(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.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 16-19, 2026) This year marks 40 years since Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was first federally observed in 1986, three years after President Reagan initially signed the bill into law in 1983, to honor the civil rights leader. In 1994, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day became a National Day of Service, calling for action and encouraging Americans to volunteer and serve their communities with Dr. King’s message of justice and equality in mind.

Now more than ever, in the face of the administration’s action to dismantle or deregulate programs to address disproportionate harms to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities across various federal agencies, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words resonate: “We cannot walk alone. And as we walk we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.”

In the spirit of Dr. King’s fight for racial equality and human rights, this day offers a chance for reflection and the opportunity to participate both locally and more broadly in actions that support and protect disproportionately impacted communities. In celebration of Dr. King, consider reading his “I Have a Dream Speech” or listening to it here.

Environmental Justice

As the American Public Health Association says, “Environmental justice is the idea that all people and communities have the right to live and thrive in safe, healthy environments with equal environmental protections and meaningful involvement in these actions.” They continue: “Communities affected by environmental injustices are most often composed of marginalized racial/ethnic, low-wealth, rural, immigrant/refugee, indigenous and other populations that live in areas disproportionately burdened by environmental hazards, unhealthy land uses, psychosocial stressors, historical traumas and systemic racism, all of which drive environmental health disparities. This disproportionate impact of environmental hazards on people of color is also known as environmental racism, which stems from intentional institutional policies or decisions that target communities of color for undesirable land uses, such as the siting of polluting industries that release toxic and hazardous waste.”

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. Pesticide exposure itself does not discriminate, as these toxic chemicals impact the health of all men, women, and children alike. 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 (i.e., brain and nervous system disorders, cancer, endocrine disruption, learning and developmental disorders, and reproductive dysfunction, among others).

In introducing the importance of environmental justice and addressing the disproportionate risks from toxic pollution to BIPOC communities as a key part of policies and practices governing ecosystems, Dr. King encapsulated this idea in his Letter from Birmingham Jail when he wrote 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.” Over sixty years later, people of color in the U.S. and around the world continue to struggle with inequities that are institutionalized in the economic and social systems in place that perpetuate disproportionate harm.

Health Risks and Environmental Racism

Protecting those who unequally suffer from toxic chemical exposure ensures equality and environmental justice for all. BIPOC communities across the nation face disproportionate impacts from the chemical infrastructures in place, where petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers threaten marginalized groups. This includes farmers, farmworkers, and their families, particularly children, as well as communities living near chemical-intensive agricultural areas or chemical manufacturers that generally include BIPOC and low-income individuals.

A study titled “Pesticides and environmental injustice in the USA: root causes, current regulatory reinforcement and a path forward,” published in BMC Public Health and covered in Daily News, finds that biomarkers for 12 dangerous pesticides tracked over the past 20 years were found in the blood and urine of Black participants at average levels up to five times those in white participants. Another study from the University of Michigan finds a link between elevated rates of breast cancer incidents and chemical exposure from pesticides among African American women. This same study reveals that African American women are 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than women of any race and that triple-negative cancer (basal-liked breast cancer) is approximately three-fold higher in non-Hispanic Black women compared to non-Hispanic white women. (See Daily News here.)

A recent study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, in analyzing 128 peer-reviewed articles, books, and reports on pesticides, environmental justice, and BIPOC communities in the U.S., finds “uneven distribution of pesticide-related health and environmental burdens along racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines.” The authors continue, saying: “Non-Hispanic Blacks and Mexican Americans exhibit higher pesticide biomarkers and greater exposure risks than non-Hispanic Whites. Structural racism and classism, rooted in historical systems, perpetuate these inequities, compounded by regulatory failures and power imbalances.”

A study in California shows that pregnant farmworkers and those living near agricultural fields experience pesticide drift from organophosphates. Significant disparities were found in terms of elevated exposure to pesticides, “with Hispanic/Latine, young people, and residents of the predominantly fruit and vegetable growing Central Coast region being most likely to live near OP pesticide applications during pregnancy,” the authors report. Additional Daily News coverage highlights health risks with proximity to agricultural areas. See Elevated Exposure to Wastewater Contaminants in Communities Near Ag Fields, Study Finds and Life On or Near Chemical-Intensive Farms Associated with Increase in Respiratory Diseases.

