefluthrin. Of note, pyraclostrobin is the main substance in the “poor” water bodies.
• The number of organisms within the Gastropoda genus is lower with higher toxic effects on aquatic plants within SWBs.
• Pesticides toxicity toward aquatic plant species also reduces the occurrence of pelal-dwelling species (those living in the muddy substrate found at the bottom of aquatic ecosystems) in SWBs. The researchers note: “Thus, the absence of such aquatic plants due to herbicide or other pesticide exposure could result in a cascading effect of decreasing soil oxygen levels, increasing the risk of predation of burrowing pelal-dwelling species, and thus decreasing their occurrence. Additionally, their influence on nutrient conditions could shape microhabitats elevating habitat diversity within the water bodies.” This highlights the importance of aquatic plants as habitat providing structures, even for species appearing non-dependent on plants at first glance.
• “The proportion of r-strategic individuals [colonizers with rapid growth] correlates negatively with increasing toxicities toward aquatic plants, and inversely, more K-strategic individuals [longer lived in stable environments] are found with higher disturbance of aquatic plants,” which the authors state is not consistent with how r-strategist species (known as colonizers that usually increase in population with higher pollution) typically behave. “K-strategists are considered to be more efficient in using limited resources and thus constitute strong competitors in stable ecosystems,” the researchers share. They continue: “Therefore, our results demonstrate that pesticide contamination with regard to toxicity for aquatic plants does not constitute acute disturbances in the investigated SWBs… The absence of aquatic plants, especially emergent plant species, could hinder r-strategists from (re-)colonizing affected water bodies, resulting in lower r-/K-proportions.”

In summarizing their study and the results, the authors say: “In this study, we assessed the ecological condition of 84 SWBs in northeastern Germany in terms of pesticide contamination and its impacts on macrozoobenthos communities using the newly developed indicator INPOND. Compared to other commonly used functional and structural biodiversity metrics, this indicator is able to describe indirect pesticide effects on macrozoobenthos in an efficient and reliable manner… Our findings verified previously hypothesized negative indirect impacts of pesticides on macrozoobenthos communities in standing SWBs via toxic effects on aquatic vegetation, an essential habitat component for invertebrates in SWBs.”

As part of their conclusion, the researchers also postulate that in comparing the direct and indirect pesticide effects in SWBs, assessments “have a tendency toward an underestimation of the real risk of pesticides toward macrozoobenthos communities.” In the majority of the water bodies, the INPOND indicator reveals much higher risks by taking indirect pesticide effects into account, finding a deficiency in current risk assessment analyses.

Previous Research

There is extensive Daily News coverage on the contamination of pesticides in waterways, as well as the adverse impacts to aquatic organisms, terrestrial wildlife, and humans as a subsequent result. From groundwater to river-lake systems, or even in seaweed, this contamination is widespread. An additional study finds ubiquitous pesticide contamination in The Rhine Valley in southwestern Germany and highlights that current regulation of pesticides, even in the relatively progressive European Union, is inadequate to protect humans and all the other organisms that produce the environment necessary for human life and civilization. (See Daily News Sampling Finds Pesticides Throughout Environment with Toxic Mixtures from Agricultural Use for more information.)

As the current study authors point out, there is a wide body of research connecting pesticide toxicity to deleterious effects on aquatic biodiversity. One study shows that in stream invertebrates, the number of families is lower with higher direct toxicity from pesticides. Another study shows how herbicides have long-term effects on algae and aquatic plant communities in SWBs, which alters the food availabilty and habit structures for macrozoobethos and other organisms and leads to cascading impacts throughout aquatic communities. To learn more, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Threatened Waters: Turning the Tide on Pesticide Contamination resource page, as well as the Poisoned Waterways Pesticides and You article.

Moving Forward

While studies continue to mount on the adverse effects of pesticide contamination in the air, water, soil, and food that all life depends on, there is a holistic solution available. By eliminating the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and transitioning to organic agricultural and land management practices across the board, these adverse effects are mitigated. Removing the threats to biodiversity on a case-by-case basis, such as by targeting just chlorpyrifos as it was the pesticide responsible for the most contamination within this study, does not resolve the problem on its own. A single ban of a pesticide active ingredient allows the perpetuation of the pesticide treadmill, as another potentially more toxic chemical will take its place.

The holistic solution that lies in organic addresses this issue and offers an alternative that prioritizes soil health, eliminates the need for chemical inputs, and protects the health of all. Join Beyond Pesticides’ mission and take action to support organic both locally and globally. Start by telling your U.S. Representative and Senators to become a cosponsor of the Opportunities in Organic Act (S. 3717/H.R. 7318) and visit Beyond Pesticides’ Resources hub for more information and ways to get involved.

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

Source:

Ruf, L., Lorenz, S., and Trau, F. (2026) The unseen threat: indirect pesticide effects are key to realistic ecological assessments of standing small water bodies, Hydrobiologia. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10750-025-06099-3.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 2 2025) With the Trump administration withdrawing from international organizations that historically advance a shared world view of global sustainability (from health and the environment, to peace and justice), people are calling on the U.S. Congress and state governors to support critical health and environmental programs that link humanity across the globe. Beyond Pesticides is collaborating on an action to: Tell Congress to support and fund international organizations critical to the global health of humans and the biosphere, AND Tell Governors/Lieutenant Governors to join (as well as thank them for joining) the Governors Public Health Alliance and to expand their support for international agencies that protect biodiversity and mitigate the climate crisis (IUCN, IPBES, and IPCC).  Will the U.S. Congress and state government step up to link across national borders when the Trump administration steps back from worldwide existential health and environmental crises?

Among the 66 organizations affected by this action are the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These organizations all support global health, and withdrawing from them is “contrary to the interests of the United States,” especially given the dismantling of U.S. environmental and health protections.

The January 7 Trump memorandum—“Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States,” referring to an apparent internal report (not disclosed to the public) from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, finds that, “[I]t is contrary to the interests of the United States to remain a member of, participate in, or otherwise provide support to the [66] organizations. . .” On the same day, Mr. Rubio said in a statement that, “The Trump Administration has found these institutions to be redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity.” The memorandum points to an earlier Executive Order 14199 (February 4, 2025), “Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations,” which incorporates President Trump’s longstanding attack on the United Nations and many of its programs—discussed in a 2025 opinion piece in the Brazilian Center for International Relations Journal by Richard Gowan, program director for global issues and institutions at the International Crisis Group.

Fourteen U.S states (and Guam) recognized that dramatic harm to public health will occur with the U.S. withdrawal from WHO and joined together to form the Governors Public Health Alliance, “a new coalition of governors designed to protect the health of people across the U.S.” Beyond Pesticides’ action is calling on the alliance to expand its focus to address biodiversity and climate, since a failure to ensure protection in these areas will certainly undermine public health protection. To this end, the action encourages governors to join with the global community in supporting critical efforts to ensure a united U.S. and worldwide commitment to protecting ecosystems and mitigating climate threats, both essential to life.

• WHO was established in 1948 as a United Nations agency that connects nations, partners and people to prepare for, detect, respond to, and recover from health emergencies, including pandemics, disease outbreaks, natural disasters and humanitarian crises. WHO helps to build global systems that predict, prevent and contain emerging risks; support countries and communities in responding to disease outbreaks, disasters and humanitarian crises; rapidly assess the availability, safety, and efficacy of emergency health products; organize resources and health services for fair global access to vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and supplies; and support on-the-ground care in fragile settings to protect the most vulnerable. It is financed primarily through contributions from UN member nations. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is an agency of WHO. WHO also houses the Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network (GOARN), which informs departments of public health in states across the U.S. and worldwide of pending health threats.
  
  
• Since 1948, IUCN has brought together leaders who set the agenda for global conservation. It possesses an unparalleled network spanning the conservation field. IUCN originates and activates some of the most influential conservation science in the field through commissions–networks of more than 17,000 scientists, analysts, researchers, experts, advocates, policymakers, and project leaders. In 1972, IUCN became the official advisor on nature under the World Heritage Convention. IUCN motions have resulted in more than 1,450 Resolutions and Recommendations, which serve as the basis for influencing conservation policy at the species, site, national, and global levels. The IUCN Red List is the world’s comprehensive source on the extinction risk status of 169,000 species of animals, plants, and fungi.
  
  
• IPBES was established in 2012 as an independent intergovernmental body to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being, and sustainable development. It is not a United Nations body.  However, it is an independent intergovernmental body that is open to all member countries of the UN. An important part of the work of IPBES is performing regular and timely assessments of knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services and their interlinkages, which include comprehensive thematic, global, and regional assessments. To date, 13 IPBES assessments have been completed.
  
  
• IPCC is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change. It was created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies and provide input into international climate change negotiations. Thousands of people from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. For the assessment reports, experts volunteer their time as IPCC authors in reviewing the thousands of scientific papers published each year to provide an open and transparent comprehensive summary of the state of knowledge concerning the drivers of climate change, its impacts, and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks. Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas and indicates where further research is needed.

Organizations such as these offer opportunities for assessing and addressing international problems. As was learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, disease outbreaks know no boundaries. Factors leading to species extinction likewise cross international borders. Biodiversity is critical to human survival and is affected by environmental conditions worldwide. Climate change, which has synergistic effects when combined with toxic chemicals and other anthropogenic factors, can only be addressed globally. Beyond Pesticides notes that, “International cooperation is crucial to assessing, preventing, and mitigating global crises. The U.S., which has historically supported these efforts, must not withdraw support now.”

The 2-part action now circulating includes: Tell Congress to support and fund international organizations critical to the global health of humans and the biosphere, AND Tell Governors/Lieutenant Governors to join (as well as thank them for joining) the Governors Public Health Alliance and to expand their support for international agencies that protect biodiversity and mitigate the climate crisis (IUCN, IPBES, and IPCC).

Letter to Congressional Representative and Senators:
On January 7, President Trump announced in a memorandum titled “Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States” that the U.S. would be withdrawing from 66 international organizations. Among the organizations affected by this action are the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These organizations all support global health, and withdrawing from them is “contrary to the interests of the United States,” especially given the dismantling of U.S. environmental and health protections.

WHO, established in 1948 as a United Nations (UN) agency, is critical in helping our nation to prepare for, detect, respond to, and recover from health emergencies, including pandemics, disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and predicts, prevents, and contains emerging risks. WHO conducts critical research on cancer through the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Since 1948, IUCN has brought together leaders who set the agenda for global conservation. It has an unparalleled network spanning the conservation field. IUCN creates some of the most influential conservation science through commissions and in 1972, became the official advisor on nature under the World Heritage Convention. IUCN motions influence conservation policy at the species, site, national, and global levels. The IUCN Red List is the world’s comprehensive source on the extinction risk status of 169,000 species of animals, plants, and fungi.

IPBES was established in 2012 as an independent intergovernmental body to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being, and sustainable development. IPBES performs regular and timely assessments of knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services and their interlinkages, which include comprehensive thematic, global, and regional assessments.

IPCC was created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies and provide input into international climate change negotiations by summarizing thousands of scientific papers published each year to give the state of knowledge concerning the drivers of climate change, its impacts, and future risks, and mitigation. Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas and indicates where further research is needed.

Organizations such as these offer opportunities for assessing and addressing global problems. As was learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, disease outbreaks know no boundaries. Factors leading to species extinction likewise cross international borders. Biodiversity is critical to human survival and is affected by environmental conditions worldwide. Climate change, which has synergistic effects when combined with toxic chemicals and other anthropogenic factors, can only be addressed globally. International cooperation is crucial to assessing, preventing, and mitigating global crises. The U.S., which has historically supported these efforts, must not withdraw support now.

Please demand that the U.S. renew our support for these global organizations.

Thank you.

Letter to 14 Governors, in support of the Governors Public Health Alliance, with expansion to biodiversity and climate issues:
Thank you for joining with 13 other U.S. states [and Guam] in forming the Governors Public Health Alliance “to protect the health of people across the U.S.,” recognizing the dramatic harm to public health that will occur with the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO). We urge you to expand its scope to address biodiversity and climate, since a failure to ensure protection in these areas will undermine public health protection. Our state must join with the global community in supporting critical efforts to ensure a united worldwide commitment to protecting ecosystems on which life depends.

In addition to withdrawal from WHO, President Trump’s memorandum titled “Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States” pulls the U.S. from 66 international organizations, including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These organizations all support global health, and withdrawing from them is “contrary to the interests of the United States,” especially given the dismantling of U.S. environmental and health protections.

You understand the importance of WHO in helping our state to prepare for, detect, respond to, and recover from health emergencies, including pandemics, disease outbreaks, and natural disasters. WHO also conducts critical research on cancer under one of its agencies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Since 1948, IUCN has brought together leaders who set the agenda for global conservation. It has an unparalleled network spanning the conservation field. IUCN creates some of the most influential conservation science through commissions and in 1972, became the official advisor on nature under the World Heritage Convention. IUCN motions influence conservation policy at the species, site, national, and global levels. The IUCN Red List is the world’s comprehensive source on the extinction risk status of 169,000 species of animals, plants, and fungi.

