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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review 

The main arguments in the Monsanto brief include: 

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

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

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

Solicitor General Amicus Brief 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of Bates Decision 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action 

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: Bayer; U.S. Right to Know 

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

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

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

Mechanisms of Pesticide-ARG Interactions

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

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

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

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

Previous Coverage

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

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

Take Action

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Agriculture Committee Vote Breakdown

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 6, 2026) Does humanity want to live in a world without birds? This may seem like an extreme question, but a new study in Science concludes that, without changes in human behavior, just such a world may be on the horizon. This would be a tragedy of colossal proportions, not only for the ecosystem services birds provide, but for the meaning of human life and a healthy biosphere. The oldest human-made image of a bird is 40,000 years old.

The new study, by Czech environmental scientist François Leroy, PhD, and two colleagues from The Ohio State University, measured local population abundances of 261 North American bird species between 1987 and 2021. They also measured the speeds at which the species’ populations rose or fell. The study was based on data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey, a program of the U.S. Geological Survey in coordination with the Canadian Wildlife Service. This survey involves direct observations of bird populations along roadsides during breeding season. The program was created in the mid-20^th century in response to the severe mortalities associated with the use of DDT, highlighted by Rachel Carson in her seminal 1962 work, Silent Spring.

In the current study, the researchers use data from 1,033 of the thousands of road segments where observers counted birds over the 35-year period. There is a significant increase in bird abundance in only 17% of the roadside routes, whereas 70% of the routes see a significant decline. The sharpest declines are seen along routes in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Arizona. Over all of North America, “[O]n average, routes experienced a significant acceleration of bird abundance decline,” the authors write. In the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and California, the rate of bird decline clearly accelerates. Other areas, including parts of New England and the Pacific Northwest, see the rate of decline slow.

The researchers note that agricultural intensification and land use changes have been linked to changes in bird populations, and they integrate a set of related indicators, including climate, habitat, and human impacts, with the observational data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey. The results suggest that rapid climate warming is an important factor in bird declines. Not all species can adapt quickly, and others are leaving their traditional landscapes and moving northward.

The second major factor is what the authors call “high-intensity agriculture”—areas with high pesticide and fertilizer use and very large farm sizes. Pesticides are known bird killers. Pesticides’ effects on birds are varied, ranging from outright mortality to developmental damage to gut microbiota changes to derangement of breeding behavior and flight orientation. As has been documented extensively, some of the worst actors include neonicotinoids (e.g., imidacloprid), pyrethroids (permethrin), and phenylpyrazoles (fipronil). See our bird archive for more information.

As Beyond Pesticides has noted here and here, climate and synthetic chemical use work together to the detriment of whole ecosystems. The study authors make an important connection in this regard: While climate is likely responsible for the magnitude of bird losses, it is agriculture that is probably driving the acceleration of those losses. Astonishingly, the authors also observe that, “To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale study that has linked the acceleration of abundance change to the environment.” In a rational world, that link would have been suspected and analyzed decades ago. That it has taken until 2026 to produce a study making the connection is, according to advocates, an indication of the distortions produced by corporate and industrial interests—currently accelerating themselves—in the scientific and regulatory structures that are supposed to maintain balance in human life and the environment.

One finding in the Science study that points out the need for humans and wildlife to find ways to overlap is that in most of North America, birds and humans tend to occupy the same climatic zones: “[T]he strongest acceleration of decline occurs around intermediate mean temperatures” —50°F—“where bird populations are densest and human activities are most pronounced.” Unless human activity can accommodate the needs of non-human life, we will be living in a very species-poor world—so poor, in fact, that humans may not be able to sustain themselves. One ray of hope is that even small accommodations to wildlife and natural landscape systems can make a difference. A 2025 Italian study found that “Even a small increase in the naturalness of agricultural land,” such as preserving patches of steppe grassland, riparian forest, and wetlands can produce “significant biodiversity benefits.” Eliminating pesticides would make an even bigger difference.

The current study adds to the strong evidence that industrial agriculture using synthetic chemicals is destroying the biological structures vital to the maintenance of biodiversity and ecological health. The lessons of Silent Spring—a work that put birds at the forefront of a dawning awareness that pesticides are a Faustian bargain—apparently must be re-learned. Advancing organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies is an urgent priority. See our Action of the Week Archive for steps you can take right now.

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

Sources:

Acceleration hotspots of North American birds’ decline are associated with agriculture
Leroy et al.
Science 2026
https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.ads0871

Latest State of the Birds Report Highlights Population Declines Indicative of Deteriorating Ecosystem Health
Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/03/latest-state-of-the-birds-report-highlights-population-declines-indicative-of-deteriorating-ecosystem-health/

Garden Pesticide Use Harms Local Bird Populations, Study Authors Say “We Should Simply Ban These Poisons”
Beyond Pesticides, February 8, 2023
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2023/02/garden-pesticide-use-harms-local-bird-populations-study-authors-say-we-should-simply-ban-these-poisons/

Impacts of Intensive Agriculture on Birds: A Review Structural Biodiversity Analysis in a Case Study of Wild Bird Communities in Southern Europe
Gioiosa et al
Agrociencia
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3298/12/4/129  

(Beyond Pesticides, March 5, 2026) In a deep analysis of public records, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), a nonprofit newsroom and public health research group, discloses significant financial ties between Bayer-Monsanto, lobbying firms, and the second Trump Administration, raising concerns about basic safeguards to curb corporate influence over federal policymakers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental and public health advocates across the country continue to call for a wholesale transition to organically managed systems to provide an economically prosperous and ecologically healthy alternative to the toxic chemical-dependent status quo.

Main Takeaways

In terms of the web of lobbying firms partnered up with Bayer, there is a noticeable revolving door at work between industry, regulators, previous presidential campaign staffers, and Trump administration appointees, including Ballard Partners (founder and four partners), Mercury Public Affairs (four partners), Venture Government Strategies (two partners and two senior leadership), Holland & Hart, and Invariant, among several others. The individuals cited are well-placed policy advisors to the Trump Administration. The highlights include:

• Brian Ballard, founder of Ballard Partners, was a major campaign fundraiser in the 2024 presidential election with over $50 million in contributions; Ballard also served on the 2024 inaugural and transition finance committees and previously served as a Florida lobbyist for the Trump Organization;
• Daniel McFaul, managing partner at Ballard, who served on the 2016-2017 presidential transition team and is a registered lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council;
• Bryan Lanza, partner at Mercury Public Affairs, was the communications director and deputy communications director for the 2016-2017 transition team and 2016 Trump-Pence campaign, respectively;
• Jonathan Blum, senior vice president at Venture Government Strategies, who served senior roles in the Treasury Department during the first and second Trump administrations, with a brief stint at Treasury under two different leadership roles through a significant portion of 2025 before joining the firm in December;
• Troy Lyons, senior director of federal affairs at Holland & Hart, who served various leadership roles in the EPA Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, including as “EPA’s chief liaison to Congress” in the first Trump Administration; and,
• Ken Barbic, principal of the Food and Agriculture Practice Group at Invariant, served as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s assistant secretary for congressional relations from 2018 to 2021.

Additional notable ties between previous Republican Administrations, lobbying firms, and Bayer-Monsanto include Todd Strategy Group, Capitol Council, BGR Government Affairs, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, The Russell Group, HB Strategies, Washington Tax and Public Policy Group, and The Peterson Group.

Previous Coverage

On June 30, 2025, Kyle Kunkler started work as deputy assistant administrator for pesticides in EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Mr. Kunkler is an experienced agribusiness lobbyist, having come directly from the American Soybean Association, where he was director of government affairs. He joins Nancy Beck, PhD, herself a migrant from the American Chemistry Council. Not coincidentally, a mere three weeks after Mr. Kunkler’s appointment, EPA opened the floodgates to allow use of the controversial herbicide dicamba to flow unrestricted once again through the nation’s ecosystems. (See Daily News here.)

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.  

Researchers at the University of Oregon found that the rollout of genetically engineered corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years.” Their results “suggest the introduction of GM [genetically modified] seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.”

The conclusions of this study emerge as fossil fuel advocates, including President Trump, are mobilizing to establish “energy dominance” despite the market movement toward renewable energy and organic land management. While chemical-intensive farmers and land managers rely on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, organic practitioners are experiencing the economic benefit of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services, including the natural cycling of nutrients for plants. (See Daily News here.)

The ubiquitous nature of glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms is a result of the widespread application of this toxic weed killer in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Both glyphosate and its main metabolite (breakdown product), aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), are detected in air, water, soil, and food, which results in multiple pathways for exposure to nontarget organisms, including humans. Over 750 herbicides contain glyphosate as the active ingredient (the ingredient in a pesticide formulation that the manufacturer claims is included to target the labeled pest), and it also plays a large role in the production of genetically modified (GM) crops, with approximately 80% of GM crops bred specifically to be glyphosate-tolerant. See the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management for additional information on glyphosate and other pesticide active ingredients. (Note that pesticide formulations, not disclosed on the product label, are generally made up of mostly nondisclosed ingredients, known as “inert” or “other” ingredients, that can be highly toxic; see also here.)

In its 2019 report, Toxic Secret, Friends of the Earth found that foods sold by the top four U.S. food retailers — Kroger (NYSE: KR), Walmart (NYSE: WMT), Costco (NYSE: COST), and Albertsons — contain residues of toxic pesticides linked to a range of serious health and environmental problems. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has been detected in popular foods, including “100% pure” honey, Doritos, Oreos, Goldfish, Ritz Crackers, German beers, California wines, and UK bread. (See Daily News here.) A 2019 residue study by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) found that 19 of 20 common beers and wines tested and sold in the United States contain glyphosate residues. (See Daily News here.)

The science on pesticide safety has been deeply politicized, given the controversy on glyphosate registration and litigation surrounding the active ingredient’s links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. What was once considered a landmark 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-in-chief, Martin van den Berg, PhD of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, who 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.” (See Daily News here.)

In a study published in Poultry Science, researchers found adverse reproductive effects in roosters (Gallus gallus domesticus) from low-dose exposure to the fungicide tebuconazole, the insecticide imidacloprid, and glyphosate individually and in mixtures—with all concentrations at or below the maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the European Union. “Sub-MRL [sub-maximum residue limit] pesticide exposure impaired male reproductive function, with the most pronounced effects observed following combined treatments,” the authors report. They continue: “[E]xposure resulted in reduced semen quality, decreased fertility and hatchability, and increased embryo mortality, particularly in groups receiving [imidacloprid] alone or in combination. These functional impairments were accompanied by detectable pesticide residues in reproductive tissues and body fluids, as well as modulation [modification/alteration] of local and systemic immune parameters.” (See Daily News here.)

In the aftermath of the 2015 decision by the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization designating glyphosate as “probably” carcinogenic (see Daily News here), a research project published in partnership with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) determined that glyphosate acts as a glycine analogue that incorporates into peptides during protein synthesis. In this process, it alters a number of proteins that depend on conserved glycine for proper function. According to the authors, glyphosate substitution for glycine correlates with several diseases, including diabetes, obesity, asthma, Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and Parkinson’s disease, among others. (See Daily News here.)