Further studies highlight how children face disproportionate exposure to pesticides and subsequent health risks. DNA damage is significantly higher in Latinx children from rural, farmworker families than children in urban, non-farmworker families, according to a study published by French and American authors in the journal Exposure and Health. Not only do farmworker children test positive for organophosphate pesticides more frequently than non-farmworker children, but the study finds that farmworker children also experience an increased frequency of DNA damage associated with the presence of organophosphate exposure. (See Daily News here.) Another study, published in Science of The Total Environment, showcases the occupational and environmental exposure pathways of fossil-fuel-based pesticide and fertilizer products that children across the globe face, particularly in rural areas of low- and middle-income countries. (See more here.) These results highlight the disparities in exposures and outcomes for children from vulnerable communities.

For a deeper look into racial disparities and how to support efforts for environmental justice, reference these additional Daily News articles:

• Disproportionate Pesticide Hazards to Farmworkers and People of Color Documented…Again
• Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Community at Disproportionate Risk from Pesticides, Study Finds
• Racial Disparities in Exposure to Ag Pesticides Documented while Trump Administration Dismantles Programs
• This Juneteenth, Support Efforts for Environmental Justice by Eliminating Pesticide Use
• This Indigenous Peoples’ Day Demands Environmental Justice and Organic Transition

A Path Forward

Justice for all people converges with the protection of biodiversity, health, and climate. (See Beyond Pesticides’ resource page on Agricultural Justice for more information.) If we are not protecting the most vulnerable in society, we ultimately adversely affect the entire society because all people are intricately linked through the web of life. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is a time to recognize the importance and value of those who are disproportionately affected by toxic chemical production, transportation, use, and disposal (including those who live in fenceline communities near chemical plants or agricultural fields) and increase the focus on their protection through the adoption of practices and policies that no longer support environmental racism.

As Dr. King famously said, “If you can’t fly then run, if you can’t run then walk, if you can’t walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.” We at Beyond Pesticides work with people and organizations in communities nationwide to tackle what often seems like insurmountable problems, but they are problems with real solutions that are within our reach. By tapping into the power of working together, we can continue to move forward, as Dr. King says to do, in creating a sustainable future for all through implementing environmental justice with the widespread adoption of organic agriculture and land management.

Please join us in our mission of eliminating all petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that disproportionately impact BIPOC individuals and vulnerable communities. The holistic solution that lies in organic practices protects all human health, as well as wildlife, overall biodiversity, and the ecosystems in which all life depends.

In honor of Dr. King, help build a healthy and thriving “network of mutuality” for all people by taking action, joining Beyond Pesticides as a member, and becoming a Parks Advocate for a Parks for a Sustainable Future program in communities nationwide.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.” – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Today and every day, we thank you, Dr. King, for your activism and inspiration.

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

Source:

Mengistie, B., Ray, R., and Iyanda, A. (2025) Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Agricultural Pesticides on BIPOC Communities in the United States: A Review from an Environmental Justice Perspective, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/11/1683.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 15, 2026)  “Birds and bats consumed over 87 rice pest species in West African lowland rice fields,” according to a recent study published in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. The authors continue, “Our findings highlight the importance of maintaining and managing a diverse community of bats and birds for network resilience.” In this context, the research distinguishes the “predator-prey” as established through the ecological balance of diverse organisms in nature from a “predator-pest” orientation that views some organisms as unwanted and targets for control and more subject to human manipulation.  The authors describe the predator-pest network as a means to quantify the “ecosystem services” impact, with the researchers noting that they “investigated the role of predator and prey species in the predator–prey network and compared those roles with that of the predator–pest network, to further explore their potential as pest suppressors.”