IPBES was established in 2012 as an independent intergovernmental body to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being, and sustainable development. IPBES performs regular and timely assessments of knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services and their interlinkages, which include comprehensive thematic, global, and regional assessments.

IPCC was created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies and provide input into international climate change negotiations by summarizing thousands of scientific papers published each year to give the state of knowledge concerning the drivers of climate change, its impacts, and future risks, and mitigation. Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas and indicates where further research is needed.

Organizations such as these offer opportunities for assessing and addressing global problems. As we learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, disease outbreaks know no boundaries. Factors leading to biodiversity decline across state and international borders are critical to human survival. Climate change, which has synergistic effects when combined with toxic chemicals and other anthropogenic factors, can only be addressed with international collaboration to assess, prevent, and mitigate global crises. Without U.S. support, states must step up.  

Thank you for your leadership in protecting public health. Please expand the scope of the Alliance to ensure a sustainable future.

Letter to 36 Governors to join Governors Public Health Alliance and expand scope to biodiversity and climate protection:
On January 7, President Trump announced in a memorandum titled “Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States” that the U.S. would be withdrawing from 66 international organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These organizations all support global health, and withdrawing from them is “contrary to the interests of the United States,” especially given the dismantling of U.S. environmental and health protections.

With the U.S. withdrawal from these vital international bodies, I urge you to join 14 other U.S. states [and Guam] as a member of the Governors Public Health Alliance, a new coalition of governors designed “to protect the health of people across the U.S.” and expand the scope of its work to address biodiversity and climate, since a failure to ensure protection in these areas will undermine public health protection. Our state must join the global community in supporting critical health and environmental efforts to ensure a united global commitment to protecting the health of our residents and the ecosystems on which life depends.

WHO, established in 1948 as a United Nations (UN) agency, is critical in helping our state to prepare for, detect, respond to, and recover from health emergencies, including pandemics, disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and predicts, prevents, and contains emerging risks. WHO conducts critical research on cancer through the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Since 1948, IUCN has brought together leaders who set the agenda for global conservation. It has an unparalleled network spanning the conservation field. IUCN creates some of the most influential conservation science through commissions and in 1972, became the official advisor on nature under the World Heritage Convention. IUCN motions influence conservation policy at the species, site, national, and global levels. The IUCN Red List is the world’s comprehensive source on the extinction risk status of 169,000 species of animals, plants, and fungi.

IPBES was established in 2012 as an independent intergovernmental body to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being, and sustainable development. An important part of the work of the IPBES is performing regular and timely assessments of knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services and their interlinkages, which include comprehensive thematic, global, and regional assessments.

IPCC was created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies and provide input into international climate change negotiations by providing an open and transparent comprehensive summary of thousands of scientific papers published each year to give the state of knowledge concerning the drivers of climate change, its impacts, and future risks, and mitigation. Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas and indicates where further research is needed.

As we learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, disease outbreaks know no boundaries. Factors leading to biodiversity decline across state and international borders are critical to human survival. Climate change, which has synergistic effects when combined with toxic chemicals and other anthropogenic factors, can only be addressed with international collaboration to assess, prevent, and mitigate global crises. Without U.S. support, states must step up.  

I appreciate your consideration of this request. Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 30, 2026) In a 2025 study published by the British Ecological Society’s Animal Ecology, researchers’ findings “suggest that beaver engineering created structurally diverse habitats that supported a broader range of bat species.” It is well-established that bats perform important ecosystem services, which help to prevent and manage insect problems in balanced ecosystems. The researchers find: “By modifying both habitat structure and prey abundance, beaver engineering affected bat activity, richness, and feeding activity directly and indirectly. These changes operated across aquatic–terrestrial boundaries, highlighting the cross-ecosystem influence and ecological complexity of ecosystem engineering.”

Environmental and public health advocates have long called for nature-based solutions to pest management that provide critical support to at-risk wildlife (like beavers and bats) and reduce costs for agrichemical inputs to farmers due to improved ecosystem services (such as pest suppression and management). In turn, this holistic approach leads to secondary benefits like improved climate resilience and public health protection that are associated with the elimination of petrochemical pesticide use.

Background and Methodology

The researchers focused their study in eight stream ecosystems in differing contexts across Switzerland, choosing a diversity of habitats, including urban, agricultural, and forested zones. An area was selected with an active beaver pool, and a control area located 500 meters upstream or downstream with minimal or nonexistent beaver interactions. The researchers chose 500 meters as a short flight distance, writing, “Thus, if we observe a difference in bat richness, activity and feeding activity between Pool and Control, these changes can be attributed to modifications introduced by beavers rather than to broader landscape effects.” For more information on bat data collection, please see Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and 2.2.3.

The primary objective of this study, according to the authors, was to “assess… the effects of beaver engineering on bat species richness, bat activity and bat feeding activity in eight stream ecosystems ranging from near-natural to heavily human-impacted, located across the Swiss midlands.” They studied bats directly and indirectly, via habitat modifications and adjusting the availability of food, respectively. In terms of data analysis, in Table 1 the authors identified 20 pathways/possible mechanisms determined in the prevailing scientific literature concerning beaver presence and bat abundance, ranging from statements such as “beaver engineering increases canopy heterogeneity” to “arthropod abundance is correlated to bat species richness.”

The researchers are based at various Swiss governmental and higher education institutions, including the Community Ecology and Biodiversity and Conservation Biology programs at Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, and National Beaver Specialist Centre (Nationale Biberfachstelle). The research was funded by the Blue-Green Biodiversity Research Initiative (through Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology Domain) and National Beaver Project. Regarding potential conflicts of interest, “The authors declare no competing interests.”

Results

Researchers in this study recorded 119,115 “bat sequences” through detectors that could capture the calls of passing bats over the course of 246 nights across the eight beaver-controlled areas (Pool) and control areas.

The authors confirmed their hypothesis, finding “that bat species richness, activity and feeding activity were significantly higher in beaver-engineered Pool compared to Control areas. Our models revealed that this higher bat richness, activity and feeding activity were related to direct beaver engineering effects on standing dead wood density and canopy heterogeneity, as well as indirect effects through arthropod abundance.”

For further information on the results, please see Section 3.2 of the study.

Previous Coverage

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.

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 agricultural sites 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 as opposed to bat conservation areas being established near pesticide use. The authors write, “Luring bats to agricultural sites highly contaminated with pesticides or where they may encounter ecological traps associated with infrastructures could have detrimental impacts on a broad scale.”

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. 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.)

Please see previous Daily News, Bat Conservation Enhances Ecosystems and Agricultural Productivity, Natural Alternative to Pesticides, for additional details.

Tony Able, chair of the Southeast Beaver Alliance (SEBA) while serving on the Board of Directors for the Southeastern Trust for Parks and Land and speaker at the Forum, presented on the restorative benefits. Retired in 2022 after 35 years of distinguished service with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), his specialty is natural stream and wetland restoration, having contributed to a wide range of environmental issues, including watershed management, groundwater remediation, hazardous waste cleanup, nonpoint source pollution, wetlands protection, and water quality management.

“Doing stream and wetland restoration [at EPA], I came across this idea that beavers can be very strong partners in helping with restoration,” says Mr. Able. He continues: “I started the Southeast Beaver Alliance in 2024, partly because I wanted to stay engaged in science.”

On the subject of ecosystem services of beavers, Mr. Able highlights that there are only roughly 10-15 million beavers in the present day with estimates of 100-400 million beavers before the fur trade during colonial period of the 16^th century onward. In a peer-reviewed paper (to be published in the near future) from a researcher based at SEBA, they identified in the literature 21 types of ecosystem services that beavers provide at local regional and global scales. The authors, SEBA affiliated Colin Van Buren, PhD and Emily Fairfax, Ph.D (University of Minnesota), reference benefits including the construction of aquatic habitats for other wildlife, filter pesticides and nutrient run-off from farms resulting from rural stormwater surges through beaver ponds, filter urban stormwater, support flood attenuation, wildfire control (providing safe havens for wildlife and emergency professionals alike), drought management, recharging groundwater offers, and re-greening grasslands.

“A number of farmers and ranchers are recognizing that holding that water on the landscape will re-green their farms and pastures,” says Mr. Able in his Forum presentation [begins at 1:25:52 timestamp].

Call to Action

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]

Sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Update to stay notified on ways you can take action to expand public investments in programs that expand organic land management, in agricultural contexts and on public green spaces, parks, and playing fields, to move beyond a reliance on synthetic materials. See ManageSafe^TM for addressing pest prevention and management for land and buildings.

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

Source: Animal Ecology

(Beyond Pesticides, January 29, 2026) A study of ecotoxicity risk from neonicotinoid insecticides, published in Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, finds that chemicals in this class of pesticides, particularly dinotefuron, increase the body temperature of Apis mellifera (European honey bee) and subsequently accelerate the translocation (movement) of contaminants into hives by the honey bees. The research indicates that neonicotinoids affect acetylcholine receptors in the nervous system, leading to an “elevation in octopamine titer [neurotransmitter/hormone] and subsequent increase in the body temperature of honeybees,” the authors report. They continue: “Furthermore, we observed a considerable upregulation [of] the expression of a flight gene flightin in honeybees. This gene accelerates the homing behavior of honeybees and facilitates the rapid and frequent transport of neonicotinoid pesticide-contaminated nectar to the hive.”

In describing their results, the researchers state: “For the first time, we propose that neonicotinoid pesticides accelerate the homing ability of honeybees by affecting their body temperature, which leads to more neonicotinoid pesticides entering the hive and explains the prevalence of neonicotinoids and at higher concentrations in terms of their effects on the honeybee body temperature that enhances homing.” This accelerated movement of neonicotinoid pesticides into honey bee hives heightens the toxicity risks to honey bee populations.

The study also analyzes the difference between S-dinotefuran and R-dinotefuran, which are enantiomers (mirror images) of the same compound that can vary in their chemical properties due to different configurations. The results reveal that “S-dinotefuran exhibited a markedly higher influence on the body temperature of honeybees and the expression of flight genes than R-dinotefuran,” the authors state.

Study Background

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. A multitude of studies show that neonicotinoid residues accumulate in the pollen and nectar of treated plants and represent a risk to pollinators and other nontarget insects. As a result of this and their pervasive use, there is a preponderance of evidence that neonics play a major contributing role in pollinator and biodiversity decline. (See Beyond Pesticides’ resource page here for more information.)

As the current study states: “Insects possess a strong thermoregulatory capacity to maintain normal insect metabolism, which maximizes their adaptive capacity and ensures that they can survive normally. Honeybees can regulate their body temperature, which is essential for maintaining the health and stability of their colonies.” Disruptions to these mechanisms adversely impact the health of individual honey bees, as well as the health of the colony. Not only does temperature regulation impact bees’ foraging abilities under a range of weather conditions, but a bee’s body temperature can directly impact flight capability. “In cold environments, foragers utilize flight muscles to maintain their thorax temperature above the ambient temperature during foraging activities,” the authors note. “The regulation of the honeybee body temperature is paramount in their overall functionality and survival strategies.” (See study here.)

Prior research shows the importance of thermogenesis in honey bees, highlighting the role of octopamine signaling and octopamine receptors in this process. Octopamine, as a neurotransmitter, neurohormone, and neuromodulator in invertebrates (see more), directly impacts the flight muscles of honey bees, allowing for the promotion of thermogenesis and maintenance of proper body temperature. While neonics have been previously recognized as neurotoxic agents, their implications on body temperature in honey bees has not been fully evaluated.

To address this gap in scientific knowledge, the researchers “conducted a study on the effects of body temperature of the honeybees after subacute exposure, their returning ability to their hive, and the enrichment of pollutants they carry to their hive in the field.” The authors continue, saying: “Our results show for the first time neonicotinoid pesticides dinotefuran substantially increased the octopamine titer [concentration] and body temperature of the honeybees, thereby accelerating their homing and foraging behavior, and considerably expedited enrichment and transfer of contaminated nectar in the field to honeybee populations and hives. These findings may be the underlying reason neonicotinoid pesticide use poses a higher risk to honeybee populations than other pesticide types.”

Methodology and Results

Within the experiments, the effects of multiple neonicotinoid pesticides on thermoregulation in honey bees are analyzed. The body temperatures of the bees were recorded after exposure to the neonics S-dinotefuran, R-dinotefuran, Rac-dinotefuran (a 50/50 mixture of S- and R-dinotefuran), and thiamethoxam, as well as pyriproxyfen, an insecticide that is not in the neonicotinoid class, as a comparison. Additional analyses include the determination of octopamine content in honey bees and the effect of dinotefuran enantiomers on genes and the homing ability of honey bees. Both laboratory and field experiments are included, with additional RNA extraction and sequence analysis and statistical data analyses.