Invoking the Defense Production Act of 1950

On February 18, the Trump administration issued an Executive Order (EO) that could provide blanket legal protection for all liability associated with the use of glyphosate. By activating the Defense Production Act of 1950 and its immunity from lawsuits provision for glyphosate manufacturers, the administration could mandate production of glyphosate as a “national security” concern and provide blanket legal protection for its activities and resulting harm. (See Daily News.)

Nothing in the President’s executive order appears to meet the intent of the statute and its stated purpose to protect “the ability of the domestic industrial base to supply materials and services for the national defense and to prepare for and respond to military conflicts, natural or man-caused disasters, or acts of terrorism within the United States . . .” Without any supporting documentation or findings, the executive order states: “There is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides. Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity.  Given the profit margins growers currently face, any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.”

Organic farmers and the companies in the $70 billion organic sector do not agree with this broad, unsupported statement in the executive order.

Call to Action

The best way to get started is by taking action, including with the current deliberations on the Farm Bill. >> In order to uphold fundamental protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment, tell your Congressional representative to support Rep. Pingree’s Protect Our Health Amendment (removes Sections 10205-10207), move to strike Sections 10201-10204 and 102011, and support the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act provisions. Without a comprehensive overhaul, urge a vote against the Farm Bill.

If you have already contacted your U.S. Representative on the Farm Bill in the past two weeks, please click HERE to send them a reminder, in light of the postponement and the new date for a committee vote on March 3! *If a member is on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, the letter you submit will automatically adjust the language by recognizing their Committee membership.

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

Source: U.S. Right to Know

(Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2026) In the International Journal of Epidemiology, researchers from France assess the risks of kidney cancer with a wide range of agricultural activities and tasks, finding that occupational exposure heightens kidney cancer risk. In studying participants from the French AGRIculture and CANcer cohort (AGRICAN) with incident kidney cancer, elevated risks of disease development between 25-56% are documented for both men and women engaging in agricultural activities. In men, the authors find increased kidney cancer in those “working with rapeseed and sunflowers, and tasks related to other crops such as corn, wheat/barley, beet, and tobacco.” In women, an increased risk is noted for winegrowers and corn growers. “Pesticide use (on fields and/or seeds) was associated, for both sexes, with these crops, showing exposure-response relationships with crop area and work duration,” the researchers state.

This study, of a large cohort of agricultural workers, highlights the disproportionate risks of adverse kidney health to farmworkers directly handling pesticides or encountering pesticide residues on recently treated products. According to the World Cancer Research Fund, kidney cancer is the 14^th most common cancer worldwide, affecting men more often than women. Kidney cancer incidence and mortality have increased globally, with various causes, such as occupational exposure to environmental contaminants, as established risk factors.

Evidence from meta-analyses and large case-control studies provide evidence that links pesticides and kidney cancer, as they show elevated kidney cancer risks in pesticide-exposed individuals. “Furthermore, kidney cancer latency is uncertain, with some studies indicating a 20- and 30-year delay post-exposure,” the authors note. (See studies here and here.)

Study Methodology and Results

In the current study, the AGRICAN cohort contains 654 cases of incident kidney cancer, as “identified through cancer registries from 2005-2007 until 31 December 2017.” The affected individuals filled out mailed questionnaires detailing exposure to pesticides and farm activities, such as applying pesticides or sowing/harvesting sprayed crops. The questionnaire included information on 13 crop types and 5 types of livestock on farms.

As the researcher say, “Incident cases of kidney cancer and their histologic subtypes were obtained from the population-based cancer registries of each of the 11 participating areas, with histologic confirmation for each case.” From this information, statistical analyses were performed to determine associations between agricultural exposure and kidney cancer risk. These were conducted separately for men and women to account for genetic, etiological, and exposure differences. Of the total 654 incident kidney cancer cases, 467 occurred in men and 187 occurred in women, displaying a 2.5:1 ratio.

As a result, increases in kidney cancer risks in men are observed in rapeseed, sunflower, and tobacco growers, with direct exposure to pesticide treatments, seeds, and sowing showing positive associations with the disease across all of these crops. “An increased risk was also observed in growers of wheat and/or barley, corn, beet, and field vegetables,” the authors note. In terms of livestock exposure and kidney cancer incidence, a slight increase in risk is observed in men for pigs, poultry, and sheep.

In females, increased risks are observed for winegrowers and corn growers, reaching 56% and 25%, respectively. The data shows a risk increase of over 40% for “women working in wineries, using pesticides in vineyards and corn crops, and taking part in grape harvesting and vineyard maintenance.” The researchers continue, saying: “The risk of kidney cancer increased both with the duration of exposure to winegrowing and with the size of the area under the vines. The risk almost doubled for a working duration of ~30 years and almost tripled for the largest vineyard areas. It also doubled for those treating seeds of corn crops.”

In summarizing the results, the authors state: “When the effect of various crops and livestock activities on 654 kidney cancers among farmers in the AGRICAN cohort was analysed, risks for specific crops and animal exposures appeared in both men and women… The study revealed a positive association between working in open field crops and other crops and the risk of kidney cancer, showing an increased risk ≤50%.”

Previous Research

Cited in the study is additional scientific literature that connects pesticide exposure to adverse effects on kidney health. This includes:

• A case-control study in Canada of 157 cases of kidney cancer where individuals report exposure to pesticides finds that pesticide and herbicide exposure is associated with an increased risk.
• “Similar patterns were found a few years earlier in a case-control study in Denmark, with a doubling in risk for men exposed to insecticides or herbicides.”
• Positive associations are observed in a case-control study conducted in Italy involving kidney cancer and potato and fruit growing.
• Another study in Italian hospitals shows two-fold increased risk for fruit farmers.

As shared in a Daily News article last year, titled Study Reveals Mechanisms of Kidney Injury and Cancer from Exposure to Weed Killer Glyphosate, a novel study in Scientific Reports combines computational analyses with toxicological data to identify pathways affected by exposure to the phosphanoglycine herbicide glyphosate. The analyses identify glyphosate targets that correlate with kidney injury and kidney cancer, revealing pathways with significant glyphosate-induced alterations, including the dysregulation of nitrogen metabolism that leads to ammonia accumulation and oxidative stress, both of which contribute to renal (kidney) damage and carcinogenesis (development of cancer).

“This study provides a comprehensive investigation into the molecular mechanisms by which glyphosate may contribute to kidney injury and kidney cancer, employing an array of bioinformatics tools for target prediction, toxicity assessment, pathway enrichment analysis, molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation,” the researchers state. The results of the analyses and simulations highlight the molecular mechanisms underlying glyphosate’s nephrotoxic (damaging to kidneys) and carcinogenic (cancer-causing) effects.

Research on the effects of pesticides on kidney health has been documented for many years. A previous Daily News from 2015, entitled “Kidney, Liver Damage Linked to Chronic, Low-Dose Glyphosate Exposure,” highlights a research study published in Environmental Health that links chronic, ultra-low dose exposure to glyphosate in drinking water to adverse impacts on the health of the liver and kidneys. (See additional coverage on kidney health here.)

The Organic Solution

As Beyond Pesticides has advocated for over 40 years, the path forward that best protects public health, as well as the health of all wildlife and the environment, is with organic agriculture and land management. These methods provide a holistic approach that eliminates the use of harmful petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, such as those that cause kidney cancer as displayed in the current study.

Recently published study from researchers at Prairie View A&M University in Texas in the journal Sustainability, a study of organic agricultural systems from 1960 to 2021, concludes that “the outlook for U.S. organic fruit and vegetables is encouraging, supported by expanding consumer demand, government support, and improved conditions for international trade.” While delivering upbeat findings, including health benefits, the study identifies tremendous obstacles to entry into organic farming, including the limited support for alternative pest management and pest control systems in the United States in recent modern history, compared to the assistance provided for highly subsidized, petrochemical-dependent agricultural practices. (See Daily News here.)

While science continues to prove that organic practices can be productive, profitable, and safer for all, additional support is needed to implement a successful widespread transition away from chemical-intensive land management. Add your voice to the organic movement and help make this possible!

ACTION

Meanwhile, the GOP-proposed Farm Bill (the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567) has been widely criticized for gutting protections from pesticides, including provisions that shield chemical manufacturers from liability, preempt the authority of states and localities to restrict pesticides, and slash protections from pesticides under all major environmental statutes. Importantly, there are other elements in the proposed legislation that are being highlighted as undermining agricultural policies’ contribution to solving critical health, food security, biodiversity, and climate concerns.

>> Tell your Congressional representative to advocate for the removal of Farm Bill Title X, Subtitle C, Part 1, which contains attacks on foundational protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment—and vote against the Farm Bill if those provisions are not removed. and >> Tell Congress to support and fund international organizations critical to the global health of humans and the biosphere, AND Tell Governors/Lieutenant Governors to join (as well as thank them for joining) the Governors Public Health Alliance and to expand their support for international agencies that protect biodiversity and mitigate the climate crisis (IUCN, IPBES, and IPCC).

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

Source:

Nassar, C. et al. (2026) Kidney cancer and occupational agricultural exposures in the AGRIculture and CANcer cohort, International Journal of Epidemiology. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-abstract/55/1/dyag001/8466691.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 3, 2026) Research published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology (CRT) and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) documents the genetic and epigenetic (changes to gene function without altering the DNA sequence) effects to pesticide-exposed groups through early-life exposure and from transgenerational inheritance (passed down through generations). These studies highlight the complex nature of mechanisms of toxicity, as well as the various pesticide exposure routes that begin even prior to conception. The analyses evaluate general and specific pesticide exposure as reported in observational and laboratory research. Through a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on “DNA damage, cytogenetic damage, DNA methylation, or gene expression outcomes associated with prenatal and early childhood pesticide exposure,” the CRT authors link genotoxic mechanisms and epigenetic alterations to adverse health outcomes while the PNAS study shows pesticide-induced epigenetic alterations in mammals across 20 generations that “suggest the maternal and paternal lineages can both induce and inherit epigenetic alterations that influence disease (e.g., kidney, testis, ovary, prostate) incidence, reproductive health (e.g., parturition, infertility), and overall fitness generationally.”

As the CRT study states: “One of the main ways pesticides can cause harm is through genotoxicity—their ability to damage genetic material. This damage can appear as breaks in DNA strands, structural changes in chromosomes, or epigenetic alterations that modify gene activity without changing the DNA structure itself… [which] may have profound implications for growth, neurodevelopment, and long-term disease risk.” Genotoxicity can occur through multiple pathways, including oxidative stress and changes in DNA methylation (biochemical controls in the body for gene expression, detoxification, and cell repair) patterns. Epigenetic changes, however, are changes in gene function (turning genes on or off) without underlying DNA sequences being altered. These changes can be inherited by subsequent generations (referred to as epigenetic transgenerational inheritance) and can lead to developmental effects and increased disease susceptibility.