Communities across the United States and globally are looking for opportunities to transition to alternative pest management strategies given decades-long increasing reliance on synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, which contribute significantly to looming existential crises of biodiversity collapse, public health decline, and planetary instability of ecosystems, climate, and geopolitics. As evidenced in a recent report by Farm Action U.S. (2025), “Today, just four corporations—Bayer, Corteva, ChemChina, and BASF—control more than 50% of the global seed market, consolidating power with their patented genetically engineered seeds.” The privatization of agricultural tools of crop production that were once community-owned and moderated undermines thousands of years of community-led seed sharing and storage to prepare for harvest for the next season.

This same logic guides the approach to protecting and expanding the right of local municipalities to regulate pesticide and fertilizer use within their jurisdictions, treating federal pesticide law as a floor rather than a ceiling for public health and environmental protection.

Background and Methodology

There are three main objectives outlined by the study authors:

1. “…Characterize and compare the dietary composition of birds and bats that feed on insects in West African rice fields, with a specific focus on potential rice pests in their diet;
2. Analyse the structure of predator–prey and predator–pest networks to assess patterns of modularity, connectivity, and specialisation thereby addressing the gap in understanding functional complementarity among predators; and,
3. Identify structurally important predator species within these networks and evaluate their potential contribution to pest suppression services and network stability under low-input, smallholder farming conditions.”

To better quantify the role of predator and prey species in their network compared to roles of the “predator-pest” network, species’ roles were assessed on several metrics, including species’ degree (“number of interaction partner species), strength (“the importance of each predator species for the set of prey species and vice versa”), and the specialization index (“quantifies the niche exclusiveness of a predator or prey, relative to a random distribution of interactions based on the observed interaction frequencies).

For additional information on the methodology, please see Sections 2.1 to 2.7.

The researchers collected fecal samples from 502 individual predators, including 345 bats and 157 birds. A total of 1,347 taxon, or Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) as referred to throughout the study as a means of organizing/listing their unique biological identity akin to the style of the Dewey Decimal Classification system, were found to interact with 34 predators (18 bats and 16 bird species). More specifically, “A total of 262 prey OTUs were classified to the genus or species level, of which 87 [were] classified as rice pests.” This research was conducted in northern Guinea-Bissau, in the “tropical sub-humid” region of Oio. The field work was carried out in rice fields in the towns of Farim and Mansaba and near six villages (Djalicunda, Bironqui, Lenquebato, Bereco, Demba Só, and Mambonco). The significance of this study is important for the local population as they are “heavily reliant on agriculture, with most people engaged in smallholder farming.”

Researchers for this study span several countries and specialties, including Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes, CHANGE – Global Change and Sustainability Institute (University of Lisboa, Portugal); Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado (Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, University of Porto, Portugal); BIOPOLIS Program in CIBIO (Portugal); Portuguese Society for the Study of Birds (Lisboa, Portugal); Organização para Defesa e Desenvolvimento das Zonas Húmidas (ODZH) (Organization for the Defense and Development of Wetlands, Guinea-Bissau); The Peasant Center of Djalicunda (Guinea-Bissau); Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari e Forestali (SAAF) (Department of Agricultural, Food, and Forest Sciences, University of Palermo, Italy); School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford (United Kingdom); Department of Biology, Oxford University (United Kingdom); Instituto da Biodiversidade e das Áreas Protegidas (Institute of Biodiversity and Protected Areas, Guinea-Bissau); and Centre for Functional Ecology, Associate Laboratory TERRA, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra (Portugal).

Funding for this study included research funding from the Foundation for Science and Technology (Ministry of Science, Technology, and Higher Education in Portugal) and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. “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,” says the study.  They continue in the Acknowledgments section: “The capture and handling of bats and birds, as well as the transport of [fecal] samples, were conducted under [license] from the Guinea-Bissau Nature Conservation Authority (IBAP – Instituto da Biodiversidade e das Áreas Protegidas).”

Results

Understanding the relationship networks between predator, prey, and pest is critical to the support for conservation efforts and broader pest management strategies without chemical dependency on the following grounds:

“Species occupying unique roles in arthropod consumption warrant close monitoring (e.g., bats C. pumilus, H. cafer/ruber and Scotoecus otu14 and birds P. melanocephalus, E. glaucurus and Ploceus otu33). Their roles in both networks suggest that, beyond delivering pest suppression services, they help maintain broader predator–prey dynamics. By regulating a wider range of prey, including taxa not yet recognized as rice pests, these predators can play a role in preventing future outbreaks.”