The results reveal that Rac-dinotefuran-treated honey bees have the highest body temperatures when compared to untreated bees, while all bees treated with thiamethoxam and dinotefuran exhibit elevated body temperatures. “When the honeybees were treated with dinotefuran enantiomers, a remarkable increase in the body temperature of those treated with S-dinotefuran than those treated with R-dinotefuran and the sucrose solution” is noted.

To elucidate the differences in the body temperature of bees treated with neonicotinoid pesticides and a non-neonicotinoid insecticide, bees were exposed to pyriproxyfen as a control agent. The authors report, “After thiamethoxam and pyriproxyfen treatments, the thiamethoxam-treated honeybees exhibited a significantly higher body temperature (28.6°C) than those treated with pyriproxyfen (24.5°C) and sucrose solution (19.3°C).” Most notably, the honey bees treated with Rac-dinotefuran have a significantly higher body temperature (30.4°C). These results highlight that neonicotinoids in comparison to other pesticides trigger a specific mechanism of dysfunction that threatens temperature regulation in honey bees.

The data shows “tremendous increases” in the octopamine content in honey bees after treatments with S-dinotefuran, Rac-dinotefuran, and thiamethoxam, indicating that neonicotinoid pesticides influence octopamine concentration and thus the body temperature of honey bees. In terms of genetic implications, honey bees exposed to the dinotefuran enantiomers experience significant alterations in genes that are associated with flight muscles and thermoregulation.

Additionally, the number of honey bees returning to their hive after treatment with the dinotefuran enantiomers was 3.9 times higher with treatment of S-dinotefuran than with R-dinotefuran. “Therefore, compared to R-dinotefuran, honeybees transport significantly more S-dinotefuran into the hive,” the researchers state. S-dinotefuran treatment also “resulted in significant changes in 44 genes,” many of which are related to thermogenesis.

Overall, the results show that “S-dinotefuran is more toxic than R-dinotefuran at the same concentration, and thus, it exhibits a stronger effect on insects.” The authors continue: “Our study indicated that the neonicotinoid insecticide dinotefuran acted on the insect acetylcholine receptor, which caused synaptic excitation and upregulation of the expression of flightin in bees. This phenomenon may be the direct reason for the substantial promotion of the homing behavior of bees within a short period.”  

Previous Research

There is a wide body of science on the effects of neonicotinoids on nontarget organisms, particularly pollinators, as documented by Beyond Pesticides in Daily News and on the What the Science Shows on Biodiversity page. Recent research highlights the impacts of neonics on honey bee reproduction and how safety reviews fail to capture the hazards associated with neonicotinoids and their transformation products.

Additional research on neonicotinoids is captured in the current study that supports the findings, including:

• A study of brief acute exposure to dinotefuran shows enhanced flight capacity in honey bees, as does short-term treatment with thiamethoxam in additional research. (See here and here.)
• “[S]ublethal acute exposure to the neonicotinoid insecticide thiamethoxam increased the flight time and distance of bees and demonstrated that thiamethoxam had short-term excitatory and long-term inhibitory effects.”
• Apis cerana (honey bee specific to Asia) experience “a significantly higher average homing time, mean flight velocity, flying distance, and flying duration than the control with a short period after acute oral treatment with 20 μL thiamethoxam.” (See study here.)
• As reported by Chen et al., “S-dinotefuran is 41.1–128.4 times more toxic to honeybees than R-dinotefuran.”
• Neonicotinoid insecticides, even in trace amounts, can reduce the foraging performance and success of honey bees. (See research here, here, and here.)

The Organic Solution

To safeguard honey bees, other pollinators, and all insects throughout the environment, neonicotinoid insecticides and all other petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers need to be phased out of use. Protecting the health of all wildlife within the ecosystems we depend upon also directly protects human health. As Beyond Pesticides and organic advocates affirm, this is only possible through the wide-scale transition to organic land management practices.

Currently, the pesticide treadmill is perpetuated within our chemical-intensive society, where one pesticide could be removed from use but another, potentially more toxic compound, immediately fills its place. Organic agriculture and land management offers a holistic approach in which alternative practices can be implemented that eliminate the need for the input of toxic chemicals. In prioritizing soil health, healthy systems are built and maintained that do not need harmful compounds such as neonicotinoids for pest management.

To support the organic movement, start by buying or growing organic products and get involved in your local community by advocating for Sustainable Parks for the New Year. To learn more, sign up to get our Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered right to your inbox and email our team at [email protected] to learn about the Parks for a Sustainable Future program.

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

Source:

Zhang, F. et al. (2025) Neonicotinoid pesticides dinotefuran increase honeybee body temperature and accelerate honeybee (Apis mellifera) translocation of contaminants into hives to enhance ecotoxicity risk, Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590182625002590.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 28, 2026) A study published last year in Science of The Total Environment reports widespread pesticide contamination collected from beehive monitoring across the European Union (EU). “This study has produced the first EU-wide distribution map of terrestrial pesticide contamination and demonstrates widespread pesticide contamination of EU environments,” the authors write. The study, led by a cohort of citizen-scientists, documents pesticide drift across the European continent.

The results found that 188 of the 429 targeted pesticide compounds were detected in noninvasive, in-hive passive samplers (APIStrips) across 27 EU countries between May and August of 2023. This finding emerges at a time when public health and environmental advocates raise concerns about the European Union’s backtracking on commitments to reduce pesticide use by 2030, although the European Commission announced in July 2025 that “the use and risk of chemical pesticides has decreased by 58% by 2023 [from the 2015-2017 reference period], while the use of more hazardous pesticides fell by 27% over the same period.”

Results

The study results reveal that no landscape is safe from pesticide exposure, despite the European Union having better regulations in place than most other countries/regions. The researchers found:

• “There was no sample site where there was no pesticide occurrence over the complete sampling period.”
• “Four pesticides: acetamiprid (insecticide); azoxystrobin (fungicide); boscalid (fungicide); and tebuconazole (fungicide) were detected in all 27 EU countries in more than 50% of the sampling sites.”
• “The 31 most frequently detected pesticides (Annex III) across all EU countries were selected based on their occurrence in more than 40 sampling sites (approximately 10% of the total) in all sampling rounds, and with more than 100 individual detections.”
  • Fungicides (16) – azoxystrobin, boscalid, fluopyram, tebuconazole, pyraclostrobin, trifloxystrobin, mandipropamid, fluxapyroxad, fludioxonil, difenoconazole, thiabendazole, carbendazim, cyprodinil, ametoctradin, metconazole, and propamocarb;
  • Insecticides (12) – acetamiprid, permethrin, cypermethrin, acrinathrin, imidacloprid, chlorfenvinphos, pyriproxyfen, chlorpyrifos, fipronil, thiacloprid, deltamethrin, and chlorantraniliprole; and
  • Herbicides (3) – metolachlor, dimethenamid, and pendimethalin.
• “Of particular concern is the frequent and widespread detection of several compounds, especially insecticides, that are currently not authorized as phytosanitary products in the European Union due to the high potential for harm to human health and the environment. Notably, this includes thiacloprid, permethrin, carbendazim, chlorpyrifos, and chlorfenvinphos (Fig. 4), which were detected in more than 60 apiaries, each with over 100 individual detections.”
• “[W]hile the most commonly detected pesticides are generally present at low concentrations, certain substances may be applied intensively at specific times, leading to high concentrations during particular periods. This reflects variations in application practices and usage patterns.”
• “Although agricultural areas accounted for only 54% of the sampling sites, they contributed over 68% of the pesticide detections, and more than 70% of the total pesticide amount detected in the APIstrips.”
• “The presence of imidacloprid and fipronil both raise significant concerns for two reasons: both compounds are banned for agricultural use within the EU; and both are highly toxic to honey bees at the ng level.”

Background and Methodology

This research is an extension of the INSIGNIA-EU project, “Preparatory action for monitoring of environmental pollution using honeybees.” The project website and associated findings will be maintained by the end of 2030, according to their website.

“The ambition of the INSIGNIA-EU Action was to establish a citizen scientist pan-EU network using beekeepers to bio-monitor environmental pollution using honey bee colonies across the EU,” say the authors on the goal of this study and beyond. They continue: “This monitoring initiative engaged 315 citizen scientist beekeepers across all 27 EU countries, following a standardized protocol based on the effective and non-invasive APIStrip passive sampler (). The study was conducted over nine consecutive two-week periods from April 20 to August 24, 2023, ensuring simultaneous data collection and thus direct comparability of results.”

APIstrip samplers “were subsequently inserted into [target] bee hives, where they remained for 14 ± 2 days. In each apiary, [the researchers] installed two APIStrips simultaneously in two beehives. This procedure was repeated across nine consecutive sampling events at each apiary.” The goal was to collect data from across the European Union across various landscapes, with national coordinators recruiting ‘beekeeper citizen scientists’ across the three target regions. “[T]he overall distribution of apiaries as 54% Agricultural, 21% Artificial, and 25% Forest was considered sufficiently representative for the project’s objectives,” the authors report. Study authors categorized the landscapes based on 2018 CORINE Land Cover data.

The lead researchers for this study comprise a cohort of independent scientists and higher education institutions, including University of Almeria (Spain), Alveus AB Consultancy (The Netherlands), Wageningen Environmental Research (The Netherlands), University of Graz (Austria), Hellenic Agricultural Organization – Dimitra (Greece), Scientific Directorate of Pesticides Control and Phytopharmacy (Greece), Carreck Consultancy Limited (United Kingdom), University of Strathclyde (United Kingdom), Polytechnic Institute of Bragança (Portugal), Experimental Zooprophylactic Institute of Lazio and Tuscany (Italy), Danish Beekeepers Association (Denmark), Latvian Beekeepers’ Association (Latvia), and Ghent University (Belgium).

In terms of potential conflicts of interest, “the authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.” The European Commission funded the INSIGNIA-EU project, however “the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.”

Previous Coverage

Previous research in Italy reached similar conclusions on residue detections in target bee hives. The study, published in Science of the Total Environment and conducted by the BeeNet Project, was a research initiative led by the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty, and Forestry (MAFSF). Of the 373 active ingredients tested for the purposes of this study, the researchers detected the presence of 63 different pesticide residues in hives across northern Italy. Of these residues, 15 are not approved for use under EU law.

BeeNet is a national monitoring project that tracks the health of honey bee and wild bee populations in agroecological systems across hundreds of stations nationwide. The National Bee Monitoring Network (Honey Bees Network) consists of over 350 stations, or 1,750 hives, to inform research on apiary growth and development and susceptibility to pathogens. The Wild Bee Biodiversity Network (Wild Bees Network), in partnership with local universities, tracks the health and well-being of over 1,000 known wild pollinators in 11 regions to better inform biodiversity policy across various Italian agroecosystems, since there are existing significant gaps in scientific understanding of native pollinators. (See Daily News here.)

Meanwhile, the evidence continues to build on the ecological and public health benefits of organic agriculture in Europe, the United States, and across the globe. A literature review published in Ecosystem Services by researchers at Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies and the European Regenerative Organic Center (founded by the Davines Group and the Rodale Institute) identifies the ecological and soil health benefits of regenerative organic agriculture (ROAg). In comparison to chemical-intensive farming, ROAg increases soil organic matter by 22 percent, soil total nitrogen by 28 percent, and soil microbial biomass carbon by 133 percent, according to the research. “Our evidence from 24 published studies shows how 64 [percent] of experimental observations report positive impacts of ROAg on soil ecosystem service delivery, particularly supporting soil ecosystem services, which have a key role in maintaining soil ecosystem functioning,” the authors report in the conclusion of the study regarding the relationship between soil health, ecosystem services, and regenerative organic principles. The study contains impact matrices of soil ecosystem services and soil health parameters, respectively, from the impact score assessment. (See page 9 of the study for more details.) (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

To advance principles of land management that align with nature, see the recording of Beyond Pesticides 42^nd National Forum, The Pesticide Threat to Environmental Health: Advancing Holistic Solutions Aligned with Nature, which brings together scientists and land managers working to recognize and respect the ecosystems on which life depends. The second session took place on December 4, 2025, 1:00-3:30 pm (Eastern time, US). This session features Carolina Panis, PhD, Jabeen Taiba, PhD, Emile Habimana, M.S., Génon K. Jensen, and Rossella Cannarella, M.D., PhD in a compelling discussion that elevates public understanding of the scientific data linking petrochemical pesticides to the crisis in breast cancer, pediatric cancer, and sewage sludge (biosolids) fertilizer—supporting the imperative for ecological land management.