Study Methodology and Results

In the Critical Reviews in Toxicology study, a review of observational research, including cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies, was performed. Twenty-eight studies were analyzed, which focus on “the genotoxic consequences of prenatal and early childhood pesticide exposure.” As the authors note, “Eligible outcome measurements included biomarkers of DNA damage (e.g. percentage of DNA in comet tail, olive tail moment, tail length), frequency of cytogenetic abnormalities (e.g. micronuclei counts, chromosomal aberrations), DNA methylation levels at specific genomic loci or global methylation status, and expression levels of genes involved in DNA damage response, detoxification, or other relevant pathways.”

The study populations incorporate embryos, fetuses, infants, and young children up to five years of age, as well as pregnant mothers if the placenta was investigated, where pesticide exposure was self-reported. As a result, the researchers find “substantial DNA damage in pesticide-exposed groups, with stronger effects in maternal and cord blood,” as well as cytogenetic (chromosome) damage in agricultural areas, “significant downregulation of DNA damage/repair genes and distinct biological responses across inflammatory, oxidative stress, and cell signaling pathways,” and changes in DNA methylation. “The evidence supports substantial genotoxic and epigenetic alterations following early-life pesticide exposure, highlighting mechanistic pathways that may underlie adverse health outcomes and reinforcing the need for precautionary policies during critical developmental windows,” the authors write.

Noteworthy study results include:

• Pesticide exposure causes DNA strand breaks, and early-life exposure leads to persistent alterations in DNA methylation.
• Higher pesticide levels occur in umbilical cord plasma as compared to mothers’ plasma.
• Adverse pregnancy outcomes are associated with pesticide exposure and DNA damage, most commonly with reduced birth weight.
• One study finds “associations between pesticide exposure, DNA methylation, and cognitive outcomes in children from an agricultural region of California.”
• Parental pesticide exposure is linked to genital malformations in male newborns. (See study here.)
• Chlorpyrifos exposure is associated with reduced cognitive performance and language performance at age 2, with stronger effects observed in boys. (See here.)
• Another study reports “increased oxidative stress markers (catalase, super-oxide dismutase, malondialdehyde) and decreased antioxidant enzymes (glutathione reductase and peroxidase) in preterm compared to term groups.”
• In examining the epigenetic effects of prenatal pesticide exposure, one study finds “persistent methylation alterations in genes implicated in breast cancer pathways.”

In summary, the researchers state: “These results suggest that early-life pesticide exposure may program lifelong alterations in gene expression through stable epigenetic modifications, potentially increasing susceptibility to diseases like cancer, metabolic disorders, and neurodevelopmental conditions.”

In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study, the impact of environmental exposures on health outcomes throughout generations is assessed using the agricultural fungicide vinclozolin. This research follows a lineage of rats with ancestral vinclozolin exposure through twenty generations, revealing insights into long-term mammalian models of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance. “Ancestrally exposed rats to vinclozolin showed significant parturition [act of giving birth] abnormalities in both the maternal and paternal lineages after 16 generations,” the authors state, which includes maternal deaths during labor and stillbirths.

As a study of generational inheritance throughout 20 generations, this research highlights the long-term stability and evolutionary implications of epigenetic modifications. These alterations can only be transmitted/passed down to subsequent generations through germline cells. In analyzing the F23 generation, after the pregnant mothers in the F0 generation were initially exposed, the research shows how epigenetic mechanisms are part of the inheritance of disease and phenotypic variation. The initial exposure of the pregnant female affects three generations: the mother, the fetus, and the fetus’s developing sperm or egg cells. This means that the third generation (F3) is the first to not experience directly exposure, and thus, starts the ‘transgenerational’ groups.

The study results “reveal significant insights into the effects of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance on both female and male pathology,” including how “transgenerational epigenetic inheritance from vinclozolin exposure may lead to increased spermatogenic cell apoptosis [cell death] that increases over multiple generations” and rare DNA mutations, although the majority of the inherited effects involve changes in genes rather than DNA. Females show an increase in kidney and ovarian disease, as well as disruption in folliculogenesis (maturation process of ovarian follicles) and an increase in large ovarian cysts. In the later generations, males are also impacted with higher rates of prostate and testicular disease, with steadily declining sperm health.

The researchers conclude: “In this study, the observed changes in disease incidence and reproductive health indicate a response to exposure to toxicants. As epigenetic inheritance accumulates over generations, it can contribute to rapid evolutionary changes that cannot be explained by genetic mutations alone.”

In coverage of this study by U.S. Right to Know, it emphasizes how these findings “suggest that epigenetic changes linked to an ancestral chemical exposure and endocrine disruptor can persist for many generations and accumulate over time. Twenty rat generations span a few years. In humans, that could translate to centuries.” The article continues, stating: “The study also underscores a regulatory blind spot, since traditional toxicology focuses on direct toxicity and genetic mutations. Epigenetic inheritance suggests low-dose exposures could leave molecular imprints that amplify across generations.”

Previous Research

Beyond Pesticides has extensive coverage on both epigenetic and genotoxic effects of pesticides, with a multitude of studies showing DNA damage as a result of exposure. One study last year, published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, “investigates genotoxic effects on farmers in Paraíba, Brazil, analyzing buccal mucosa cells [cells from inside the cheek] for DNA and cellular damage,” the authors write. In comparing data from 33 pesticide-exposed agricultural workers to 29 unexposed people in a control group, the researchers report that the “findings revealed significantly higher frequencies of cellular alterations and DNA damage among exposed farmers relative to the control group, with no significant impact from factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, or family cancer history.” (See Daily News here.)

Another study from 2024 highlights pesticide-induced epigenetic changes, including changes relating to “DNA methylation, histone modification, and differential microRNA expression [which ‘can alter the expression of many disease-related genes’]” in a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature published in Environmental Epigenetics. “Our review did provide evidence that pesticide exposure could lead to epigenetic modifications, possibly altering global and gene-specific methylation levels, epigenome-wide methylation, and micro-RNA differential expression,” researchers share in the conclusion of the study. (See Daily News here.)

Additional research, cited in the CRT study, shows:

• “Research on various organophosphate pesticides, including malathion and chlorpyrifos, and pyrethroids, including cypermethrin, has demonstrated that in utero exposure leads to DNA strand breaks, oxidative stress, disruption of antioxidant enzyme balance, and subsequent behavioral abnormalities in offspring.” (See here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
• “Multiple meta-analyses have quantified increased risks of childhood cancers associated with prenatal pesticide exposure.” (See studies here and here.)
• One study finds “a 1.6-fold elevated risk of neuroblastoma among children whose mothers were exposed during pregnancy, suggesting genotoxic mechanisms may underlie these associations.”
• Biomonitoring studies document elevated levels of DNA damage markers in children and pregnant women exposed to agricultural and residential pesticides. (See here and here.)

The Organic Solution

As research connecting pesticide exposure to deleterious adverse health effects continues to mount, and regulatory processes fail to adequately protect public health, the holistic alternative to agriculture and land management founded in organic principles is the only way to ensure true health and safety for future generations. Children are particularly susceptible to the harmful effects of pesticides, and this increased vulnerability continues throughout childhood, putting kids at increased risk of cancer, developmental delays, and learning disabilities. See Hazards of Pesticides for Children’s Health and Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix for more information.

Beyond Pesticides’ latest action, Momentum Building Against GOP Farm Bill, Pesticide “Reform” Guts Protections from Pesticides,  cites recent studies demonstrating connections between prenatal and postnatal exposure to pesticides and severe consequences for children underscore what are being called unnecessary dangers of agriculture that relies on toxic pesticides. Besides leukemia and other cancers, childhood or in utero exposure to pesticides leads to a greater risk of asthma, ADHD, reproductive hormone production in girls, cardiometabolic disorders in boys, and suppression of the immune system, among other problems. These outcomes are unnecessary, since organic agriculture can produce any product produced by chemical-intensive agriculture. With future agriculture policy now under consideration, it is important that the Farm Bill not be used to prop up the chemical industry, but instead support organic agriculture that will not threaten vulnerable populations.

Dispensing with a tradition of bipartisan consultation in the Agriculture Committees of Congress on the Farm Bill, the Republican leadership of the House Agriculture Committee is facing resounding criticism from food, farming, environmental, and consumer groups on their highly partisan bill—the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567. The Committee postponed last week’s vote on the Farm Bill until TODAY, March 3, which provides additional time for people and organizations to let members know (or remind them) that the Farm Bill, as proposed, only serves the interests of chemical manufacturers and agribusiness. 

Get involved: >> In order to uphold fundamental protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment, tell your Congressional representative to support Rep. Pingree’s Protect Our Health Amendment (removes Sections 10205-10207), move to strike Sections 10201-10204 and 102011, and support the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act provisions. Without a comprehensive overhaul, urge a vote against the Farm Bill. 

 If you have already contacted your U.S. Representative on the Farm Bill in the past two weeks, please click HERE to send them a reminder, in light of the postponement and the new date for a committee vote on March 3! *If a member is on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, the letter you submit will automatically adjust the language by recognizing their Committee membership. 

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

Sources:

Ferdinand, P. (2026) One exposure. Twenty generations later, the damage is still unfolding., U.S. Right to Know. Available at: https://usrtk.org/healthwire/one-exposure-twenty-generations-later-the-damage-is-unfolding/.

Korolenko, A. et al. (2026) Stability of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of adult-onset disease and parturition abnormalities, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Available at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2523071123.

Sherif, M. et al. (2026) Genotoxic and epigenetic signatures of early-life pesticide exposure: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Critical Reviews in Toxicology. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/10408444.2026.2623020.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 2, 2026) In advance of deliberations on the Farm Bill tomorrow, March 3, in the Agriculture Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, opposition to the GOP-proposed legislation has been widely expressed by farm, environmental, consumer, and social justice organizations. The bill, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567, is a dramatic departure from previous Farm Bills going back to the first one in 1933, which began a process of integrated policy to address family farmers’ sustainability, land conservation, energy, climate, and food security. Discarding the traditional bipartisan process used to draft the Farm Bill, the Republican leadership has instead proposed a measure that has garnered across-the-board disapproval, except from those representing the vested interests of chemical companies and agribusiness.

In order to uphold fundamental protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment, a campaign has emerged to urge U.S. Representatives to support Rep. Pingree’s Protect Our Health Amendment (removes Sections 10205-10207), move to strike Sections 10201-10204 and 102011, and support the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act provisions. Without a comprehensive overhaul, this campaign is urging a vote against the Farm Bill.

Central to the GOP Farm Bill, released by the chair of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee on February 13, is the overturning of critical protections for the health of farmers, consumers and the environment. Three core safeguards are threatened:

• Judicial review of chemical manufacturers‘ failure to warn about pesticide hazards,
• Democratic right of local governments in coordination with states to protect residents from pesticide use, and
• Local site-specific action to ensure protection—the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides.  

Importantly, there are other elements in the proposed legislation that are being highlighted as undermining agricultural policies’ contribution to solving critical health, food security, biodiversity, and climate concerns, such as the following:

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

There will be an effort by some members of the Committee to remove specific sections of the legislation that shield chemical manufacturers from liability, preempt the authority of states and localities to restrict pesticides, and slash protections from pesticides under all major environmental statutes. Ultimately, however, without a total overhaul, dozens of groups are urging a no vote on the bill. 