Some additional topline results from this analysis underscore the ecosystem services that birds and bat species can offer for agricultural and nonagricultural pest management:

• Overall, bats were found to interact with “significantly more OTUS” than bird species, signaling their slight edge in pest control relative to birds, although there is evidence in this study of both types of species with significant pest suppression potential.
• “The most frequently consumed rice pest species were the termites Macrotermes bellicosus (15 predators) andMicrotermes otu9 (11), and the spittlebug Poophilus costalis (9).”
• The top-ranking bird species in terms of predator-pest interactions included “the red-cheeked cordon-bleu Uraeginthus bengalus(N = 10; 39 %), the broad-billed roller Eurystomus glaucurus (N = 3; 30 %) and the African pygmy kingfisher Ispidina picta (N = 10; 25 %).”
• For bats, “the slit-faced bat Nycteris otu27 (N = 5; 35 %), and the vesper bats Neoromicia otu35 (N = 3; 29 %) and Scotophilus otu21 (N = 4; 22 %) showed the highest frequencies of pest interactions.”

The researchers point out that many farmers in this region of the country view birds as “major threats to rice fields.” While this is certainly true for certain species like weavers, in reality, “these same species may also provide important pest-suppression services.”

Previous Coverage

The impacts of pesticide use on bird populations cannot be understated. The latest State of the Birds 2025 report finds concerning news for bird species across the country. As the article says: “Whether they hop around the prairie, dabble in wetlands, flit through forests, or forage along the shore, birds are suffering rapid population declines across the United States… If these habitats are struggling to support bird species, it’s a sign that they’re not healthy for other wildlife, or even humans—but working to restore them will have benefits across ecosystems.” Additionally, a  2025 study in Science of The Total Environment shows pesticide residues in birds’ nests correlate with higher numbers of dead offspring and unhatched eggs. The data reveals higher insecticide levels are linked to increased offspring mortality and threaten biodiversity. Lastly, a study published by scientists in France from La Rochelle University’s Chizé Center for Biological Studies in 2024 finds lower pesticide load in chicks from a bird of prey species in areas with organic farming.

Bats, meanwhile, among other wildlife including birds and bees, provide important ecosystem services through pollination, management of pest populations, and contributing to plant resilience and productivity. The importance of bat species and their services cannot be understated. Bats are the only nocturnal insect predator in the U.S. and are one of two primary nocturnal pollinators (along with moths) — important roles for night-flowering plants and for farmers.  

Seed dispersal is an important service bats provide. “Some seeds will not sprout unless they have passed through the digestive tracts of a bat. Bats spread millions of seeds every year from the ripe fruit they eat… Fruit bats are responsible for 98% of the reforestation of the world’s rainforests (the lungs of our planet). Without fruit bats, we would lose entire forests without felling a single tree,” Bat World Sanctuary notes.  Bats’ ecosystem services—relatively invisible because they do their insect marauding at night when humans are not watching—represent an excellent nontoxic, biological control for some agricultural pests, as well as for mosquitoes that may be human disease vectors. This highlights the public health benefits from bats, as they lower health care costs by reducing toxic pesticide use on chemical farms and in their ability to lower the rate of mosquito-borne disease. Bats are also incredibly useful in the study of emerging viral diseases such as coronaviruses, and add an inherent, existential value to natural landscapes. See previous Daily News, Bat Conservation Enhances Ecosystems and Agricultural Productivity, Natural Alternative to Pesticides, for additional information on the nature-based solution of bat conservation as a form of nonchemical pest management.

Please see previous Daily News coverage on birds and bats for additional information and research. You can also view our dedicated resource pages for birds and the Benefits of Bats page for additional information synthesized for your own use and advocacy!

Call to Action

For an enlightening overview of extensive peer-reviewed research on the ecosystem services of bats, please see a talk by preeminent ecologist, author, and professor Danilo Russo, PhD, at the 42^nd National Forum: The Pesticide Threat to Environmental Health—Advancing Holistic Solutions Aligned with Nature.