The information in this session empowers voices for the transition to practices and products that do not accept toxic chemicals as necessary when alternative systems are available. The science supports the urgent call for systemic change at this moment of health, biodiversity, and climate crises, with the promise of productive and profitable alternatives. This call for foundational change is motivated by our collective understanding that the critically needed response to the crises must not be diverted by anything less than a holistic strategy—recognizing the science on adverse effects of extremely small chemical doses to all organisms, including humans, and the synergistic effects of multiple chemical exposure.

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

Source: Science of The Total Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, January 27, 2026) A three-part study published in Molecular Neurodegeneration draws a connection between Parkinson’s disease (PD) and the organophosphate chlorpyrifos. “Since chlorpyrifos (CPF) exposure has been implicated as a risk factor for PD, we investigated its association to incident PD and if this association is biologically plausible using human, rodent, and zebrafish (ZF) studies,” the researchers state. Together, the three experiments “strongly implicate exposure to CPF as a risk factor for developing PD,” as the authors find that exposure, even at very low concentrations, causes selective toxicity to dopaminergic neurons that are critical for functions of movement, cognition, emotion, and more.

The results reveal that in humans, long-term residential exposure is associated with more than a 2.5-fold increased risk of developing PD, while exposure in mice causes “motor impairment, dopaminergic neuron loss, microglial activation, and an increase in pathological α-synuclein (α-syn) [proteins primarily found in the brain].” The researchers continue, “Using ZF, we found that CPF-induced dopaminergic neuron loss was at least partially due to autophagy dysfunction and synuclein accumulation, as knocking down LC3 [a protein chain] recapitulated the dopaminergic neuron loss.” These three studies highlight the association of CPF with increased risks for developing PD, as “relevant exposures in animal models establish biological plausibility.”

Study Importance and Background

According to the Parkinson’s Foundation, PD affects more than 1.1 million people in the U.S., with nearly 90,000 people newly diagnosed each year. Parkinson’s disease is a neurodegenerative disorder with slowly progressive symptoms of motor dysfunction and cognitive decline. There is a wide body of science connecting pesticide exposure to Parkinson’s, as seen in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD) and through Daily News coverage. However, as the current study authors explain, it is difficult to prove the causal relationship between PD and pesticides in current research.

“Several studies have investigated the role of environmental toxicants in the development of PD, but there are challenges in determining whether an association is causal,” the researchers note. They continue: “PD develops over decades, and exposure assessment should cover the time before pathology starts. Once a toxicant has been associated with altered risk, further studies are necessary to determine if the disease pathology can be recapitulated by relevant exposures in animal models and the mechanisms by which they act (i.e., biological plausibility).” This is the basis for the present study, incorporating CPF exposure and observed effects in humans, mice, and fish.

As the study references, the etiology (cause) of PD is complex, involving the interaction of both genetic and environmental factors. “The primary pathological hallmarks of PD are the selective loss of dopaminergic (DA) neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNpc), the development of fibrillar cytoplasmic inclusions, also known as Lewy bodies and Lewy neuritis, and inflammation,” the authors say. To help unravel the role of environmental contaminants such as CPF in PD, it is crucial to understand the mechanisms of toxicity and if any disease associations are causative.

Chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum organophosphate pesticide with a long history of adverse and environmental effects that is extensively used in agriculture. As highlighted in previous Daily News, CPF has been a threat to human and ecological health for decades, originally as a general-use pesticide for homes, gardens, and agriculture, and then restricted to most nonresidential uses in 2000. Currently, the chemical’s permitted uses include food and feed crops, golf courses, as a nonstructural wood treatment, and adult mosquito control for public health (insect-borne diseases) uses only.

According to health and environmental advocates, there is a checkered past of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failure to adequately protect human and environmental health from chlorpyrifos, which is linked to endocrine disruption, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, brain, kidney, and liver damage, and birth and developmental effects. (See PIDD for studies on each of these effects.) In addition to the adverse human health effects, chlorpyrifos is also known to be toxic to birds, bees, fish, and other aquatic organisms and is detectable in groundwater.

In the late 1970’s and 1980’s, chlorpyrifos was acclaimed as the exciting new alternative to organochlorines, like the insecticide chlordane, because it was hailed by EPA and the chemical industry as a chemical that was less persistent and subject to degradation in the environment. (See additional commentary on chlorpyrifos’ history here.) Beyond Pesticides characterizes the chemical and the family of organophosphates to which it belongs as one of the best examples of the ongoing modern-day pesticide treadmill, with continuous substitution of hazardous chemicals proclaimed to be safe by industry, users, and regulators only to over time result in serious and complex adverse effects to health and the environment.

Study Methodology and Results

In the current study, the researchers incorporate data from a large community-based case-control study in humans, as well as experiments with mice and zebrafish, exposed to CPF. The human model shows that long-term residential exposure to CPF increases PD risk by more than 2.5-fold while the study in mice, “using a novel inhalation method that recapitulates human exposures,” reveals impaired motor behavior, loss of DA neurons, increased pathological α-syn, and inflammation and study in zebrafish identifies CPF as “toxic to neurons by disrupting autophagic flux and was dependent on γ1-synuclein (γ1-syn), the closest functional homologue to human α-syn.”

Human Populations

To assess CPF and PD associations in humans, the authors use data from the Parkinson’s Environment and Genes (PEG) study that includes 829 PD patients and 824 controls in central California. The PEG study, conducted in three agricultural counties, is a population-based case-control study that the current research references to estimate ambient exposure due to living or working near agricultural CPF application by using pesticide use report (PUR) pesticide application data. This results in 12,904 annual records for residential and 8,968 for occupational site CPF exposure.

The findings show long-term exposure to CPF is associated with an up to 174% increased risk of developing PD. The researchers also report: “We estimated ambient exposure to CPF due to living or working near agricultural facilities applying CPF over a 30-plus year period. We observed positive associations between CPF and PD with exposure estimated at residential and workplace addresses and over different exposure time windows. The strongest association was with the longest duration of exposure at the workplace…Importantly, CPF exposures that occurred 10–20 years prior to disease onset were more strongly associated with PD than the 10-year period before PD onset.”

Mice

In the rodent experiment, sixteen 26-week-old male mice were exposed to aerosolized CPF, while another 16 were used as controls. The mice were exposed five days per week, for six hours each day, for a total of 11 weeks to CPF. Behavioral testing was conducted prior to exposure to establish a baseline and again three days after the final CPF exposure. This included a rotarod test, wire hang test, and open field test. (See additional details in the study’s methodology section here.)

The authors further explain, saying: “Most human pesticide exposure is through inhalation, which escapes the 1st pass circulation to the liver with oral ingestion and therefore reduces its metabolism. To model human exposures, mice were exposed to aerosolized CPF or ethanol vehicle in closed chambers five days a week for 11 weeks… CPF-exposed mice deteriorated more than controls in both rotarod, and wire hang tests.”

CPF exposure in the mice also “resulted in a 26% loss of tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) positive dopaminergic neurons in the SN [substantia nigra, midbrain structure] compared to control mice.” Also of note, the microglia in the CPF-exposed mice are more rounded, which is a change in shape that occurs as a response to stimuli such as environmental toxicants and infections. “These morphological changes are consistent with activated microglia similar to those seen in PD brains,” the researchers note.

Zebrafish

To determine the mechanism of CPF neurotoxicity, the third part of the study utilizes transgenic zebrafish. The authors find that CPF-exposed zebrafish swim slower, which is a pattern consistent with dopaminergic neuron loss. Following exposure, the number of aminergic neurons (nerve cells that release neurotransmitters) within the zebrafish are significantly reduced, with increased apoptosis (cell death) in regions of the brain. Morphological changes of the microglia, similar to those seen in the mice, also occurred in the zebrafish, as well as reduced autophagic flux that contributes to dopaminergic neuron loss.

The authors discuss the strength of their findings: “There are some weaknesses to the ZF model. They are developing at the time of exposure, whereas PD is a disease of the aged.” However, they continue in noting: “We do not think this invalidates our results since younger animals generally are more resistant to toxicants relative to older animals, suggesting that we may be underestimating CPF toxicity, not overestimating it. Since the primary purpose of using the ZF was to determine the mechanism of toxicity, we believe this weakness does not alter the validity of our findings.”

The Organic Solution

In the current study, the adverse effects documented in mice and zebrafish models following exposure to human-relevant concentrations of chlorpyrifos not only aids in explaining the mechanisms of toxicity of CPF but provides biological plausibility in the causal link between chlorpyrifos and Parkinson’s disease. The human PEG study in California further supports these findings, highlighting the disproportionate risks of PD in agricultural areas and with occupational exposure.

Pesticides are a critical environmental justice issue. Although pesticide exposure is widespread, these toxic chemicals cause a range of adverse health effects, with disproportionate harm to people of color communities. While pesticide exposure adversely affects the health of all men, women, and children, there are racial disparities due to occupations and living in fenceline communities near chemical production and farmland—all creating elevated risk for people of color. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds that over 90% of U.S. citizens carry a detectable mixture of pesticides in their bodies. However, pesticide exposure patterns tend to cause elevated rates of racial and socioeconomic health disparities and disorders. (See Daily News here for more information.)

While a shift away from toxic pesticide use is imperative because of studies like this one on PD, immediate action is needed for those at highest risk, including farmers, farmworkers, and their families, particularly children, as well as communities living near chemical-intensive agricultural areas or chemical manufacturers. Join Beyond Pesticides in our mission of eliminating all petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that disproportionately impact vulnerable communities and threaten the health of all. The holistic solution that lies in organic practices protects human health, as well as wildlife, overall biodiversity, and the ecosystems in which all life depends.

Take action today: Tell members of Congress to ensure that, with the termination of environmental justice programs at EPA, they must uphold the right of those at the highest risk of harm to sue manufacturers responsible for their failure to warn about their products’ hazards. For other opportunities, please see our Action of the Week archive and sign up page for our weekly newsletters!

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

Source:

Hasan, K. et al. (2025) The pesticide chlorpyrifos increases the risk of Parkinson’s disease, Molecular Neurodegeneration. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13024-025-00915-z.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 26, 2026) As a mounting number of scientific studies link pesticides to adverse health and environmental effects not evaluated under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pesticide registration program, members of Congress are planning to introduce legislation that elevates the organic solution. To this end, Beyond Pesticides and allies are calling on U.S. Representatives and Senators to become a cosponsor of the Opportunities in Organic Act, which is expected to be reintroduced in early 2026 by U.S. Senator Peter Welch and U.S. Representative Jimmy Panetta.

In its Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, Beyond Pesticides critiques studies associating pesticides with serious adverse effects ignored by the regulatory process, including multigenerational effects, chronic low-dose exposure and aging, impacts on fertility dysfunction, synergistic effects associated with mixtures, and endocrine disrupting effects, among others. At the same time, there is a growing body of evidence demonstrating the environmental, health, climate, and economic benefits of organic agriculture. 

With the weakening of pesticide regulation, the organic alternative has become especially important, according to health and environmental advocates. However, the organic growth needed to reverse the looming health and environmental crises will not be achieved without a societal investment in organic transition, they say.

Although consumption of organic food continues to grow in the U.S., domestic production lags behind. The Opportunities in Organic Act provides a significant opportunity to reduce barriers to organic farming, strengthen organic supply chains, and ensure that farmers have the support they need to transition to and remain in organic production to meet the growing demand for organic food and grow the sector. Importantly, the bill will provide an opportunity for partners to continue the transition support and technical assistance models that are proving effective through USDA’s Transition to Organic Partnership Program, which ends in 2026.  

The Opportunities in Organic Act will: 

• Modernize and expand Organic Certification Cost Share, covering up to $1,500 per operation per scope, with flexibility to exceed that cap for socially disadvantaged producers or regions with higher certification costs;  
• Invest in organic transition and resilience, including funding for nonprofits to provide hands-on support, pass-through assistance to farmers, and help offset income losses during transition;  

• Strengthen organic supply chains, including processing, storage, distribution, and market access—especially in underserved regions;  

• Expand technical assistance and education, through USDA agencies, extension, universities, Tribes, and nonprofit partners, ensuring farmers nationwide can access organic expertise; and  

• Provide $50 million in annual funding initially, with an increase to $100 million in 2030-2031. 

The bill has a large number of organizational backers, including farm and environmental groups [see below].

To advocate for organic legislation
For those who would like to reach out to their elected officials, use the link below to ask your U.S. Representative to contact Liz Jacobson ([email protected] |202-225-2861) in Representative Panetta’s office, sponsor of the House bill, and your Senators to contact Evelyn Vivar ([email protected] | 202-224-4242) in Senator Welch’s office, sponsor of the Senate bill, to sign on as cosponsors of the Opportunities in Organic Act. For current sponsors, use the link below to thank them for their critical leadership. 