The GOP 2026 Farm Bill amounts to a wish list for the chemical industry and agribusiness. “With future agriculture policy now under consideration, it is important that the Farm Bill not be used to prop up the chemical industry, but instead supports organic agriculture that will not threaten vulnerable populations and the ecosystems that support life,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. 

There is opposition to the bill in Congress. Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, condemned the GOP Farm Bill, saying it would be “’very difficult, if not impossible’ for her to back a GOP-led farm bill because it contains ‘poison pills’ and doesn’t do enough to aid struggling farmers,” according to Politico. Make America Healthy Again advocates are also incensed over the provision that grants chemical companies immunity from lawsuits for injury when they fail to provide complete safety warnings. Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME) has indicated that she will seek to strike provisions of the bill [see below]. 

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

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

U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME) plans to introduce the Protect Our Health Amendment, which will remove from the bill sections 10205, 10206, and 10207 (numbers 5, 6, and 7 above). In addition, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Pingree have introduced a bill, the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act, to prevent implementation of a February 18 Executive Order that activates the Defense Production Act of 1950, declares the production of glyphosate a national security concern, and provides blanket liability protection for manufacturers of the pesticides. This legislation may be introduced as an amendment to the Farm Bill. 

ACTION
In order to uphold fundamental protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment, tell your Congressional representative to support Rep. Pingree’s Protect Our Health Amendment (removes Sections 10205-10207), move to strike Sections 10201-10204 and 102011, and support the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act provisions. Without a comprehensive overhaul, urge a vote against the Farm Bill.

If you have already contacted your U.S. Representative on the Farm Bill in the past two weeks, please click HERE to send them a reminder! *If a member is on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, the letter you submit will automatically adjust the language by recognizing their Committee membership. 

Letter to members of the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture:
The GOP Farm Bill, as proposed and before the House Agriculture Committee, threatens policies intended to protect against the diseases and illnesses touching families and communities, including brain and nervous system disorders, birth abnormalities, cancer, developmental and learning disorders, immune and endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, among others. Also threatened are policies intended to protect wildlife, including mammals, bees and other pollinators, fish and other aquatic organisms, birds, and the biota within soil, which are adversely affected with reproductive, neurological, endocrine-disruptive, and developmental anomalies, and cancers. 

Dispensing with a tradition of bipartisan consultation in the Agriculture Committees of Congress on the Farm Bill, the GOP Farm Bill is facing resounding criticism from food, farming, environmental, and consumer groups. The bill overturns three core safeguards critical to the health of farmers, consumers, and the environment—judicial review of chemical manufacturers’ failure to warn about pesticide hazards, the democratic right of local governments and states to protect residents from pesticide use, and local site-specific action to ensure the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides. Subtitle C of Title X, entitled Regulatory Reform, is a sweeping set of exemptions, waivers, and revocations undermining 50 years of laws adopted by Congress to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment, including provisions that:

*Redefine and exempt plant regulators, biostimulants, “inert” ingredients, and genetically engineered materials from proper oversight. (Section 10201);

*Further weaken and delay safety measures and environmental protections with a requirement for “harmonizing” interagency coordination. (Section 10202);

*Weaken Endangered Species Act protections under new interagency working group regulations. (Section 10203);

*Diminish the integrity of the pesticide registration review process. (Section 10204);

*Immunize chemical companies from liability and failure to warn. (Section 10205);

*Preempt state and local authority, taking away the authority of local governments to protect residents and the local environment from pesticide use with local restrictions (Section 10206);

*Exempt pesticides from reviews to protect water, ecosystems, and endangered species, repealing requirements in numerous federal statutes authorized by Congress over the last 50 years to protect against local pesticide contamination that could adversely affect waterways, drinking water, federal projects, endangered species, migratory birds, and toxic waste cleanup (Section 10207); and,

*Eliminate the USDA Multiple Crop and Pesticide Use survey. (Section 10211).

Please support U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree’s (D-ME) Protect Our Health Amendment, which will remove from the bill Sections 10205, 10206, and 10207. In addition, support amendments from Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) and Rep. Pingree’s No Immunity for Glyphosate Act to prevent implementation of a February 18  Executive Order (EO) that activates the Defense Production Act of 1950, declaring the production of glyphosate a national security concern and providing blanket liability protection for manufacturers of the pesticides.

Please do not weaken the protection of our health and the environment. Without a comprehensive overhaul, please vote against the Farm Bill.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representatives who are not members of the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture:
I’m writing to ask you to speak with your colleagues on the Agriculture Committee in advance of the Farm Bill markup on March 3. The GOP Farm Bill, as proposed and before the House Agriculture Committee, threatens policies intended to protect against the diseases and illnesses touching families and communities, including brain and nervous system disorders, birth abnormalities, cancer, developmental and learning disorders, immune and endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, among others. Also threatened are policies intended to protect wildlife, including mammals, bees and other pollinators, fish and other aquatic organisms, birds, and the biota within soil, which are adversely affected with reproductive, neurological, endocrine-disruptive, and developmental anomalies, and cancers. 

Dispensing with a tradition of bipartisan consultation in the Agriculture Committees of Congress on the Farm Bill, the GOP Farm Bill is facing resounding criticism from food, farming, environmental, and consumer groups. The bill overturns three core safeguards critical to the health of farmers, consumers, and the environment—judicial review of chemical manufacturers’ failure to warn about pesticide hazards, the democratic right of local governments and states to protect residents from pesticide use, and local site-specific action to ensure the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides. Subtitle C of Title X, entitled Regulatory Reform, is a sweeping set of exemptions, waivers, and revocations undermining 50 years of laws adopted by Congress to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment, including provisions that:

*Redefine and exempt plant regulators, biostimulants, “inert” ingredients, and genetically engineered materials from proper oversight. (Section 10201);

*Further weaken and delay safety measures and environmental protections with a requirement for “harmonizing” interagency coordination. (Section 10202);

*Weaken Endangered Species Act protections under new interagency working group regulations. (Section 10203);

*Diminish the integrity of the pesticide registration review process. (Section 10204);

*Immunize chemical companies from liability and failure to warn. (Section 10205);

*Preempt state and local authority, taking away the authority of local governments to protect residents and the local environment from pesticide use with local restrictions (Section 10206);

*Exempt pesticides from reviews to protect water, ecosystems, and endangered species, repealing requirements in numerous federal statutes authorized by Congress over the last 50 years to protect against local pesticide contamination that could adversely affect waterways, drinking water, federal projects, endangered species, migratory birds, and toxic waste cleanup (Section 10207); and,

*Eliminate the USDA Multiple Crop and Pesticide Use survey. (Section 10211).

Please urge support for Representative Chellie Pingree’s (D-ME) Protect Our Health Amendment, which will remove from the bill Sections 10205, 10206, and 10207. In addition, please urge support for amendments from Representative Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) and Rep. Pingree’s No Immunity for Glyphosate Act to prevent implementation of a February 18 Executive Order (EO) that activates the Defense Production Act of 1950, declaring the production of glyphosate a national security concern and providing blanket liability protection for manufacturers of the pesticides.

Please ask your colleagues on the Agriculture Committee not to weaken the protection of our health and the environment. Without a comprehensive overhaul, please urge a vote against the Farm Bill in the Agriculture Committee.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2026) Researchers at Prairie View A&M University in Texas published in the journal Sustainability a study of organic agricultural systems from 1960 to 2021, concluding that “the outlook for U.S. organic fruit and vegetables is encouraging, supported by expanding consumer demand, government support, and improved conditions for international trade.” While delivering upbeat findings, including health benefits, the study identifies tremendous obstacles to entry into organic farming, including the limited support for alternative pest management and pest control systems in the United States in recent modern history, compared to the assistance provided for highly subsidized, petrochemical-dependent agricultural practices.

Public health and environmental advocates continue to advocate for a wholesale transition to organic pest management, including calls for U.S. Representatives and Senators to cosponsor the Opportunities in Organic Act!

Study Methodology, Background, and Findings

The authors of this literature review arrived at the following conclusions on research trends for human health and environmental impacts of organic systems (for further analysis, the numbers below list citations from their report):

• “[O]rganic food has been documented to have higher antioxidant capacity, acidity, and phosphorus as well as lower levels of cadmium, pesticides, and other chemicals (18–22). Additionally, organic practices increase the content of secondary metabolites in fruits and vegetables, which is associated with a reduced risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease (23).”
• “[C]onsuming organic fruits and vegetables as part of a well-balanced, regular diet and a healthy, active lifestyle can reduce obesity, enhance immune responses, lower cholesterol and blood pressure, and reduce the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and preeclampsia [6,19,26–27]. In the same vein, the consumption of organic products in a population can be considered as an indicator of public health [28].”

The report also reviews the discrepancies in federal and state-level support programs for organic agriculture that have resulted in regional disparities:

• “In the Northeast, states such as Maryland and Vermont experienced a 115% increase in cover crop adoption from 2012 to 2017. In contrast, Pennsylvania, which lacked such a program, experienced a more minor increase [78].”
• “In contrast, state-level policies, such as California’s tailored incentives and extension services, are more flexible and locally responsive, thereby improving accessibility for small-scale farmers, especially those focusing on organic fruits and vegetables in the U.S. [80]. For instance, in California, there have been state-level organic certification programs geared towards improving transition effectiveness by using the detailed Pesticide Use Report (PUR) to monitor field-level practices, enabling precise tracking of pesticide trends and compliance, and mandating annual registration for all organic producers, including small farms often excluded from federal datasets [81].”
• “Federal extension typically provides broad-based educational materials, yet it often lacks the localized, practice-specific insights that organic farmers require, prompting many to turn to peer networks and NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] for actionable guidance [83]. In contrast, state-level extension programs, such as those in Georgia, offer more targeted, regionally adapted resources but struggle with agents’ limited knowledge of organic agriculture, underscoring the need for enhanced agent training to improve the effectiveness of support [84,85].”

Additionally, the report also delves into “economic importance” and “strategies to boost consumption,” including:

• “Munne-Bosh and Bermejo [109] reported that organic farming could provide high-quality fruits by enhancing pollination and reducing protective treatments, which may ultimately increase the production of antioxidant compounds in fruits and vegetables. Similarly, Baransky et al. [19] reported that organically grown fruits and vegetables contain higher levels of antioxidant compounds.”
• “Most organic products are processed and consumed locally, particularly fruits and vegetables [111,112]. For example, Iowa experienced an increase in food markets aimed at establishing a direct link between producers and consumers without intermediaries.”
• “According to USDA data [41,114] from 2007 to 2021, the area devoted to the production of organic fruits and vegetables increased by more than 100% (Figure 3). Its value increased from $685 million to $1913 million [1.913 billion], representing more than a 200% increase (Figure 4). Finally, the number of farms involved in the production of organic fruits and vegetables grew by more than 100% (Figure 5).”

The researchers for this study are based at Prairie View A&M University, the oldest Historically Black College and University (HBCU) and second-oldest public higher education institution in the state of Texas. More specifically, they are published authors at the College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources. Ram L. Ray, Ph.D., P.E., ACUE, Sixto Marquez, Ph.D, and Damar Wilson are the lead authors of this study.