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 U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative 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: Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, January 14, 2026) Adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in children 4–6 years old occur with reported maternal occupational exposure during pregnancy, as published in a study in PLOS One, according to research from Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences in Tanzania and the Centre for International Health at the University of Bergen in Norway. “Our results show that self-reported maternal exposure to pesticides through direct spraying during pregnancy was associated with lower scores in social-emotional and executive function domains among children,” the authors state. Additionally, the authors note that they found an association between social-emotion scores in children and weeding practices of their mothers during pregnancy, as well as reduced overall neurodevelopmental scores following direct maternal pesticide exposure.

The study, conducted through self-reported pesticide exposure from the mothers of 432 mother–child pairs in three horticulture-intensive regions in Tanzania and development and learning assessments of their children, reflects the “concerns about maternal occupational exposure during pregnancy and its potential impact on child neurodevelopment,” the researchers describe. Current risk assessments fail to properly capture the disproportionate risks to farmers and farmworkers with various routes of exposure, “particularly in horticultural settings where women of reproductive age represent a substantial proportion of the workforce.” Common crops grown in Tanzania include maize (corn), rice, bananas, beans, coffee, and sweet potatoes.

Study Importance

As the authors state, “Global pesticide use has risen by about 80% in the last two decades, with Africa experiencing a staggering 175% increase, largely due to the growing population that put pressure on the agriculture sector to ensure sufficient yields in crop production.” Many of the agricultural workers, especially in low- and middle-income countries, are women. “In sub-Saharan Africa, they make up approximately 55% of the agricultural workforce, with Tanzania having the highest proportion at 81%,” the researchers point out. This burdens women with disproportionate health risks as a result of pesticide exposure through various activities, including planting, weeding, harvesting, and directly mixing and applying pesticides to crops. (See Catastrophic Harm to Women from Pesticides Drives Call for Their Elimination.)

“Literature shows that pesticides exposure can cause severe acute and chronic health effects in humans, including neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, endocrine disruption, and respiratory issues, with agricultural workers and communities in developing countries facing disproportionate exposure,” the authors state. These health effects, and more, are catalogued in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD) and extensively covered in Daily News articles. (See here, here, here, here, and here.)

Scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure during critical developmental windows can have long-lasting impacts, many of which are transgenerational. As the current study says: “Of particular concern is the potential for several of these pesticides to cross the placental barrier, leading to fetal exposure and adverse pregnancy or developmental outcomes. The fetus is especially vulnerable to pesticide toxicity due to underdeveloped detoxification mechanisms.” (See research here and here.)

In previous Daily News coverage, Beyond Pesticides reports on a study published in Environmental Research that finds an association between adverse neurodevelopment (brain function and development) among infants and exposure to the herbicide glyphosate during pregnancy that becomes more pronounced at 24 months. The increasing prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) in both the United States and around the world raises concerns about the impact of toxic exposures on child development, prompting researchers to investigate the effects of gestational exposure. The results find a positive association between prenatal metabolite concentrations from the mother during pregnancy and impacted child communication at 12 months. At 24 months, researchers find that the glyphosate metabolite is associated with adaptive, personal-social, communication, and cognitive skill impairments.

Methodology and Results

In the current study, the researchers utilize a cross-sectional design with structured interviews to assess maternal exposure and the International Development and Early Learning Assessment (IDELA) to measure the children’s neurodevelopment. This includes motor skills, literacy, numeracy, social–emotional development, and executive function. “By using IDELA, the study ensures precise and consistent assessments across critical developmental domains, including cognitive, motor and social emotional skills,” the authors note. “Previous pesticide exposure studies used the Bayley Scales of Infant Development and the Cambridge Automated NeuroPsychological Battery, yielding consistent findings.”

In total, 432 mother-child pairs, from three regions in Tanzania, participated. “The study was conducted among children born of women working in small-scale horticulture farms who had been working with pesticides before and during conception,” the researchers state. “Most mothers were aged 31–40 years (55.1%) and over half (55.3%) had six to ten years of experience in horticulture, but most (39.8%) have been living in the area for more than 20 years.”