List of organizations backing the bill: Beyond Pesticides, National Organic Coalition, Organic Farming Research Foundation, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Organic Trade Association, Farm Action Fund, National Resources Defense Council, Environmental Working Group, Farm Aid, Union of Concerned Scientists, Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Dr. Bronner’s, Organic Farmers Association, The Cornucopia Institute, Green America, Organic Seed Alliance, Oregon Tilth, Greensward New Natives LLC, OneCert, Inc., Organically Grown Company, New Entry Sustainable Farming Project, Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, Virginia Association for Biological Farming, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, National Co+op Grocers, Northeast Organic Farming Association – Interstate Council, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, Northeast Organic Farming Association of VT, Northeast Organic Farming Association of NY, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Connecticut, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire, Quick Organics, and Friends of the Earth. 

Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to become a cosponsor of the Opportunities in Organic Act, which is expected to be reintroduced in early 2026 by U.S. Senator Peter Welch and U.S. Representative Jimmy Panetta.

Letter to U.S. Senate
A growing body of evidence demonstrates the environmental, health, climate, and economic benefits of organic agriculture. As we see more weakening of pesticide regulation, it is increasingly important to support the organic alternative. 

Although consumption of organic food continues to grow in the U.S., domestic production lags behind. The Opportunities in Organic Act provides a significant opportunity to reduce barriers to organic farming, strengthen organic supply chains, and ensure that farmers have the support they need to transition to and remain in organic production to meet the growing demand for organic food. Importantly, the bill would provide an opportunity for partners to continue the transition support and technical assistance models that are proving effective through the Transition to Organic Partnership Program, which ends in 2026. 

The Opportunities in Organic Act would:

*Modernize and expand Organic Certification Cost Share, covering up to $1,500 per operation per scope, with flexibility to exceed that cap for socially disadvantaged producers or regions with higher certification costs; 

*Invest in organic transition and resilience, including funding for nonprofits to provide hands-on support, pass-through assistance to farmers, and help offset income losses during transition; 

*Strengthen organic supply chains, including processing, storage, distribution, and market access—especially in unerserved regions; 

*Expand technical assistance and education, through USDA agencies, extension, universities, Tribes, and nonprofit partners, ensuring farmers nationwide can access organic expertise; and 

*Provide $50 million in annual funding initially with an increase to $100 million in 2030 2031.

The bill is supported by agricultural and environmental organizations, including: Beyond Pesticides, National Organic Coalition, Organic Farming Research Foundation, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Organic Trade Association, Farm Action Fund, National Resources Defense Council, Environmental Working Group, Farm Aid, Union of Concerned Scientists, Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Dr. Bronner’s, Organic Farmers Association, The Cornucopia Institute, Green America, Organic Seed Alliance, Oregon Tilth, Greensward New Natives LLC, OneCert, Inc., Organically Grown Company, New Entry Sustainable Farming Project, Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, Virginia Association for Biological Farming, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, National Co+op Grocers, Northeast Organic Farming Association – Interstate Council, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, Northeast Organic Farming Association of VT, Northeast Organic Farming Association of NY, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Connecticut, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire, Quick Organics, and Friends of the Earth.

Please support organic agriculture and become a cosponsor by contacting Evelyn Vivar ([email protected] | 202-224-4242) in Senator Welch’s office.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. House of Representatives
A growing body of evidence demonstrates the environmental, health, climate, and economic benefits of organic agriculture. As we see more weakening of pesticide regulation, it is increasingly important to support the organic alternative. 

Although consumption of organic food continues to grow in the U.S., domestic production lags behind. The Opportunities in Organic Act provides a significant opportunity to reduce barriers to organic farming, strengthen organic supply chains, and ensure that farmers have the support they need to transition to and remain in organic production to meet the growing demand for organic food. Importantly, the bill would provide an opportunity for partners to continue the transition support and technical assistance models that are proving effective through the Transition to Organic Partnership Program, which ends in 2026. 

The Opportunities in Organic Act would:

*Modernize and expand Organic Certification Cost Share, covering up to $1,500 per operation per scope, with flexibility to exceed that cap for socially disadvantaged producers or regions with higher certification costs; 

*Invest in organic transition and resilience, including funding for nonprofits to provide hands-on support, pass-through assistance to farmers, and help offset income losses during transition; 

*Strengthen organic supply chains, including processing, storage, distribution, and market access—especially in underserved regions; 

*Expand technical assistance and education, through USDA agencies, extension, universities, Tribes, and nonprofit partners, ensuring farmers nationwide can access organic expertise; and 

*Provide $50 million in annual funding initially with an increase to $100 million in 2030 2031.

The bill is supported by agricultural and environmental organizations, including: Beyond Pesticides, National Organic Coalition, Organic Farming Research Foundation, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Organic Trade Association, Farm Action Fund, National Resources Defense Council, Environmental Working Group, Farm Aid, Union of Concerned Scientists, Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Dr. Bronner’s, Organic Farmers Association, The Cornucopia Institute, Green America, Organic Seed Alliance, Oregon Tilth, Greensward New Natives LLC, OneCert, Inc., Organically Grown Company, New Entry Sustainable Farming Project, Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, Virginia Association for Biological Farming, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, National Co+op Grocers, Northeast Organic Farming Association – Interstate Council, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, Northeast Organic Farming Association of VT, Northeast Organic Farming Association of NY, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Connecticut, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire, Quick Organics, and Friends of the Earth.

Please support organic agriculture and become a cosponsor by contacting Liz Jacobson (mailto: [email protected] |202-225-2861) in Representative Panetta’s office.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 23, 2026) A fish called a lake skygazer (Culter dabryi) shows accelerated aging when exposed to chronic low doses of the insecticide chlorpyrifos, according to a powerful study by researchers from several Chinese institutions, as well as Carleton University in Canada and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. The study, in Science, finds that chronic low-dose exposures resulting in the accumulation of sublethal effects over time cause deterioration of molecular, cellular, and organ functions that reduce lifespan and fertility.

In the study, the fish showed reduced survival in a “dose- and physiological age-dependent manner,” while acute high doses did not have these effects, the authors write. Because the mechanisms researchers focused on are conserved throughout vertebrates, “even low doses of pesticide may pose long-term risks to longevity” in thousands of species, including humans.

The regulation of pesticides is based on laboratory animals’ exposure to acute high doses of a chemical–generally measured as the dose that kills half the test animals within 96 hours of exposure. Thus, the assumption that guides the calibration of “safe” or allowable levels of exposure is that lower doses, even if chronic, pose no threat. The current study unambiguously refutes that assumption, which must be retired from regulatory policies.

The study focuses on 24,388 wild fish collected from three Chinese lakes between 2020 and 2023. One lake had little or no pesticide exposure. The other two lakes had received pesticides from regional agriculture. The researchers compared the pesticide burdens in the fish from each lake by assaying concentrations of 93 pesticides in the fishes’ livers. Nineteen pesticides were detected in the fish. The researchers calculated a “toxic unit” representing the relative cumulative exposure of fish in each lake. The total units were higher in the pesticide-receiving lakes than in the more pristine lake. The higher the toxic units attributed to a lake, the fewer fish aged three years and older were found.

To determine whether chronic low-dose pesticide exposure caused the dearth of fish older than three years, the researchers examined lipofuscin deposition in the liver and relative telomere length, two measures of physiological aging. Lipofuscin accumulates in aging cells, including heart cells and neurons. Telomeres protect the ends of chromosomes from DNA degradation, and every time a cell divides, its telomeres get a little shorter. At a critical point, the cell stops dividing, becoming a “zombie” that contributes to the hallmarks of aging, such as chronic inflammation and degrading tissue function.

The fish in the two pesticide-laden lakes had two to three times as much lipofuscin as the fish from the pristine lake. Telomeres were longest in the year-old fish from all three lakes, but in two- and three-year-old fish, the longest telomeres were in the fish from the pristine lake. The two lakes with the highest toxic units had shorter telomeres in fish of the same ages, suggesting sublethal pesticide exposures were prematurely aging the fish. These results are consistent with previous laboratory and field studies on pesticides’ influence on telomere lengths. Significantly, the negative association between telomeres and pesticide exposure was strongest in younger fish, which the researchers speculate is because the most sensitive fish do not survive beyond a year.

Of the 19 pesticides found in the fish, chlorpyrifos is the standout bad actor. It was the only pesticide negatively correlated with telomere length in fish aged one to three years. It was also negatively associated with the number of three-year-old fish—the more chlorpyrifos in the lake, the fewer three-year-old fish. In fact, the toxic units in the two pesticide-affected lakes were 70% chlorpyrifos. “[C]hlorpyrifos was the top candidate for causing the observed accelerated senescence of C. dabryi in the wild,” the authors write.

As a companion to their field study, the researchers exposed two- and three-year-old fish from the pristine lake and one of the pesticide-exposed lakes to either zero or one of two concentrations of chlorpyrifos for four months. This meant that exposure was independent of their ages or lake sources. As would be normally expected, the older fish were physiologically older—they had more lipofuscin and shorter telomeres—than the younger fish. But in addition, fish from the pesticide-exposed lake were physiologically older than those from the pristine lake, even if they were the same age in years.

All the fish in the study experienced shortened telomeres and increased lipofuscin from the chronic chlorpyrifos exposure, and there were decreases in survival proportional to their ages, exposure doses, and source population. But the fish from the pristine lake did not suffer higher mortality regardless of their age, possibly because they had longer telomeres than the other fish to begin with. The older fish from the pesticide-drenched lake had higher mortality at the two chlorpyrifos levels compared to the younger fish from that lake. The authors believe the telomere shortening is likely the main mechanism driving fish mortality from chronic chlorpyrifos exposure.

The authors also tested to see whether acute high-dose exposures they might have missed could have caused shortened telomeres and higher mortality among physiologically older fish. They exposed two- and three-year-old fish from the two polluted lakes to five acute doses of chlorpyrifos. But the acute exposures caused higher fish mortality regardless of the source population or physiological age, yet did not significantly change the relative telomere lengths or lipofuscin levels in any of the fish. Further, the level at which half the fish died was comparable across populations and ages—they just died directly and quickly from chlorpyrifos’s acute toxicity—showing that missing acute exposures were unlikely to be the source of the effects seen in fish exposed over longer periods to lower doses.

As the authors state, “prolonged low-dose exposure can have lethal consequences over time.” In the U.S., acceptable continuous chlorpyrifos exposure in freshwater is 41 nanograms per liter (ng/l). In the European Union, the acceptable concentration is 0.46 ng/l—nearly 100 times lower. The researchers find harmful effects at their lowest exposure level of 10 ng/l, and that level is exceeded in more than 90% of surveys in 15 countries of chlorpyrifos concentrations in surface waters. Clearly, regulators must take note and act.

In aquatic vertebrates, “the loss of older individuals affects reproductive dynamics, genetic diversity, and ecosystem stability,” the authors write. Of course, these same processes operate in terrestrial vertebrates, including humans. Because vertebrates have longer life spans than invertebrates, they have more time to bioaccumulate toxic chemicals, meaning their age-related cellular processes will be accelerated. The authors also note that research in humans has found links between exposure to synthetic chemicals and telomere degradation.

This study demonstrates that chlorpyrifos is the single most toxic pesticide of the 19 found in the fish livers. Beyond Pesticides has detailed its numerous and deep toxic effects on humans and other life forms. See Beyond Pesticides’ Sara Grantham’s analysis of the current study and its implications in The New Lede’s coverage of the study.

EPA has a history of failure regarding chlorpyrifos. After years of mounting evidence of harm, the agency finally planned to ban it from agriculture in 2017, but the first Trump administration slammed the brakes on the action. In 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered EPA to ban chlorpyrifos based on evidence presented in litigation by farmworker groups and environmental organizations. This milestone was then reversed by the Eighth Circuit in favor of growers and CropLife International. See Beyond Pesticides’ coverage here.

Currently, the Trump EPA is considering a rule proposed by the Biden administration to allow chlorpyrifos on 11 crops, including asparagus, cotton, and sugar beet,s while banning it for most other crops. The allowed crops represent about 55% of total chlorpyrifos agricultural use between 2014 and 2018, according to EPA. In other words, the new rule, if enacted, will still allow, at the very least, more than half the total use of chlorpyrifos, which was estimated in 2024 to be about 30 million pounds.

Allowing continued usage of any kind is unacceptable to environmental and health groups. In March 2025, Beyond Pesticides submitted a letter to EPA stating that, “Eliminating all chlorpyrifos uses represents the best practice to protect children, waterways, and wildlife from this toxic pesticide. Given the serious risks involved, we urge EPA to revoke all tolerances of chlorpyrifos, including the 11 remaining products…that are among the most extensively grown and used in the world.” In May 2025, the Conference of the Parties for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants voted to place chlorpyrifos on its list of pollutants to be eliminated, except for a small number of exemptions.

EPA claimed it would issue an updated Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) in 2025, but is now promising it for 2026, along with a revised Proposed Interim Decision (PID). According to an EPA summary of the most current assessment, which is from 2016, “expected residues of chlorpyrifos on food crops exceed the safety standard under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). In addition, the majority of estimated drinking water exposure from currently registered uses, including water exposure from non-food uses, continues to exceed safe levels.”