The authors reviewed Agricola, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar to assess “the emergence of the modern organic movement in 1960 through 2021.” They did not include literature “if they were not relevant to the U.S. organic fruit and vegetable systems, failed to distinguish between organic and conventional production, or were incomplete or duplicates across platforms.” This report was funded in part by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); no other external funding was declared. Researchers declared no conflicts of interest.

Previous Coverage

There is significant additional research that has emerged in the years since 2021 that highlights the opportunities for organic markets within and outside of the U.S., as well as additional clarity on their environmental and health impacts.

For example, a study published this year in Scientific Reports highlights the benefits of organic agriculture compared with different farming systems over five years across four crops (maize, tomato, faba bean, and potato). “Soil carbon sequestration is a long-term storage of carbon in soil, which represents 70% of the carbon in land,” the authors note. “Therefore, the main aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the agricultural practice systems on the soil carbon sequestration and properties, productivity, water consumption, soil carbon sequestration, CO₂ emission and cost of some crops.” As a result, the experiment reveals that, compared to chemical-intensive farming, organic methods enhance soil properties, reduce water consumption, provide higher yields and higher soil carbon sequestration, reduce CO₂ emissions, and achieve the highest total net profit for all four crops after five years. (See Daily News here.)

In another 2026 study published in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, researchers from France find pesticide-free fields promote carabid beetles and spiders, generalist arthropod predators that consume slugs, aphids, and mites, that in turn support healthy, organic systems. The study findings highlight the importance of utilizing farming practices that promote biodiversity and foster natural enemy populations as a pest management strategy. (See Daily News here.)

A groundbreaking study published in 2025 in the Journal of Environmental Quality, led by researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), reports 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 reduces nitrogen loads significantly. The study, which focused on nitrate pollution in agriculture that harms biodiversity, threatens waterways, drinking water, and public health, and releases nitrous oxide (an extremely potent greenhouse gas), was conducted at USDA’s National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment.

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

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

The authors believe that these findings support “the adoption of organic systems in tile-drained regions to enhance water quality without compromising productivity,” and yield critical benefits for the future of American agriculture, health, and the environment. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

In a press release published on December 10, 2025, 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.)

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. Farm Bill negotiations are ramping up, with calls ongoing to tell your members of Congress to advocate for the removal of Farm Bill Title X, Subtitle C, Part 1, which contains attacks on foundational protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment—and vote against the Farm Bill if those provisions are not removed.

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

Source: Prairie View A&M University

(Beyond Pesticides, February 26, 2026) Published in PLOS ONE, research in Brazil “analyzed the impact of occupational/household chronic exposure to pesticides on the clinicopathological profile of breast cancer in rural women from Paraná southwest, a predominantly rural landscape with large pesticide uses,” finding that “pesticide exposure favors the occurrence of more aggressive breast cancer.” The study highlights the disproportionate risks of pesticides to farmworkers, focusing on women, as it compares exposed and unexposed populations and breast cancer tumor/disease characteristics.

One of the study authors, Carolina Panis, PhD, discussed her earlier research at the Beyond Pesticides’ 42^nd National Forum Series, The Pesticide Threat to Environmental Health: Advancing Holistic Solutions Aligned with Nature. In her previous work, Pesticide exposure and increased breast cancer risk in women population studies, Dr. Panis documents a number of pesticides that “can increase the risk of BC [breast cancer] development through various mutagenic [genetic mutations] and nonmutagenic mechanisms and can act directly as carcinogens or indirectly as biochemical modifiers and hormonal deregulators. The underlying mechanisms include endocrine disruption; genotoxicity; epigenetic changes [changes to gene function without changing DNA]; enhanced cell migration, invasion, and…” more. Dr. Panis and other researchers at the Forum support community-level understanding of the science and its relationship to debilitating and deadly disease patterns associated with toxic chemical exposure, so that people close to home and around the globe can effectively advocate for the necessary changes that are within reach. (See the recording here.)

Scientific literature documents how areas with an abundance of chemical-intensive agriculture, such as Brazil, experience increased adverse health and environmental effects. As the current study states: “Despite evidence on the negative impact of pesticides on human health, the country stands out among the top three pesticide consumers globally. The implications of this scenario on rural workers health, particularly women, is completely neglected, resulting in chronic illness such as breast cancer.”

The authors continue, “To our knowledge, this is the first study that uses the described methodology [below] to predict the relationship of variables related to breast cancer severity in a population categorized according to their pesticide exposure profile.” As a result, the research highlights the link between occupational pesticide exposure and the occurrence of breast tumors with more aggressive clinicopathological (combining clinic and laboratory) findings. This includes “an increased frequency of disease recurrence, chemoresistance, death, and predominance of the molecular subtype Luminal B,” an aggressive, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) type of breast cancer.

Study Importance and Background

As the researchers point out, pesticide use in agriculture started with, and continues to be used, with the stated justification of increased food production for the growing world population, despite scientific literature that continues to showcase the acute and chronic consequences of their application and the availability of sustainable, productive, and profitable alternatives. Many pesticides are known endocrine disruptors, able to “influence the development of tumors in the female reproductive system, increase aromatase activity and estrogen production, reduce fertility, augment estrogen production, increase androgen availability, competitively bind to estrogen cell receptors, enhance proliferation of estrogen-sensitive cells, and inhibit corticosterone synthesis in the adrenal cortex.”

Elevated risk of pesticide-induced breast cancer is associated with “various mutagenic and nonmutagenic mechanisms, acting either directly as carcinogens or indirectly as biochemical modifiers and hormonal disruptors,” the authors state. “The underlying mechanisms include endocrine disruption, genotoxicity, epigenetic [environmentally-driven heritable changes] alterations, enhanced cell migration, invasion, and stemness, angiogenesis [forming new capillary blood vessels], and tumor growth, among others.”

Beyond Pesticides has extensively covered breast cancer and other common diseases, as documented in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database and through the Daily News Blog. In an article from last year, titled Pesticides Harming Immune Cell Function Linked to Elevated Breast Cancer Rate in Young Women, a study in Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology documents elevated rates of breast cancer in women with occupational pesticide exposure. This study was also of Brazilian women who were either occupationally or domestically exposed to pesticides and includes Dr. Panis as an author. (See additional Daily News on breast cancer here.)

In analyzing the Southeastern region of northern Paraná, Brazil in the study, the researchers reference three herbicides as the most prevalent, writing: “[The study] population is subject to considerable pesticide exposure, especially glyphosate, atrazine, and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic (2,4-D), which are widely used in soybean, corn, and wheat monocultures in the region… Additionally, women occupationally exposed to areas where glyphosate, atrazine, and 2,4-D are predominantly used have a higher risk of developing breast cancer.” (See study here.)

The weed killer glyphosate has long been tied to adverse effects, including endocrine disruption, one of the mechanisms that can cause breast cancer. Research shows that in breast cancer cells, glyphosate exposure “leads to altered expression of cell proliferation-related genes, and dysregulation of key genes involved in tumor aggressiveness and metastasis [spread of cancer cells].” (See Daily News coverage on glyphosate here.)

Atrazine, a triazine herbicide, also exhibits endocrine-disrupting effects, with studies showing impacts to mammary glands and hormone levels. (See here and here.) “In breast cancer cells, atrazine alters protein expression and modulates antioxidant defense gene expression, promoting genomic instability and oxidative stress-induced damage, a recognized mechanism for breast cancer development and progression, also linked to immune deregulation in patients and inflammatory changes in normal mammary tissue in exposed women,” the authors note. (See Daily News coverage on atrazine here.)

Finally, the herbicide 2,4-D is associated with an increased risk of cancer, particularly mesothelioma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and endocrine disruption, along with many other adverse health effects including neurotoxicity, reproductive dysfunction, and developmental delays. (See Daily News coverage on 2,4-D here.)

This study highlights the growing trend of women in agriculture and the disproportionate risks they face. “[I]t has been estimated that women represent 43% of the world’s agricultural workforce,” the researchers state. They continue: “This trend has been observed in several regions of the world, such as in the European Union, where women represent 29% of rural workers, Brazil, where they represent 45%, and certain regions of Africa and Asia, where women’s representation can reach up to 60%. The feminization of agriculture may lead to an increase in the incidence of cancer in women.”

Methodology and Results

As a cross-sectional and quantitative exploratory study, this research uses clinicopathological data from medical records, along with interviews, to categorize women as exposed or unexposed to pesticides and analyze that relationship with breast cancer diagnoses and characteristics. The data comes from the Francisco Beltrão Cancer Hospital, where a total of 923 women, from May 2015 to April 2023, had images suggestive of breast lesions. From that total, 349 patients were selected for study analyses after a diagnosis of breast cancer was determined by a pathologist.

“To characterize exposure, we previously performed a 2-year study aiming to get detailed information about patients’ exposure profile,” the authors write. “To reach this goal, patients were invited to complete a comprehensive questionnaire with 61 questions covering their current and past occupational history.” This led to the categorization of the study population as either occupationally exposed (n = 208) or unexposed (n = 141) to pesticides.

The women in the exposed group “reported spending at least 50% of their lives working with pesticides and having direct contact with these substances at least once a week,” with activities such as washing items contaminated with pesticides, preparing and diluting concentrated pesticides, and spraying diluted pesticides on crops. “Furthermore, 94% of the women in the exposed group reported performing these tasks without using PPE [personal protective equipment], not even gloves,” the researchers say. “As pesticides are primarily absorbed through the skin, this chronic and prolonged exposure represents a significant contamination route, surpassing potential exposure from food or water sources.”

Noteworthy results of the study include:

• Exposed patients have a higher prevalence (32.83%) of the more aggressive Luminal B subtype of breast cancer.
• Pesticide exposure also leads to higher disease recurrence and chemoresistance as compared to unexposed individuals.
• “Breast cancer patients exposed to pesticides were also more likely to have distant metastases (1.4 times) and lymph node invasion (1.3 times) compared to patients not exposed.”
• Of the patients with occupational exposure, “8.25% were stratified as low risk for death and recurrence, 55.87% into intermediate risk, and 35.87% were classified as high risk… About 7% of the patients died, 9.36% of the patients had disease recurrence, and 18.97% of the patients developed chemoresistance.” The low mortality rate can be attributed to all patients in the study being in Stage II, which is considered an early stage and often curable.

In summary, the authors write: “Our data suggest that pesticide exposure may be linked to more aggressive forms of breast cancer, with worse prognoses including increased recurrence, chemoresistance, and metastasis… Given these findings, we reiterate the urgency of discussing and changing policies that regulate the use of pesticides and the need to screen exposed populations and those at risk of developing more aggressive diseases.”

Previous Research

As shown by the multitude of studies cited in the current study, there is a wide body of science connecting pesticide exposure to documented adverse health implications. Examples include:

• Immune dysregulation and inflammatory responses occur with pesticide exposure. (See here.)
• One study identifies “a predominance of intermediate risk for death and recurrence in women exposed to pesticides, characterized by the prevalence of Luminal B tumors in association intermediate size tumors (between 2 and 5 cm) and intermediate tumor grade.”
• Additional research (see here and here) reports immune deregulation that favors the development of more aggressive tumors and triggers “the higher frequency of distant metastases and recurrence observed in patients occupationally exposed to pesticides.”
• Another study of tumor samples from 158 patients finds that pesticide exposure is associated with pathogenic mutations, which suggests that pesticide exposure may impact cancer development, mutational burden, and disease progression.