Statistical analyses within the study show:

• Children score significantly lower in social–emotional and executive function domains when mothers report spraying pesticides during pregnancy.
• Following maternal pesticide exposure, the lowest scores in children are in the categories of emergency literacy and executive function.
• “Women who reported to engage in pesticides spray activity during pregnancy had children with significantly lower mean emergent numeracy and lower fine and gross motor domain scores compared to those who reported to not spray during pregnancy. Similar outcomes were observed in children of women who reported washing clothes used for pesticides spray/handling activities.”
• In the children of pregnant women who engaged in weeding activities within 24 hours of pesticide spraying, mean emergent numeracy domain scores are also significantly lower.
• A multiple linear regression analysis “showed a borderline relationship between engaging in spray work during pregnancy and low total test scores… It was also shown that spraying pesticides during pregnancy was significantly associated with lower social-emotional scores and executive function scores.”
• Sensitivity analyses to determine sex-specific trends finds “that the significant negative association between spraying pesticides and the observed decrease in social-emotional and executive function scores is driven primarily by boys. Boys of mothers who reported spraying pesticides during pregnancy had significantly lower social emotional, executive function and total IDELA scores.”

The study findings show that maternal occupational exposure through pesticide-related activities, particularly directly spraying crops, leads to lower neurodevelopment scores. This primarily affects the social-emotional, executive function, and overall domains of their children, notably in boys.

Previous Research

There is a wide body of science documenting the hazards of pesticide exposure to infants and children, particularly with perinatal and prenatal exposure. (See Beyond Pesticides’ resources on Hazards of Pesticides for Children’s Health and Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix for more information). In previous Daily News, entitled Prenatal, Childhood Exposure to Toxic Pesticides Linked to Neurodevelopment Issues, a study published in Environmental Research finds that early life organophosphate pesticide exposure is linked to poorer neurodevelopment.

Additional Daily News regarding a California-based population study published in BMC Public Health finds that “7.5 [percent] of all pregnant people in California who gave birth in 2021 lived within 1 km [kilometer] of agricultural fields where OP pesticides [organophosphates] had been used during their pregnancy.” This study highlights the significant disparities that occur with elevated exposure to pesticides in rural areas and adds to the existing scientific literature on perinatal and maternal pesticide exposure associated with adverse long-term health effects for children and mothers.

Cited within the current study is additional research that adds to this body of science, including:

• A study of children from smallholder tomato farmers in southern Tanzania reports “delayed neurodevelopment in children associated with maternal engagement in agricultural work.”
• An assessment of 355 one-year-old infants in Costa Rica, with “mothers living within 5 km of banana plantations with frequent aerial mancozeb (a fungicide) spraying,” reveals lower social-emotional scores with higher urinary metabolite concentrations. (See here.)
• Another study incorporating 618 urine samples from women in South Africa shows that maternal urinary metabolites of pyrethroids are associated with lower social-emotional scores in one-year-old infants.
• “In a U.S birth cohort involving 162 mother-child pairs found that prenatal exposure to pyrethroids, as indicated by its urinary metabolites 3-PBA and cis-DCCA, was associated with poorer performance in executive function in children aged 4–9 years.” (See study here.)
• A similar study of a cohort study of 363 mother-child pairs finds “higher gestational concentrations of organophosphate metabolites, as measured by maternal urine levels of dialkyl phosphate, were associated with significantly lower executive functioning in children aged between 7 and 12 years.”

The Organic Solution

To protect mothers and their children, as well as all individuals, wildlife, and the environment, Beyond Pesticides advocates ending all exposure routes to toxic pesticides with the adoption of organic practices. Both women and men working in agriculture, as well as those living nearby, should not face disproportionate risks to their health, and their families, due to their occupation. Anyone who consumes crops should also not face health threats from hazardous chemical residues. The only way to ensure safe agricultural production that does not create acute and chronic health threats to future generations is to remove petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers from the equation and utilize organic methods.