The fish study provides more damning evidence that chlorpyrifos must be banned altogether. Environmental and health groups are pressuring EPA to do the right thing. Chlorpyrifos is currently in the regulatory limbo of registration review, but should the next steps be issued as promised, the HHRA and PID will provide an opportunity for the public and environmental advocates to convey the urgency of eliminating chlorpyrifos to EPA and the current administration. In the meantime, support organic agriculture at every opportunity.

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

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

Sources:

Chronic low-dose exposure to chlorpyrifos reduces life span in a wild fish by accelerating aging
Huang et al.
Science, January 15, 2026
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ady4727

Long-term exposure to a common pesticide speeds up aging in fish, study finds
Shannon Kelleher
The New Lede, January 15, 2026
https://www.thenewlede.org/2026/01/long-term-exposure-to-a-common-pesticide-speeds-up-aging-in-fish-study-finds/

Celebrated 2021 Ag Ban of Deadly Pesticide, Chlorpyrifos, Reversed by Court Despite Decades of Review and Litigation
Beyond Pesticides, November 14, 2023
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2023/11/2021-ag-ban-of-deadly-pesticide-chlorpyrifos-reversed-by-court-despite-decades-of-review-and-litigation/

Commentary: Are Children, Agricultural Workers, and the Food Supply Safe with EPA’s Chlorpyrifos Decision?
Beyond Pesticides, August 19, 2021
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/08/commentary-are-children-agricultural-workers-and-the-food-supply-safe-with-the-chlorpyrifos-decision/

Long-term pesticide exposure accelerates aging and shortens lifespan in fish
Deanna Csomo Ferrell
Notre Dame News, January 15, 2026
https://news.nd.edu/news/long-term-pesticide-exposure-accelerates-aging-and-shortens-lifespan-in-fish/

Fish and Other Aquatics
https://www.beyondpesticides.org/programs/wildlife/fish

(Beyond Pesticides, January 22, 2026) Published in Environmental Research, a review of experimental studies by George Mason University researchers regarding reproductive toxicity of neonicotinoid pesticides (neonics) in rodents finds that all studies “demonstrated negative impacts on male reproductive endpoints in association with neonic exposure, including reduced sperm count, reduced sperm motility, and altered sperm morphology.” These studies highlight how neonics, designed to target insect nervous systems, can affect mammalian systems, representing risks to human health.

Criteria for inclusion in the review was restricted to endocrine and/or reproductive outcomes in male rats and mice, leading the authors to analyze 21 studies published between 2005 and 2025. “This narrative review employed a systematic approach and determined that neonics exhibit reproductive toxicity in male rats and mice, particularly impairing testicular function and sperm quality at high exposure levels,” the researchers report. They continue, “Despite species-specific differences, the conserved nature [core mechanism] of reproductive processes across mammals supports the relevance of these findings to human health.”

Study Background

Neonicotinoids 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. There is a wide body of science on the effects of neonicotinoids on nontarget organisms, particularly pollinators, as documented by Beyond Pesticides in Daily News and on the What the Science Shows on Biodiversity page. (See Beyond Pesticides’ resource page here for more information.)

More recent research links a range of adverse effects on mammals, including humans, with exposure to neonics regarding neurological harm, reproductive dysfunction, endocrine disruption, and cancer risks. (See additional health effects and related studies in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.) Research demonstrates that neonics activate “chemical pathways similar to nicotine in the mammalian brain, raising concerns about their safety in humans and other vertebrates.” (See here and here.)

As the review states: “10.00%–23.20% of couples worldwide [are] dealing with the challenges of infertility, with male reproductive issues playing a role in 30.00% of all cases. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that in the Americas, lifetime infertility prevalence is 20.00%, a drastic increase from the 1960s where infertility rates were between 7.00% and 8.00 %.” Over the last 50 years, there has also been a 50% decline in sperm health as well. (See research here and here.) This review analyzes the role of environmental contaminants, specifically neonics, in these adverse male reproductive impacts.

Neonics can disperse throughout the entire plant after being sprayed onto the surrounding soil or from the coating on seeds. “Because neonics are systemic pesticides and are absorbed by plants and distributed throughout all their tissues, they cannot be washed off, leading to dietary exposures in human populations,” the authors note. The most widely used neonics in the U.S., as highlighted in the review, include imidacloprid (IMI), thiamethoxam (THX), clothianidin (CLO), acetamiprid (ACE), and dinotefuran (DINO).

The authors state: “[D]espite evidence of endocrine-disrupting properties of neonics, there are limited studies concerning male reproductive toxicity… [T]his topical review systematically examined the current literature on the reproductive health impacts of neonics, focusing specifically on experimental rodent models.”

Review Methodology and Results

Twenty-one peer-reviewed studies that met the inclusion criteria, published from January 1, 2005, through August 31, 2025, were identified and included in the review. Within the studies, four neonics are investigated. “IMI was the most studied neonic, with eleven studies, followed by ACE, with four studies,” the authors report. “CLO was examined in four studies and thiacloprid (THIA) was studied in two.”

Of note, all four studies investigating ACE as a reproductive toxicant reveal statistically significant results, demonstrating a negative association between exposure and reproductive parameters. When incorporating all four neonics within the research, fifteen of the twenty-one studies find damage to sperm motility, decreased sperm count, and abnormal sperm morphology (shape/form).

Noteworthy results include:

• One study reports significant reproductive toxicity in male and female mice exposed to higher doses of ACE for 180 days. Adverse impacts include “reduced body weight, impaired seminiferous epithelium, decreased spermatogenesis markers (Ki67, Top2a), and downregulation of steroidogenic genes (LHR, Star, Cyp11a1, Hsd17b1), with elevated ACE levels and decreased nicotinic acetylcholine receptor expression.”
• Male rats exposed to ACE also show “dose-dependent reductions in sperm count and testosterone, increased gonadotropins (GnRH, FSH, LH) [reproductive hormones] at low and medium doses, oxidative stress, and apoptosis [cell death] at higher doses.” (See studies here and here.)
• IMI exposure leads to reduced sperm concentration, motility, and viability; increased abnormal sperm morphology; DNA fragmentation; decreased testosterone; and histopathological (diseased tissue) damage. (See here.)
• Additional studies of IMI exposure show reduced testis size, Leydig cell hypertrophy (condition affecting testis), and lower serum testosterone in male rats, as well as impaired sperm motility, reduced epididymal sperm concentration, germ cell apoptosis, and DNA fragmentation. (See research here, here, and here.)
• One study “observed significantly altered gene expression in steroidogenesis and DNA repair pathways in both IMI-exposed mature and IMI-exposed immature rats.”
• Studies of CLO find that adult male rats “exposed to moderate to high CLO doses for 60–90 days exhibited decreased body weight, abnormal sperm morphology, reduced epididymal sperm concentration, lower testosterone, and increased testicular fatty acids.” (See studies here and here.)
• THIA exposure results in “reduced body weight gain, sexual behavior, and spermatogenic cell content at 50–100 mg/kg THIA in male mice over 4 weeks, with increased abnormal sperm and decreased expression of STAR and CYP11A1 [proteins involved in steroidogenesis].” (See here.)
• Another study finds impairment of male fertility in rats with THIA exposure, including “reduced body and testicular weights, decreased sperm count, motility, viability, abnormal morphology, lowered testosterone and steroidogenic enzyme levels, increased LH and FSH [gonadotropins], greater oxidative stress, testicular degeneration, and DNA fragmentation.”

In comparing the male reproductive toxicity for the studied neonics, the researchers conclude that THIA is the most potent of the four. In summary, the authors conclude that: “[T]he collective evidence demonstrates that neonicotinoids consistently impair testicular function, disrupt spermatogenesis, and compromise sperm parameters such as count, motility, viability, and morphology. Mechanistic investigations further indicate that oxidative stress, DNA damage, mitochondrial dysfunction, and disruption of steroidogenic pathways are central mediators of toxicity. In vitro and transgenerational studies add weight to these findings by showing that neonicotinoid exposure can alter gene expression, compromise early embryonic development, and produce heritable [passed down through genetics] reproductive effects.”

Previous Research

As demonstrated in this review, with data originating from 21 studies conducted between 2005-2025, exposure to neonics consistently degrades male reproductive function. Aside from the experimental studies incorporating the four neonics IMI, ACE, CLO, and THIA, additional research is cited that links exposure to neonics to impacts on reproductive health. This includes in vitro studies (performed in test tubes or cell culture dishes) that “provide valuable mechanistic insights into how neonic pesticides may impair male reproductive health by directly targeting sperm, embryonic cells, and testicular cell function,” the authors state. They continue, “These experiments highlight cellular pathways of toxicity, such as impaired fertilization, altered embryonic development, and disruption of DNA replication and cell cycle regulation.”

One study reports that “high IMI, ACE, and nicotine exposure levels impaired mouse sperm function and early embryonic development in vitro, primarily affecting fertilization, zygote formation, and the first embryo cleavage.” Embryos exposed to IMI show morphological effects, including increased fragmentation, as well as developmental delays. Another in vitro study finds ACE can induce apoptosis (cell death) and affect gene expression, particularly in those associated with DNA replication/repair and cell cycle regulation. While there are limited studies that directly examine the impact on male reproductive health from neonic exposure, the existing “in vitro research suggests that neonics can impair sperm function, early embryonic development, and testicular cell viability, providing mechanistic insight into potential pathways of toxicity,” the researchers say.

These studies are crucial, as neonicotinoids are ubiquitous in the environment. The chemicals contaminate soils, water, and food, resulting in exposure to wildlife and humans as a result of their persistent and systemic nature. Research finds neonicotinoids and their metabolites (breakdown products) within human biomonitoring samples, such as in a study on Thai farmworkers where urine samples were collected and N-dm-ACE (a metabolite of ACE), IMI, and THIA were identified. (See here.)

Another biomonitoring study, sampling over 3,000 representative individuals in the U.S., concludes that approximately half of the U.S. general population three years of age and older are exposed to neonics. A study of 314 patients, conducted at a hospital in China, detects neonics and their metabolites in the cerebrospinal fluid of 99% of individuals, with a metabolite of ACE as the most highly detected in 85.4% of samples. A cross-sectional study of human seminal plasma finds concentrations of neonic metabolites that are also associated with decreased sperm motility, further supporting the results of the current review.

The Path Forward

To protect reproductive health, in both men and women, the transition to organic agriculture and land management is imperative. Systemic pesticides like neonicotinoids are particularly threatening to humans and wildlife, such as pollinators, with their ability to be absorbed by crop plants and translocate throughout the plant’s vascular system and move into pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets. Contamination of neonics in food and water can be avoided with the adoption of the holistic solution of organic practices.

Critically, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 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. Take action and Tell 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.

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

Source:

Irfan, S. et al. (2025) Reproductive Risk of Neonicotinoids: A Review of Male Rodent Studies, Environmental Research. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935125021553.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 21, 2026) The data in the annual U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) pesticide residue report, released earlier this month, continues to show a pattern of pesticide residues in the majority of food tested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Health advocates say low-level pesticide residues in the food supply within legal limits raise serious hazard concerns, while USDA, in its Pesticide Data Program–Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2024, points to controversial residue standards as a measure of safety. The USDA report finds that over 57 percent of tested commodities contain at least one pesticide and that less than one percent of detected residues violate the legal limit set as a tolerance by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Residues allowed under tolerances establish allowable pesticide use patterns in agriculture that, beyond dietary risks, result in exposure to farmworkers, farmers, waterways, wildlife, and the broad ecosystem in which they are used. (See Eating with a Conscience for a list of pesticides allowed in food production by commodity.)

With respect to the preponderance of evidence on adverse health and ecological effects of cumulative exposure to toxic agrichemicals, including pesticides, Beyond Pesticides has called for the transition to organic agriculture. The organization wants to see a moratorium on all new pesticide active ingredient registrations by EPA until the agency adequately addresses issues pertaining to scientific integrity in its registration review process. (See the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database for the range of adverse effects associated with pesticides and the deficiencies in the regulation of pesticides.)

Latest Data

Some of the top-level findings from the Pesticide Data Program (PDP) report include:

• “A total of 379 samples with 463 pesticides were reported to FDA as Presumptive Tolerance Violations (PTVs) because they exceeded the established tolerance and/or no tolerance was established”;
• Pesticides exceeding their set tolerances were detected in 0.77 percent (76 samples) of the total tested samples (9,872 samples); and
• “There were 337 samples that contained 1 pesticide for which no tolerance was established, 23 samples with 2 pesticides for which no tolerance was established, and 1 sample that contained 3 pesticides for which no tolerance was established. Fifty-eight of the 361 samples also contained 1 or more pesticides that exceeded an established tolerance.”