Moving Forward

As the study authors mention, there is an urgency for pesticide regulation that better protects human health, as well as the need to support exposed populations with disproportionate risks for adverse health implications such as breast cancer. For decades, Beyond Pesticides has documented the regulatory deficiencies of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and other regulatory bodies around the world. With the documented complexity of the pesticide threat to health and the environment that cannot be contained by regulatory mitigation measures, the transition to organic systems is critical as a holistic solution for ending pesticide dependency and contamination.

The widespread adoption of organic agriculture and land management practices eliminates the disproportionate risks to farmers, farmworkers, and their families from occupational exposure, as well as protects from pesticide drift and contamination in food, water, soil, and air. Learn more about how to take action and keep organic strong here and here, and support Beyond Pesticides’ mission of eliminating petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by 2032.

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

Source:

Cazagranda, I. et al. (2026) Hidden risks associated with occupational pesticide exposure in women with breast cancer: High frequency of the Luminal B molecular subtype and occurrence of poor prognostic features, PLOS ONE. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0339471.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 25, 2026) Residues of the weed killer glyphosate, which has been classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, have been routinely found in food products, and a recent state survey in Florida confirmed previous findings. The findings are well within the legal standards for allowable residues. So, why is the Trump administration, in invoking the Defense Production Act of 1950 by Executive Order and its immunity-from-lawsuits provision for glyphosate manufacturers, concerned about glyphosate residues in food and other nondietary exposure? Could it have something to do with the over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements on glyphosate exposure against the manufacturer Bayer/Monsanto, with tens of thousands of cases pending, and the robust independent, peer-reviewed scientific findings that link glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a host of other adverse health effects?

Nothing in the President’s executive order appears to meet the intent of the statute and its stated purpose to protect “the ability of the domestic industrial base to supply materials and services for the national defense and to prepare for and respond to military conflicts, natural or man-caused disasters, or acts of terrorism within the United States . . .” Without any supporting documentation or findings, the executive order states: “There is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides. Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity.  Given the profit margins growers currently face, any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.” Organic farmers and the companies in the $70 billion organic sector do not agree with this broad, unsupported statement in the executive order.

The Florida Department of Health, through its Healthy Florida First Initiative, released data on glyphosate residues in commonly purchased bread products found in grocery stores in the Sunshine State, but limits its discussion of hazards to heavy metals. All the residues detected are within tolerance levels (legally acceptable residues) set by the U.S. government. Allowable pesticide residues have been criticized by health and safety advocates for being set with incomplete data on exposure to chemical mixtures, synergistic effects, and serious adverse health effects, including endocrine disruption. 

Additionally, the Florida report has been criticized for the lack of disclosure of the underlying data and methods. A certified industrial hygienist told Food Safety Magazine saying that the state’s “reports do not contain any information about their methodology.” The study findings were released on the state’s website, Healthy Florida First website, and its Exposing Bread Toxins webpage.

Review of Healthy Florida First Initiative

In a press conference on February 6, Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL), First Lady Casey DeSantis, and Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Lapado “tested eight bread products across five national brands commonly available in Florida grocery stores.” They continue: “Glyphosate, a widely used herbicide commonly applied in agricultural production to control weeds, was detected in six of the eight bread products tested.” The brands and accompanying glyphosate residue levels for the six products include:

• Nature’s Own Butter Bread (190.23 ppb or  0.19023 ppm)
• Nature’s Own Perfectly Crafted White (132.34 ppb or 0.13234 ppm)
• Dave’s Killer Bread White Done Right (11.85 ppb or 0.01185 ppm)
• Dave’s Killer Bread 21 Whole Grain (10.38 ppb or 0.01038 ppm)
• Wonder Bread Classic White (173.19 ppb or 0.17219 ppm)
• Sara Lee Honey Wheat (191.04 ppb or 0.19104 ppm)

According to EPA regulations pursuant to 40 CFR 180.364, tolerances for glyphosate residues range depending on the food product. EPA Crop Group 15: Cereal Grains Group, which includes wheat, has a 30 parts per million (ppm) pesticide residue tolerance threshold for wheat, which is a significantly higher threshold than the 0.1-0.2 ppm for other products, such as peanuts, rice, or avocados, to name a few.

Criticism

There is concern from some that the Florida government’s approach to residue testing for pesticides, including from the bread industry and Florida-based toxicological and certified industrial hygienist Alex LeBeau, Ph.D, M.P.H., C.I.H. in an interview with Food Safety Magazine in the aftermath of the released results.

“Important data for interpreting and contextualizing the results, which the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) or the Governor’s office have not disclosed, include the sampling and testing parameters, the analytical methods used, the laboratory’s limits of detection (LODs), or the health thresholds and outcomes being referenced when declaring that the levels of a contaminant in products are ‘unsafe,’” reports Bailee Henderson, an author at the outlet, after speaking with toxicologists including LeBeau.

The North American Millers’ Association, in coordination with National Association of Wheat Growers and American Bakers Association, released a joint statement pushing back on the results:

“Our nation’s farmers, millers and bakers proudly serve families and communities as they champion safe, consistent, accessible and affordable bread. Food safety is the top priority for the grain we grow, the flour we mill and the bread we bake for all Americans. We appreciate Healthy Florida First’s stated purpose of improving the lives of Floridians. Unfortunately, their recent announcement needlessly scares consumers about trace levels of glyphosate that don’t present genuine risks. Glyphosate is regulated and continuously reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure levels are safe for all consumers, from adults to children.”

Previous Coverage

Despite the alleged controversy around the specifics of methodological approaches involved with the Healthy Florida First Initiative, there is a significant body of peer-reviewed, scientific literature that finds pesticide residues found in various common food products in the U.S. and abroad.

Friends of the Earth (FOE) released a report in 2019 showing pesticide residues in the food supply. The report, Toxic Secret, found store and name-brand foods produced and sold by the top four U.S. food retailers — Kroger (NYSE:KR), Walmart (NYSE: WMT), Costco (NYSE:COST) and Albertsons — contain residues of toxic pesticides linked to a range of serious health and environmental problems. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has been detected in popular foods, including “100% pure” honey, Doritos, Oreos, Goldfish, Ritz Crackers, German beers, California wines, and UK bread. (See Daily News here.) A separate report conducted by Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) in 2019 tested 20 common beers and wines sold in the United States and found glyphosate residues in all but one. (See Daily News here.)

The science on pesticide safety has been deeply politicized, given the controversy on glyphosate registration and litigation surrounding the active ingredient’s linkages to Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. What was once considered a landmark 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-in-chief, Martin van den Berg, PhD of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, who 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.” (See Daily News here.)

The data in the latest annual U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) pesticide residue report, released in January 2026, continues to show a pattern of pesticide residues in the majority of food tested by 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. (See Daily News here.) According to a 2024 analysis by Consumer Reports, USDA has systematically 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 shows that 20% of the foods tested pose a “high risk” to the public, and 12 specific commodities are so dangerous that children or pregnant people should not eat more than one serving per day, according to Consumer Reports analysis.  (See Daily News here.) Meanwhile, over half of all food samples tested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) contain the residues of at least one pesticide, and one in ten samples have levels that violate legal limits established by EPA. (See Daily News here.)

A review article in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment (2025) highlights how the pesticides used in global crop production pose risks to ecosystems and human health through multiple pathways. As the authors note, “Once applied to crops, pesticides are transported through surface and groundwater flows, atmospheric dispersion, and wildlife migration.” Residues in food products, such as fruits and vegetables, as well as bioaccumulation within animals that are consumed as food, also threaten consumers around the world, particularly those relying on international trade. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

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

Meanwhile, the GOP 2026 Farm Bill text, released on February 13, challenges three core safeguards that are seen as critical to the health of farmers, consumers and the environment—judicial review of chemical manufacturers’ failure to warn about pesticide hazards, the democratic right of local governments in coordination with states to protect residents from pesticide use, and local site-specific action to ensure the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides. A nationwide campaign has been launched to: Tell members of the U.S. House of Representatives to stop provisions in the Farm Bill that shield chemical companies from liability for the harm caused by their products, intrude on local communities’ democratic right to restrict pesticides, and eliminate pesticide restrictions governing clean water, environmental impacts, and endangered species. Ask them to support the transition to organic agricultural practices.

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.

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

Source: Florida Department of Health ; Food Safety Magazine

(Beyond Pesticides. February 24, 2026) Leukemia is the leading contributor to the clear rise in childhood cancer cases over the last few decades, and the general association of pesticide exposures with childhood leukemia is firmly established. Now, a new study is the first to assess the effect of pesticide exposures on the survival of children with leukemia. The study found a statistically significant link between residential rodenticide exposure and a higher risk in children of death from acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), with about 10% of the exposed children dying within five years of diagnosis. Crucially, pre- and post-natal periods were the most critical exposure windows—and the intervals when residents were most likely to use rodenticides. With proper treatment, about 80% of children diagnosed after age one with ALL can survive.

The study, by University of California, Berkeley epidemiologist Seema Desai and colleagues at several other California state universities, used data from the California Childhood Leukemia Study (CCLS), an ongoing population-based case-control study identifying genetic and environmental risks for the range of leukemias occurring in children. Beyond Pesticides covered a 2009 study using the CCLS that found elevated risk of ALL in children living near agricultural pesticide applications, along with a Georgetown University study finding an association between organophosphate exposure and ALL.

The California researchers did not identify specific chemicals, but analyzed pesticides by their uses in four categories, finding the hazard ratio (likelihood of death) ranked in descending order: rodenticides, flea control, insecticides, and herbicides. While the study also found links to other pesticides, the children exposed to rodenticides were significantly more likely to die.

The researchers analyzed data from extensive interviews with parents of children with ALL enrolled in the CCLS between 1995 and 2008 regarding residential use of insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides, and flea control products from preconception to within a year of the child’s diagnosis. The measured outcome was 5-year survival after diagnosis. Of the 807 cases recorded in that 12-year interval, 108 children died within five years.

The researchers also included race and ethnicity to identify potential sociodemographic disparities that might affect the outcome and duration of breastfeeding, as it is known to influence infant immune development. There is an environmental justice aspect to the results, although it raises further questions. Of the diagnosed children, 47% were Latinx, 35% were non-Latinx Whites, and the remainder were either Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, or of unknown background. However, the highest number of deaths was among non-Latinx Black children. This is consistent with evidence in the U.S. of a 15.3% rise in leukemia incidence among non-Hispanic Black children between 1975 and 2023 and a 9.9% increase among Hispanic children.

The children most likely to die also had the highest-risk type of ALL (the highest white blood cell count), were less likely to be breastfed, and were members of families with low educational attainment and low annual income. But Latinx households and those with the very lowest income and education were least likely to use pesticides. Thus, further demographic analysis with larger sample sizes would help to illuminate the populations at the highest risk from the use of synthetic chemicals to control rodents.