Beyond Pesticides and organic advocates believe that a transition away from chemical-intensive agriculture and land management is the most viable solution to avoid adverse health impacts and end reliance on toxic chemicals throughout all households and communities. Beyond Pesticides’ program of science, policy, and action takes on the existential threats from fossil fuel-based pesticides and fertilizers—widespread illness, biodiversity collapse, and the climate crisis.

Support the organic solution by buying and growing organic products, as well as taking action each week to have your voice heard on governmental actions that are harmful to the environment and public and worker health, increase overall pesticide use, or undermine the advancement of organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies through Action of the Week. Without your engagement and incredible generosity, it would not be possible to lead the transition to a world free of toxic pesticides. Learn more about Beyond Pesticides’ programs and resources here.

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

Source:

Mwakalasya, W. et al. (2025) Neurodevelopment in children born to women exposed to pesticides during pregnancy, PLOS One. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0326007.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Go Organic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How To Take Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organic Under Pressure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regenerative Greenwashing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the chemical industry strategy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Beyond Pesticides Press Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forum Reflections from Bat Expert Dr. Danilo Russo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Mission

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

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

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

Taking Bold Action

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

Strategic Objectives

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

Tracking the Science

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

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

Organic as a Social Good

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

Transitioning to Organic in Communities

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

Raising Voices for Change

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

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

The Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study Importance

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

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

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

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

Methodology and Results

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

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

The results linking MEE to negative mental health outcomes include:

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

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

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

Forging an Organic Path Forward

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

Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic methods here and here. Have your voice heard by participating in Action of the Week, which is intended to provide you, our supporters and network, with one concrete action that you can take each week regarding governmental actions that are harmful to the environment and public and worker health, increase overall pesticide use, or undermine the advancement of organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies.

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

In USDA regulations:

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

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

Letter to USDA

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

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

In USDA regulations:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

Extension Services on Christmas Tree Pest Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Example of the Organic Solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study Importance and Background

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

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

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

Methodology and Results

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

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

Previous Research

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

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

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

The Organic Solution

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

Without using petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, organic farmers are able to produce crops on a large scale that are not only profitable but are healthier for consumers and farm workers. In Daily News earlier this year, titled Study Demonstrates Health Benefits of Organic Diet Over That Consumed with Toxic Pesticides, Beyond Pesticides shared how adopting a fully organic diet can reduce pesticide levels in urine within just two weeks “by an average of 98.6%” and facilitate faster DNA damage repair relative to a diet of food grown with chemical-intensive practices, according to findings from a randomized clinical trial published in Nutrire.

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

Decision

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

The three APA claims include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Previous Coverage

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

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

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

Soil Microbiome Health

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

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

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

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

Study Methodology and Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Research

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

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

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

The Organic Solution

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. In a literature review published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety earlier this year, the authors highlight a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and endocrine-disrupting pesticides (EDPs) showing epigenetic effects from exposure, as the chemicals imitate the action of endocrine hormones and lead to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health. In summarizing these results, the researchers state, “As a class of particularly representative endocrine-disrupting chemicals, the accumulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances potentially leads to adverse health effects, including hormonal disruptions, developmental issues, and cancer.” These effects result from complex mechanisms that are not yet fully assessed in EPA’s pesticide registration process, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed before products are approved.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. A literature review published this year highlighted a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) showing epigenetic effects leading to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health. In summarizing these results, the researchers state, “As a class of particularly representative endocrine-disrupting chemicals, the accumulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances potentially leads to adverse health effects, including hormonal disruptions, developmental issues, and cancer.” These effects result from complex mechanisms not yet fully assessed in EPA pesticide registration, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed. 

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. A literature review published this year highlighted a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) showing epigenetic effects leading to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health. In summarizing these results, the researchers state, “As a class of particularly representative endocrine-disrupting chemicals, the accumulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances potentially leads to adverse health effects, including hormonal disruptions, developmental issues, and cancer.” These effects result from complex mechanisms not yet fully assessed in EPA pesticide registration, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed. 

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

EPA Deficiencies 

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

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

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

Recent Glyphosate Study Retraction 

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

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

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

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

Adverse Effects of Glyphosate 

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

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

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

A Holistic Solution is Urgently Needed 

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: 

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

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

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