According to the 2024 data, 620 samples (6.3 percent) were organic certified. There is very little discussion about pesticide residues found in organic products in 2024. Historically, however, organic food products have been found to have zero contact with pesticides, unless due to herbicidal drift from other farming operations. (See Daily News here.)

Fresh fruit and vegetables, as well as their processed counterparts, account for over 92.8 percent of all 9,872 samples collected; these products include apples, avocados, blackberries (fresh and frozen), cherry tomatoes, cucumbers, head lettuce, leaf lettuce, onions, oranges, pineapples (fresh and frozen), potatoes, canned pumpkin, sweet corn (fresh and frozen), and tomatillos. The remaining products largely consist of almonds (5.4 percent) and salmon (1.8 percent), among other miscellaneous products. Just over 60 percent of samples were from domestic sources, with the remaining percent largely consisting of imports (just under 40 percent).

In terms of the 76 samples that exceeded tolerances, those samples include 1 sample of avocados, 22 samples of fresh blackberries, 8 samples of cherry tomatoes, 5 samples of cucumbers, 3 samples of fresh sweet corn, and 37 samples of tomatillos. For the avocado sample it was deltamethrin; for the fresh blackberries it was 9 samples with acephate, 6 samples with Cyhalothrin, and 8 samples with cypermethrin; for cherry tomatoes it was 2 samples with acephate, 1 sample with captan, 2 samples with Flonicamid, and 4 samples with Tetrahydrophthalimide (THPI); for the cucumbers it was 1 sample with Cyazofamid, 2 samples with Etoxazole, 1 sample with Methomyl, and 1 sample with Myclobutanil; for sweet corn it was 2 samples with Deltamethrin and 1 sample with permethrin; for tomatillos it was 36 samples of acephate that exceed tolerance thresholds.

Out of 679 samples, tomatillos are found to contain the following pesticide residues (some of which do not have EPA tolerances): acephate (58 samples), Acetamiprid (2 samples), Ametoctradin (1 sample), Azoxystrobin (130 samples), Benzovindiflupyr (1 sample), Bifenthrin (17 samples), Boscalid (35 samples), Buprofezin (1 sample), Carbendazim (55 samples), Chlorantraniliprole (33 samples), Chlorpropham (6 samples), Chlorpyrifos (12 samples), Clothianidin (125 samples), Cyantraniliprole (25 samples), Cyhalothrin (9 samples), Cypermethrin (1 sample), Cyproconazole (4 samples), Cyprodinil (6 samples), Cyromazine (89 samples), Deltamethrin (1 sample), Diazinon (1 sample), Difenoconazole (27 samples), Diflubenzuron (1 sample), Dimethoate (3 samples), Dimethomorph (3 samples), Dinotefuran (22 samples), Epoxiconazole (1 sample), Famoxadone (1 sample), Fenbuconazole (1 sample), Fenpropathrin (4 samples), Fenpyroximate (3 samples), Fipronil (1 sample), Flonicamid (1 sample), Flubendiamide (14 samples), Fludioxonil (2 samples), Fluopicolide (1 sample), Fluopyram (51 samples), Fluoxastrobin (17 samples), Flupyradifurone (16 samples), Flutriafol (25 samples), Fluxapyroxad (17 samples), Foramsulfuron (1 sample), Imidacloprid (3 samples), metabolite Imidacloprid olefin (29 samples), Indoxacarb (1 sample), Iprodione (1 sample), Malathion (4 samples), Metalaxyl/Mefenoxam (62 samples), acephate metabolite Methamidophos (76 samples), Methoxyfenozide (7 samples), Monocrotophos (9 samples), Myclobutanil (48 samples), Novaluron (8 samples), dimethoate metabolite Omethoate (14 samples), Oxamyl (1 sample), Oxamyl metabolite Oxamyl oxime (7 samples), Penthiopyrad (3 samples), Permethrin (8 samples), Picoxystrobin (1 sample), Profenofos (3 samples), Propamocarb (127 samples), Propiconazole (67 samples), Prothioconazole metabolite Prothioconazole desthio (1 sample), Pydiflumetofen (15 samples), Pyraclostrobin (27 samples), Pyridalyl (16 samples), Pyrimethanil (1 sample), Quinoxyfen (1 sample), Spiromesifen (1 sample), Sulfoxaflor (4 samples), Tebuconazole (152 samples), Tetraconazole (4 samples), Captafol and Captan metabolite Tetrahydrophthalimide – THPI (8 samples), Thiabendazole (2 samples), Thiamethoxam (4 samples), and Trifloxystrobin (9 samples).

The overwhelming majority of produce and vegetable samples with exceeded tolerances are imported goods. “Consumer, farmer, farmworker, and public health advocates continue to point to this data as a rationale for expanding organic domestic production and labor protections to ensure holistic justice to our food system,” says Max Sano, senior policy and coalitions associate at Beyond Pesticides.

Background

USDA spins its report findings as a positive safety finding because, as the Department says, “More than 99 percent of the products sampled through PDP had residues below the established EPA tolerances.” USDA continues, “Ultimately, if EPA determines a pesticide use is not safe for human consumption, EPA will mitigate exposure to the pesticide through actions such as amending the pesticide label instructions, changing or revoking a pesticide residue tolerance, or not registering a new use.”

In response to USDA’s characterization of the safety of pesticide residues, Beyond Pesticides points out that the tolerance setting process is highly deficient because of a lack of adequate risk assessments for; vulnerable subpopulations, such as farmworkers, people with compromised health or preexisting health conditions, children, and cultural/ethnic and regional subgroups of the general population; and a failure to fully assess serious health outcomes such as disruption of the endocrine system (which contributes to numerous serious diseases), and exposure to chemical mixtures resulting in synergistic effects.

In USDA’s 2025 data release (based on 2023 residue data), the agency found that over 72 percent of tested commodities contain pesticide residues (27.6 percent have no detectable residues), mostly below EPA tolerances.

Beyond Pesticides has reported on the misleading nature of the PDP annual summary in previous years (see here and here) and how certain mainstream organizations, such as Blue Book Services/Produce, cover the annual update that depicts pesticide exposure in produce as safe.

Pesticide Residues and Mixtures

According to a 2024 analysis by Consumer Reports, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary has continuously failed to accurately portray the safety of some of the most commonly sold fruits and vegetables in the United States. A review of seven years of PDP data show that 20% of the foods tested pose a “high risk” to the public, and 12 specific commodities are so dangerous that children or pregnant people should not eat more than one serving per day, according to Consumer Reports analysis. Consumer Reports contends that EPA pesticide residue tolerances are too lenient. To better evaluate potential health risks associated with various foods, Consumer Reports applied stricter residue limits than the EPA tolerances (see here for CR’s analytical methodology). Notably, USDA certified organic food products are not permitted to be produced with the pesticides identified by the report. Pesticide residues found in organic, with rare exception, are a function of the off-target chemical-intensive agriculture pollution through pesticide drift, water contamination, or background soil residues.

Scientists at Consumer Reports note that EPA’s calculations of “tolerable” levels of pesticides in food are at least 10 times higher than they should be to adequately ensure the health and safety of the public and the country’s ecosystems. According to Consumer Reports, EPA has never applied the tenfold safety factor to certain pesticides required as by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 to protect vulnerable populations Agencies typically point to acceptable or legal residues as protective of health and the environment, despite potential adverse effects associated with inadequate assessment of health outcomes, such as endocrine disruption, vulnerable population groups, exposure to mixtures and synergistic interactions, and more. (See Daily News here.)

Pesticide mixtures are key to the evaluation of adverse health effects, as documented in the scientific literature. A team of Argentinian researchers conducted a study published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology of the combined effects of the herbicide glyphosate and the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin. The researchers observe significantly higher apoptosis in cells exposed to the mixtures than to the individual pesticides—a synergistic response. Apoptosis, also known as programmed cell death, is a standard way that tissues handle damaged cells to remove threats to their function. (See Daily News here.) There are solutions underway to address multiple pesticide residue exposure and associations with combined adverse effects. A 2024 study from Chinese and British researchers provides the first combined assessment of multiple classes of pesticides in human blood. The authors believe they are the first to develop a way to quantify multiple types of pesticides in human serum (clear liquid part of blood) as opposed to urine or from other sample collection methods. This is a tool that the researchers say is a more accurate way of assessing real-world exposure and ultimately the adverse impact of pesticide use on human health. (See Daily News here.)

Pesticide mixtures are also a threat to ecosystem stability and wildlife conservation efforts. A study, Pesticides detected in two urban areas have implications for local butterfly conservation, published in partnership with researchers at Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, University of Binghamton (New York), and University of Nevada, reports widespread pesticide residues in the host plants of butterflies located in green spaces in the cities of Sacramento, California, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Just 22 of the hundreds of collected samples had no detectable residues, with all other samples containing some combination of 47 compounds of the 94 tested pesticides in the plant tissue. Of the 47 compounds, four are neonicotinoid insecticides linked to adverse effects for bee and pollinator populations based on previous peer-reviewed research. The fungicide azoxystrobin and the insecticide chlorantraniliprole were detected at lethal/sublethal concentrations, according to the report authors. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

Beyond Pesticides recommends choosing organic produce whenever possible—the vast majority of which does not contain synthetic pesticide residues. Through the Eating with a Conscience database, you can select from over 90 different common produce and veggies you regularly consume and learn about the organic difference from their conventional, chemical-intensive counterparts.

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

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

Source: Pesticide Data Program – Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2024

(Beyond Pesticides, January 20, 2026) With Monday’s celebration and affirmation of Martin Luther King Jr.’s life and legacy, the question of adequate protection of the people and communities at greatest risk from toxic chemical production, transportation, use, and disposal looms large. This is especially true with the current diminished federal regulatory authority and Bayer/Monsanto’s U.S. Supreme Court challenge of chemical manufacturers’ responsibility to warn users of their products of hazards like cancer.

Actions Being Taken

1. In response to the chemical industry campaign to deny people the right to sue under longstanding failure to warn law, groups are calling for public support of U.S Senator Cory Booker’s (D-NJ) bill, Pesticide Injury Accountability Act(S. 2324) seeks to uphold this right  to sue. The groups are calling on the public to “Tell your U.S. Senator to co-sponsor S. 2324, the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act.” This bill will amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972 (FIFRA) to create a federal right of action for anyone who is harmed by a toxic pesticide. 
2. In an additional action in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr., Beyond Pesticides is calling on the public to “Tell members of Congress to ensure that with the termination of environmental justice programs at EPA, they must uphold the right of those at the highest risk of harm to sue manufacturers responsible for their failure to warn about their products’ hazards.”

A 2025 study published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, “Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Agricultural Pesticides on BIPOC Communities in the United States: A Review from an Environmental Justice Perspective,” in analyzing 128 peer-reviewed articles, books, and reports on pesticides, environmental justice, and [Black, Indigenous, and People of Color] BIPOC communities in the U.S., finds “uneven distribution of pesticide-related health and environmental burdens along racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines.” This finding confirms a long history documenting disproportionate risk of chemical hazards to people of color and their communities. (See also here.)

Without a rigorous regulatory system to restrict toxic chemicals, including pesticides, from poisoning people, the courts provide a critical vehicle for constraining the behavior of corporations responsible for harm. Since chemical manufacturers know this, and after over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements over the last several years in cases involving the weed killer glyphosate/Roundup^TM, they are seeking to be shielded from litigation. Aware of the termination of regulatory programs that are intended to protect those at greatest risk of harm, the companies, led by Bayer/Monsanto, say publicly that their compliance with EPA regulations should protect them from disclosing the hazards of their products and even immunize them from accountability for the harm that they cause. 

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s work to pass the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act advanced the principle of racial equality, which extends to economic and environmental justice. However, when the Trump administration announced the dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in January 2025, ending government-wide efforts to address “entrenched disparities in our laws and public policies,” it did not take long for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) administrator Lee Zeldin to “terminate” the agency’s environmental justice program. This put the federal government on a path to reject the principles intended to address elevated risk factors associated with chemical, and specifically pesticide, induced illnesses for people of color. 