The authors observe that rodenticides have been linked to childhood leukemia risk by numerous population studies, and that mechanistic studies indicate rodenticides trigger oxidative stress and mitochondrial irregularities, which in turn can cause DNA strand breaks and chromosomal derangement. While these kinds of damage might be picked up in regulatory studies assessing genetic effects, ironically usually involving rodents, there are many subsequent consequences and additional exposures that are not currently of concern to regulators or pesticide manufacturers. For example, there may be epigenetic changes and immune system deregulation that add to the risk of childhood leukemia from early pesticide exposures. Research on adults with ALL also exposed to pesticides has shown changes in blood and bone marrow similar to those induced by radiation or chemotherapy treatments. This suggests that pesticide exposure may make children’s prognoses and survival worse because these types of damage are harder to treat, the authors note. “Overall,” they write, “epidemiological and biological data support the role of certain pesticides in both the development and prognosis of leukemias.” The study was published in the March 2025 issue of Cancers.

Rodents are a major problem in many residential areas, but pesticides are not the only—and far from the ideal—way to deal with them. Public health policies could influence the design, construction, and maintenance of housing to deter rodent colonization. In addition, there are steps residents can take that do not involve incurring risks to themselves, their children, their pets, and wildlife. See Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management and ManageSafe. (See also Beyond Pesticides’ comments on EPA’s rodenticide biological evaluation and registration review.) Political action is also possible: the city of Newbury, Massachusetts, voted to ban second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides on private property in August 2024; see our Daily News Brief here, which details how state and local governments have jousted over who has sovereignty over pesticides, with states usually winning. Some states have taken some protective steps; the State of Massachusetts discourages these cruel rodenticides, and the California Ecosystems Protection Act became law in 2020, restricting the use of such products. Most of these political efforts have come from wildlife conservation activists, but humans undoubtedly also benefit.

Pesticide use, particularly given the Trump administration’s industry-favoring policies, is likely to continue to rise sharply. Not surprisingly given this, the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) predicts new cancer cases to rise 67.4% by 2030. See Beyond Pesticides’ extensive information on leukemia in our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

One of the most painful ironies of industrial promotion of pesticides to protect our children and pets is that those pesticides pose significant risks to the very things we want to not only survive, but thrive. It is time to detach the spurious association between health and pesticides and expose the deflections and disinformation industry produces. Going organic and pushing back against the further deregulation of poisonous chemicals is the best way to protect humans and ecosystems.

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

Sources:

Pre- and Postnatal Exposures to Residential Pesticides and Survival of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Desai et al.
Cancers 2025
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/6/978

Residential Proximity to Agricultural Pesticide Applications and Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Rull et al.
Environ Res. 2009
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19700145/

Safe Rodent Control: Real-Life Solutions
Center for Biological Diversity
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/Safe-Rodent-Control/rodent-control-solutions.html

SAFE RODENT CONTROL
Living Rodent Free While Safeguarding Wildlife, Families, and Pets
Center for Biological Diversity
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/Safe-Rodent-Control/index.html

Childhood Leukemia Linked to Pesticides Used in Vineyards
Beyond Pesticides, November 1, 2023
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2023/11/childhood-leukemia-linked-to-pesticides-used-in-vineyards/

Children Living Near Agricultural Pesticide Use Have Higher Cancer Rate
Beyond Pesticides, September 29, 2009
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2009/09/children-living-near-agricultural-pesticide-use-have-higher-cancer-rate/

In Utero and Childhood Pesticide Exposure Increases Childhood Cancer Risk
Beyond Pesticides, September 1, 2021
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/09/in-utero-and-childhood-pesticide-exposure-increases-childhood-cancer-risk/

Leukemia
Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database
Beyond Pesticides
https://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/pesticide-induced-diseases-database/search-the-database?cat24=24&catcount=1&searchlogic=OR&searchbutton=SEARCH

Association between Residential Proximity to Viticultural Areas and Childhood Acute Leukemia
Risk in Mainland France: GEOCAP Case-Control Study, 2006-2013
Mancini et al.
Environmental Health Perspectives 2023
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37850750/

(Beyond Pesticides, February 23, 2026) Amid polarization in the U.S. Congress, key legal protections from pesticides will be revoked with passage of the GOP Farm Bill being debated March 3 in the House Agriculture Committee, despite a growing body of science that shows farmers, consumers, and the environment are facing escalating health and safety threats. In this context, grassroots efforts are underway asking Congressional representative to advocate for the removal of Farm Bill, Title X, Subtitle C, Part 1, which contains attacks on foundational protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment—and vote against the Farm Bill if those provisions are not removed.

As provisions in the GOP Farm Bill (Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567) that slash protections from pesticides go to a vote in the Agriculture Committee, health and environmental advocates are calling for committee members to remove the weakening section—Section X, Subtitle C, Part 1, on “Regulatory Reform.” At a time when documented adverse effects from pesticide exposure are skyrocketing and sustainable practices have become widely available, the bill is being characterized as a wish-list for the chemical industry. Recent studies demonstrating connections between prenatal and postnatal exposure to pesticides and severe consequences for children, including childhood cancers and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in children, underscore what are being called unnecessary dangers of agriculture that relies on toxic pesticides. 

Besides leukemia and other cancers, childhood or in utero exposure to pesticides leads to greater risk of asthma, ADHD, reproductive hormone production in girls, cardiometabolic disorders in boys, and suppression of the immune system, among other problems. These outcomes are unnecessary, since organic agriculture can produce any product produced by chemical-intensive agriculture. With future agriculture policy now under consideration, it is important that the Farm Bill not be used to prop up the chemical industry, but instead support organic agriculture that will not threaten vulnerable populations.  

Central to the GOP Farm Bill, released by the chair of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee on February 13, is the overturning of three core safeguards that are seen as critical to the health of farmers, consumers and the environment—judicial review of chemical manufacturers’ failure to warn about pesticide hazards, the democratic right of local governments in coordination with states to protect residents from pesticide use, and local site-specific action to ensure the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides. Subtitle C of Title X, Part 1, “Regulatory Reform”, is a sweeping set of exemptions, waivers, and revocations undermining 50 years of laws adopted by Congress to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment. The markup on March 3 offers U.S. Representatives an opportunity to make changes.

There is opposition to the bill in Congress. Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN) condemned the GOP 2026 Farm Bill, saying it would be “’very difficult, if not impossible’ for her to back a GOP-led farm bill because it contains ‘poison pills’ and doesn’t do enough to aid struggling farmers,” according to Politico. Make America Healthy Again advocates are also incensed over the provision that grants chemical companies immunity from lawsuits for injury when they fail to provide complete safety warnings. Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME) has indicated that she will seek to strike provisions of the bill.

Specifically, Subtitle C of Title X (entitled “Regulatory Reform”) contains the following provisions that threaten human health, the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to keep foods free of dangerous chemicals, and that expose the environment to even greater toxic pesticides: 

• Section 10201(3): Permanently excludes dozens of hazardous chemicals used in industrial agriculture from human health and environmental safety reviews that are currently required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. 
• Section 10202: Weakens and delays efforts to protect children, farmworkers, and public health, from dangerous pesticides by giving unprecedented authority to the USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy to review and potentially veto any environmental or human health safeguards determined to be necessary by EPA. 
• Section 10203(3): Undermines the integrity of the Endangered Species Act in an unprecedented manner by delaying protections for endangered species against dangerous pesticides by giving an internal interagency workgroup a de facto veto on any efforts to protect endangered species from pesticides, which could delay and weaken critical conservation measures.  
• Section 10204: Delays the review of hundreds of pesticides for harms to human health, endangered wildlife, and endocrine disruption until 2031, leaving potentially dangerous pesticides on the market and in widespread use without any updated protective measures. 
• Section 10205: Immunizes pesticide companies from their duty to warn the public about dangerous chemicals in their pesticide formulations, potentially eliminating access to the federal courts for thousands of individuals with cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and other health issues scientifically linked to pesticide exposure. 
• Section 10206: Eliminates the six-decade-old authority of state and local governments to implement additional local and state-focused restrictions on the use of dangerous pesticides to protect children, farmworkers, pollinators, public health, and the environment. 
• Section 10207: Erases important, long-standing safeguards to protect people and wildlife from pesticide pollution discharged directly into waterways through the Clean Water Act‘s Pesticide General Permit (“PGP”), though the broad language would exempt pesticide approvals from the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, and other bedrock environmental laws. 

Tell your Congressional representative to advocate for the removal of Farm Bill Title X, Subtitle C, Part 1, which contains attacks on foundational protections from pesticides for farmers, consumers, and the environment—and vote against the Farm Bill if those provisions are not removed.

Letter to U.S. Representatives
Recent studies demonstrating connections between prenatal and postnatal exposure to pesticides and severe consequences for children, including childhood cancers and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in children, underscore the unnecessary dangers of pesticide use in agriculture. Besides leukemia and other cancers, childhood or in utero exposure to pesticides leads to greater risk of asthma, ADHD, reproductive hormone production, cardiometabolic disorders, and suppression of the immune system, among other problems. These outcomes are unnecessary, given productive and profitable organic agriculture, which should be supported in the Farm Bill, H.R. 7567.

The GOP Farm Bill released by the chair of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee on February 13 overturns three core safeguards critical to the health of farmers, consumers and the environment—judicial review of chemical manufacturers’ failure to warn about pesticide hazards, the democratic right of local governments and states to protect residents from pesticide use, and local site-specific action to ensure the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides. Subtitle C of Title X, entitled Regulatory Reform, is a sweeping set of exemptions, waivers, and revocations undermining 50 years of laws adopted by Congress to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment. The bill will be marked up on March 3, which gives the House an opportunity to make necessary changes.

Subtitle C contains these provisions that threaten human health, the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to keep foods free of dangerous chemicals, and that expose the environment to even greater toxic pesticides:

*Section 10201 permanently excludes dozens of hazardous chemicals used in industrial agriculture, including some genetically engineered “plant incorporated protectants” (pesticide incorporated plants), from human health and environmental safety reviews currently required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

*Section 10202 weakens and delays efforts to protect children, farmworkers, and public health from dangerous pesticides by giving unprecedented authority to the USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy to review and potentially veto any environmental or human health safeguards determined to be necessary by EPA.

*Section 10203 undermines the integrity of the Endangered Species Act in an unprecedented manner by delaying protections for endangered species against dangerous pesticides by allowing an internal interagency workgroup to veto any efforts to protect endangered species from pesticides and delay and weaken critical conservation measures.

*Section 10204 delays the review of hundreds of pesticides for harms to human health, endangered wildlife, and endocrine disruption until 2031, leaving potentially dangerous pesticides in widespread use without any updated protective measures.

*Section 10205 immunizes pesticide companies from their duty to warn the public about dangerous chemicals in their pesticide formulations, potentially eliminating access to courts for thousands of individuals with cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and other health issues scientifically linked to pesticide exposure.

*Section 10206 eliminates the six-decade-old authority of state and local governments to implement additional local and state-focused restrictions on the use of dangerous pesticides to protect children, farmworkers, pollinators, public health, and the environment.