The science establishes the disproportionate risk associated with pesticide use under current law. The authors of a 2022 study, “Pesticides and environmental injustice in the USA: root causes, current regulatory reinforcement and a path forward,” assert that the disparities identified continue via current regulations and statutes that (1) inadequately protect workers, (2) operate with a pesticide safety “double standard,” and (3) permit the export of toxic pesticides to “developing” countries, including specific findings such as: 

• Disproportionate exposures to harmful pesticides: biomarkers for 12 dangerous pesticides, tracked over the past 20 years, were found in the blood and urine of Mexican-American and Black people at average levels up to five times those in white people.  
• Weaker protections for agricultural workers: although 10,000–20,000, largely Latinx, farmworkers are sickened annually from pesticide exposure, such workers are not covered by the same regulatory pesticide protections provided to the general public. 
• Unequal risks: people of color comprise 38% of the aggregate population of California, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, and Louisiana, but that 38% represents 63% of those living nearby to 31 pesticide manufacturing facilities that are in violation of environmental laws (such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act).
• Poor enforcement: based on available data for a recent five-year period, approximately 1% of agricultural operations that use pesticides had any annual inspections for violations of worker protections — despite violations found at nearly half of inspected facilities; further, enforcement actions proceeded against only 19% of the violators.
• Toxic housing: 80% of low-income housing sites in New York State, for example, regularly apply pesticides indoors; a home air quality monitoring study found that 30% of pregnant African American and Dominican women in New York City had at least eight pesticides in their bodies, and 83% had at least one pesticide in umbilical cord samples.
• Export of harm: pesticides banned in the U.S. are nevertheless allowed to be produced here and exported; the study notes that organophosphate and carbamate pesticides banned domestically were sold to 42 countries between 2015 and 2019, and 78% of importing countries report more than 30% of their workforce members are poisoned by pesticides annually. 

After the termination of EPA’s environmental justice program in March, 109 members of Congress wrote a letter to the agency, which states, 

“We write to demand that you reverse your plans to terminate all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) environmental justice regional offices and programs. This action would cause extraordinary and disproportionate harm and constitute a complete dereliction of the EPA’s statutory responsibility to protect human health and the environment. On February 4, 2025, you released a statement affirming that all Americans deserve access to clean air, water, and land. You must honor this commitment and reject any effort that weakens public health protections or rolls back decades of EPA’s work—under both Republican and Democratic administrations—to support communities unfairly burdened by pollution.”

The Trump administration maintains a commitment to eliminate environmental justice programs as part of a larger effort to curtail regulations that protect health and the environment. As Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail in 1963: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” 

Letter to Congress on Honoring Martin Luther King, Jr.

Tell members of Congress to ensure that with the termination of environmental justice programs at EPA, they must uphold the right of those at the highest risk of harm to sue manufacturers responsible for their failure to warn about their products’ hazards.

On the day marking the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his legacy of embracing racial, economic, and environmental justice, we urge you to preserve a basic right of protection from the harm caused by toxic chemicals, including pesticides—especially those who suffer disproportionately elevated harm, people of color. With deregulation of the chemical industry and termination of environmental justice and other EPA programs intended to protect health and the environment, chemical manufacturers are seeking to shield themselves from lawsuits filed by those who have been harmed, but not warned, about toxic hazards.

Without a rigorous regulatory system to restrict toxic chemicals, including pesticides, from poisoning people, the courts provide the only vehicle for constraining the behavior of corporations responsible for harm. Since chemical manufacturers know this, and after over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements over the last several years in cases involving their pesticide glyphosate/Roundup^TM, they are seeking to be shielded from litigation. Knowing that the dismantling of regulatory programs that are intended to protect those at greatest risk of harm, the companies, led by Bayer/Monsanto, say publicly that their compliance with EPA regulations should protect them from disclosing the hazards of their products and even immunize them from accountability for the harm that they cause.

A 2025 study published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, “Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Agricultural Pesticides on BIPOC Communities in the United States: A Review from an Environmental Justice Perspective,” in analyzing 128 peer-reviewed articles, books, and reports on pesticides, environmental justice, and [Black, Indigenous, and People of Color] BIPOC communities in the U.S., finds “uneven distribution of pesticide-related health and environmental burdens along racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines.”

Please be vigilant against a provision in proposed legislation denying people the right to sue chemical companies for nondisclosure of product hazards. While it has been reported that bill language shielding chemical manufacturers has been dropped from the FY2026 funding bill moving through Congress, you know that the legislative process is unpredictable in the current Congress. This summer, a provision passed by the House Appropriations Committee that 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.

The chemical industry is pursuing all possible legislative vehicles to move its legislation, which has a disproportionate adverse effect on people of color, especially those who grow and harvest our food.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail in 1963: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

Please advocate on behalf of those who are harmed disproportionately by chemical and specifically pesticide-induced disease, and honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Protect access to the courts by those who have been harmed by hazardous chemicals but not warned.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators [except Sen. Booker, sponsor]:

Tell your U.S. Senator to co-sponsor S. 2324, the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act.

I am writing to ask you to cosponsor U.S. Senator Cory Booker’s (D-NJ) bill, the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act (S. 2324), to protect the rights of farmers and consumers by holding pesticide manufacturers responsible for the harm caused by their toxic products. This bill has been introduced in the wake of congressional and state legislative attacks on “failure-to-warn” liability claims that are taking place in response to extraordinary jury verdicts against Bayer/Monsanto for harm caused by glyphosate weed killer products like Roundup.ᵀᴹ  

As you know, the bill will amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972 (FIFRA) to create a federal right of action for anyone who is harmed by a toxic pesticide.  

Despite growing peer-reviewed scientific evidence linking widely used pesticides to a host of health harms, including cancers, birth defects, endocrine disruption, Parkinson’s disease, and infertility, a coordinated effort is being led by pesticide manufacturers in state legislatures and in Congress seeking legal immunity—a liability shield—for these big corporations.  

With the massive dismantling of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs by the current administration, Congress has been seeking, through appropriations bill provisions, to limit court oversight, which in many cases serves as a backstop for public health and environmental protections. Provisions in the U.S. House appropriations bill would, in the future, prohibit cases like those filed by victims of glyphosate (Roundupᵀᴹ), who have won large jury verdicts and compensation. The language removes the incentive for chemical manufacturers, under threat of accountability for compensatory and punitive damages, to develop safer products or remove products altogether, slowing the critically necessary shift to less- and non-toxic land and building management practices to protect health and the environment. Legislative history added to the bill in the committee will do little to ensure a fully functioning EPA and court redress.   

As Bayer/Monsanto leads the charge, the chemical industry successfully lobbied for a weak federal pesticide law, FIFRA, and then tried to hide behind the law when sued for damages, telling the courts that their products are in compliance with pesticide registration standards and therefore they are not liable for harm. Juries have ruled that chemical manufacturers failed to provide adequate warning through their product labeling, given the independent peer-reviewed science, including what the company knew or should have known, and a clinical assessment of the harm caused to the plaintiff.   

However, the Interior and Environment Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee voted July 22 to support a bill that includes language (Sec. 453) providing total pesticide immunity language, blocking farmers and consumers from suing chemical manufacturers when they fail to disclose the harm that their products cause and blocking states from providing information on product harm beyond EPA-approved language.   

Chemical companies—many foreign-owned—seek liability shields because they know the harm their products have already caused. Syngenta, a subsidiary of the Chinese state-owned company ChemChina, reached a $187.5 million settlement in 2021 for paraquat-related Parkinson’s disease claims. Monsanto, now owned by Germany’s Bayer, has paid billions of dollars to settle lawsuits linking Roundup ᵀᴹ (glyphosate) to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. If legislation shields companies from liability, it would leave farmers, farmworkers, and other injured individuals without meaningful recourse for the harms caused by these toxic substances.  

Please co-sponsor the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act (S. 2324).  

Thank you. 

Letter to U.S. Senator Cory Booker [sponsor]: 

I am writing to thank you for sponsoring the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act (S. 2324), to protect the rights of farmers and consumers by holding pesticide manufacturers responsible for the harm caused by their toxic products. This bill has been introduced in the wake of congressional and state legislative attacks on “failure-to-warn” liability claims that are taking place in response to extraordinary jury verdicts against Bayer/Monsanto for harm caused by glyphosate weed killer products like Roundup.ᵀᴹ  

The bill will amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972 (FIFRA) to create a federal right of action for anyone who is harmed by a toxic pesticide.  

Despite growing peer-reviewed scientific evidence linking widely used pesticides to a host of health harms, including cancers, birth defects, endocrine disruption, Parkinson’s disease, and infertility, a coordinated effort is being led by pesticide manufacturers in state legislatures and in Congress seeking legal immunity—a liability shield—for these big corporations.  

With the massive dismantling of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs by the current administration, Congress has been seeking, through appropriations bill provisions, to limit court oversight, which in many cases serves as a backstop for public health and environmental protections. Provisions in the House appropriations bill would, in the future, prohibit cases like those filed by victims of glyphosate (Roundupᵀᴹ), who have won large jury verdicts and compensation. The language removes the incentive for chemical manufacturers, under threat of accountability for compensatory and punitive damages, to develop safer products or remove products altogether, slowing the critically necessary shift to less- and non-toxic land and building management practices to protect health and the environment. Legislative history added to the bill in the committee will do little to ensure a fully functioning EPA and court redress.   

As Bayer/Monsanto leads the charge, the chemical industry successfully lobbied for a weak federal pesticide law, FIFRA, and then tried to hide behind the law when sued for damages, telling the courts that their products are in compliance with pesticide registration standards and therefore they are not liable for harm. Juries have ruled that chemical manufacturers failed to provide adequate warning through their product labeling, given the independent peer-reviewed science, including what the company knew or should have known, and a clinical assessment of the harm caused to the plaintiff.   

However, the Interior and Environment Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee voted July 22 to support a bill that includes language (Sec. 453) providing total pesticide immunity language, blocking farmers and consumers from suing chemical manufacturers when they fail to disclose the harm that their products cause and blocking states from providing information on product harm beyond EPA-approved language.   

Chemical companies—many foreign-owned—seek liability shields because they know the harm their products have already caused. Syngenta, a subsidiary of the Chinese state-owned company ChemChina, reached a $187.5 million settlement in 2021 for paraquat-related Parkinson’s disease claims. Monsanto, now owned by Germany’s Bayer, has paid billions of dollars to settle lawsuits linking Roundup ᵀᴹ (glyphosate) to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. If legislation shields companies from liability, it would leave farmers, farmworkers, and other injured individuals without meaningful recourse for the harms caused by these toxic substances.  

Again, thank you for your leadership in sponsoring the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act (S. 2324) to protect the rights of farmers and consumers. 

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 17, 2026) The public’s right to sue chemical manufacturers that do not warn of product hazards will be up for review by the U.S. Supreme Court later this year, the justices decided Friday. Bayer/Monsanto is challenging billions of dollars in jury verdicts, which affirm longstanding jurisprudence that holds manufacturers responsible for disclosing hazards even when not required to do so by regulatory authorities. In the case being challenged, Durnell, John L. v. Monsanto, the injured party successfully argued that a chemical manufacturer has a duty to warn of potential hazards on their product label even though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not require the warning. The failure-to-warn in the Durnell case resulted in a jury verdict of $1.25 million, and the total number of jury verdicts and settlements on similar cases may amount to over $10 billion in liability if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts and hundreds of thousands of other plaintiffs with the same claim. The cases involve exposure to the weed killer glyphosate (Roundup^TM, which is the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. and worldwide, has been classified as posing a possible risk of cancer by the International Agency for Research Cancer, and is associated in the scientific literature with a range of serious adverse health and ecosystem and wildlife effects. (See Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pesticide Management.)

It has long been held that chemical manufacturers are accountable for hazards associated with their products and have a duty to warn product users of the potential harm associated with their use. The court expressly limited its writ of certiorari to the question of whether federal pesticide product registration law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, “preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.” A 2005 Supreme Court decision, in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, upheld the right of those harmed by a pesticide to sue for damages.

“Two decades ago, the Supreme Court rejected the chemical industry argument that compliance with federal pesticide use restrictions protects manufacturers from liability claims associated with the harm caused by their products,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.” “In this case, the industry is arguing that compliance with EPA labeling requirements should shield manufacturers from disclosing on the product label hazards that they knew about or should have known about,” he said. Beyond Pesticides cites the high degree of influence that chemical manufacturers have over the regulatory process and the underlying standards in the law. Meanwhile, the preponderance of independent peer-reviewed data on glyphosate hazards has been widely available in the scientific literature for decades, and the herbicide is banned or highly restricted around the world.

Beyond the Supreme Court case, the chemical industry, led by Bayer/Monsanto, is seeking to pass legislation to shield chemical companies from failure-to-warn lawsuits. The industry had a bit of a setback when its preemption language was pulled from the FY2025 budget bill now moving through Congress. The most recent appropriations bill language in the U.S. House of Representatives, which may be attached in some form to other legislative vehicles like the Farm Bill, effectively provides total pesticide manufacturer immunity from lawsuits that challenge company withholding of label information on the harm that product use 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, arguing in court that their products are in compliance with pesticide registration standards and therefore they are not liable for harm or nondisclosure of hazards. In late 2025, a broad coalition, including Beyond Pesticides and over 50 organizations, coalitions, businesses, and leaders, called on Congress to reject industry language in any federal legislative package under Congressional consideration.

In state legislatures across the country, the industry is pushing for state legislation to prohibit lawsuits for failure to warn. 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 glyphosate.

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 before the Supreme Court. See press release here.

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