*Section 10207 erases important, long-standing safeguards to protect people and wildlife from pesticide pollution discharged directly into waterways through the Clean Water Act Pesticide General Permit, while broad language would exempt pesticide reviews from the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, and other bedrock environmental laws.

Please protect our children by removing Farm Bill Title X, Subtitle C, Part 1, and opposing the Farm Bill if those provisions are not removed.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 20, 2026) As pesticides’ adverse effects on human and ecosystem health stack up in the scientific literature, health and environmental groups are focused on striking an entire section of the Republican Farm Bill that will eliminate protections, which have been written into law for generations. The section is Section X, Subtitle C, Part 1 on “Regulatory Reform.”

Threatened are policies intended to protect against the diseases and illnesses touching families and communities, including brain and nervous system disorders, birth abnormalities, cancer, developmental and learning disorders, immune and endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, among others. Wildlife, including mammals, bees and other pollinators, fish and other aquatic organisms, birds, and the biota within soil, are adversely affected with reproductive, neurological, endocrine-disruptive, and developmental anomalies, and cancers. (See Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.)

With the urgent threat of a markup of the legislation scheduled to begin on March 3, attention shifted to a newly released Executive Order (EO) that could provide blanket legal protection for the manufacturer of the weed killer glyphosate, Bayer/Monsanto. By activating the Defense Production Act of 1950 and its immunity from lawsuits provision for glyphosate manufacturers, the administration could mandate production of glyphosate as a “national security” concern and provide blanket legal protection for its activities and resulting harm.  

According to experts, nothing in the President’s executive order appears to meet the intent of the Defense statute and its stated purpose to protect “the ability of the domestic industrial base to supply materials and services for the national defense and to prepare for and respond to military conflicts, natural or man-caused disasters, or acts of terrorism within the United States . . .” Without any supporting documentation or findings, the executive order states: “There is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides. Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity.  Given the profit margins growers currently face, any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.” Organic farmers and the $70 billion organic sector companies do not agree with this broad unsupported statement in the executive order.

All this coincides with the U.S. Supreme Court announcing that it will officially hear arguments on April 27, 2026, on whether state failure-to-warn claims are permissible in the court system for pesticide injury victims in regard to pesticides registered with a label approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Of note is that, beyond minimum EPA label requirements, chemical manufacturers can propose label language and, if they choose, disclose potential cancer and other chronic adverse health effects. In another twist, Bayer proposed a $7.25 billion settlement for people who have alleged their cancer diagnoses are attributed to glyphosate exposure, including anyone exposed to glyphosate (regardless of whether they have been diagnosed) before February 13, 2026.

Public health and environmental advocates continue to call on Congress to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable for failing to warn about potential harms from nearly 1,200 active ingredients and over 57,000 full formulations and products registered by EPA, not just singular notorious examples like glyphosate. Recent reporting by outlets, including Investigate Midwest, highlights the growing body of scientific literature on pesticides in agriculturally intensive communities, which emerges as “farmers and farmworkers, their families and neighbors, are being diagnosed with cancer at rates higher than the national average.”

Simultaneously, the industry continues to introduce bills in individual state legislatures across the country to shield pesticide manufacturers from failure-to-warn lawsuits, which have already failed to move forward in the state of Wyoming in 2026 and failed in ten states (Missouri, Iowa, Idaho, North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Montana, Florida, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) in 2025.

Poison Pill Language in the Farm Bill

Beyond Pesticides is calling on the members of the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives to reject Section X, Subtitle C, Part 1 on “Regulatory Reform” and Section 10211 of Part 2 of the same Subtitle based on the following grounds.

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

Deeper Dive—Poison Pill Language in the Farm Bill

Included below is additional context for each of the sections that comprise Subtitle C, Part 1, which together create insurmountable threats to health and the environment by the undoing of fundamental and baseline standards of care, law, and policy.

1. Section 10201. Redefines and exempts plant regulators, biostimulants, “inert” ingredients, and genetically engineered materials from proper oversight.

Pesticides and related “plant incorporated protectants” as listed above would be exempt from FIFRA registration review requirements, as well as from tolerance setting requirements under FFDCA. (Section 10201)

This new language would carve out additional exemptions from regulations for plant nutrients, “nutritional chemicals,” plant inoculants, soil amendments, vitamin hormone products, and certain plant biostimulants. For example, plant biostimulants would be excluded from registration review if they “have a low-risk profile…as determined by the Agency” or “are of biological origin or include chemical compounds that are synthetically derived, but structurally-similar and functionally identical to, substances of biological origin.”

Nutritional chemicals mean “any substance or mixture of substances that interacts with plant nutrients in a manner that improves nutrient availability or aids the plant in acquiring or utilizing plant nutrients.” This is an area that requires careful scrutiny, not wholesale exemption that may result in unforeseen hazards.

Vitamin hormone products are defined as, and appear to be attempting to distinguish from antibiotics, as a product that consists of three criteria:

1. “[a] mixture of plant hormones, plant nutrients, plant inoculants, soil amendments, trace elements, nutritional chemicals, plant biostimulants, or vitamins that is intended for the improvement, maintenance, survival, health, and propagation of plants;”
2. “is nontoxic and nonpoisonous in the undiluted packaged concentrations of the product; and,”
3. “is not intended for use on food crop sites and is labeled accordingly.”

A note about the definition of plant biostimulants. They are substances or microorganisms that enhance natural plant processes, improving resource efficiency, stress tolerance, and overall growth without directly providing nutrients or controlling pests. There is ongoing confusion regarding a lack of a set definition, as some biostimulants overlap in function with fertilizers or biocontrol agents. The definition of biofertilizers—also referred to as inoculants, bioinoculants, or bioformulations—are products containing beneficial microorganisms in active or inactive forms. These microorganisms, applied singly or in combination, colonize the rhizosphere or plant tissues to enhance nutrient availability (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) and uptake, ultimately improving plant growth and crop productivity. See here and here. A clear definition of the term biofertilizer is needed, but the language in this provision does not achieve this and may create more confusion and slow the growth of a potentially important market.

2. Section 10202. Further weakens and delays safety measures and environmental protections with a requirement for “harmonizing” interagency coordination.

The USDA is charged with considering the economic costs of increased risk mitigation measures when up for public comment, further undermining a science-based, precautionary approach to risk management. The Office of Pest Management Policy is also granted new authority to coordinate with other federal agencies to consider pesticide use data, economic data of viable chemical alternatives, and likely to advance chemical-intensive practices. This contributes to increased dependency on chemical-intensive practices at a time when policy should be advancing sustainable practices.  

3. Section 10203. Weakens Endangered Species Act protections under new interagency working group regulations.

The interagency working group will now require the Office of Pest Management Policy to attend, limit meeting requirements to just once a year rather than twice a year, and increase the influence of chemical companies in pesticide registration review decisions before public meetings are held.

Advocates are concerned about Sections 10202 and 10203 based on previous investigative reporting highlighting agency reliance on inaccurate or deceptive industry information. A 2021 Office of Inspector General report found in the review of “forever chemicals” that EPA “did not uphold its commitments to scientific integrity and information quality.” A report released in 2022—Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide — exposes not only Bayer/Monsanto malfeasance in its “promotion” of its glyphosate-based herbicide products, including the notorious Roundup®, but also the broader landscape of corporate efforts to white- or green-wash products that companies know are harmful to people and the environment.  Evidence laid out by Friends of the Earth, U.S. Right to Know, and co-author Anna Lappé  lays out the corruption:

• Monsanto employees ghostwrote scientific papers on the safety of glyphosate and strategized how to discredit journalists raising concerns about the pesticide.
• Major universities, including UC Davis and the University of Florida, played a significant role in legitimizing and amplifying pesticide industry product-defense efforts.
• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Cornell University, and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), one of the world’s most prestigious scientific organizations, also provided essential aid and cover for misleading pesticide industry information.
• Key Monsanto-connected front groups that led attacks on scientists and journalists (Genetic Literacy Project and American Council on Science and Health) frequently push industry messaging to the top of the Google News search.
• Pesticide industry propaganda is a huge business:
  • Seven of the front groups named in Monsanto’s documents spent $76 million over a five-year period to push corporate disinformation, including attacks on scientists.
  • Six industry trade groups named in Monsanto’s PR documents spent more than $1.3 billion over the same five-year period, including for PR and lobbying to influence regulation over glyphosate.”

4.  Section 10204. Diminishes Integrity of Pesticide Registration Review Process.

Repeals Section 711 of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022, which mandates that EPA complete initial registration reviews of pesticides by October 1, 2026, striking a blow to scientific integrity and the assurance that active ingredients are adequately assessed before being released onto the market.

The issue of scientific integrity has made international press in recent months, given that a study concluding that the weed killer glyphosate did not cause cancer was retracted in late 2025 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.”  (See Daily News here.)

In addition to the initial registration process, 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.

5. Section 10205. Chemical Company Immunity from Liability and Failure to Warn.

Litigation has always been a tool for holding manufacturers accountable for the damages they cause, providing an important check on the marketing of products beyond baseline regulations issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The courts have ruled on the liability principle over the history of pesticide regulation. A 2005 Supreme Court decision, in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC | 544 U.S. 431 (2005), upheld the right of farmers in Texas, who followed the pesticide label and experienced crop loss, to sue for damages. The manufacturer argued unsuccessfully that because it registered its product with EPA, the farmers were preempted from suing them. The principle supporting opposition to industry efforts to legislate immunity for manufacturers’ failure to warn is similar. Those who suffer harm through no fault of their own must be able to sue for manufacturers’ failure to provide a warning on the product label. Chemical manufacturers, led by Bayer/Monsanto, have been moving across the U.S. with state legislation to shield manufacturers from lawsuits by consumers and farmers who have been damaged by pesticides and not warned of hazards, like cancer. Now, the companies have taken their campaign to Capitol Hill and will argue the same position in the U.S. Supreme Court next month.

6. Section 10206. Preemption of State and Local Authority.

Provisions that preempt state and local authority over pesticide regulation represent a significant federal intrusion into areas historically governed at the state level. Forty-four states already have preemption frameworks governing pesticide regulation. In some states, the question of municipal authority is determined by state law through the home rule petition process.

Federal intervention to dictate how states manage their political subdivisions—particularly through provisions that would nullify local home rule authority—would constitute an unprecedented intrusion into state governance. The Supreme Court’s decision in Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier | 501 U.S. 597, 1991, affirmed that the allocation of regulatory authority between states and their local subdivisions is a state decision, not a federal one.

Communities are increasingly addressing pesticide exposure as a localized issue involving drift, water contamination, and non-target exposure that can travel miles beyond application sites. These are inherently local land use and public health concerns. Federal preemption that blocks municipalities from acting would override long-standing principles of federalism and undermine local democratic decision-making.

7. Section 10207. Exemption of Pesticides from Reviews to Protect Water, Ecosystems, and Endangered Species.

This section repeals requirements in numerous federal statutes to protect against local pesticide contamination that could affect waterways, drinking water, federal projects, endangered species, migratory birds, and toxic waste.

NEPA, or the National Environmental Policy Act, requires Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) or assessments to evaluate the environmental consequences of federal actions and approvals. The Clean Water Act (CWA) considers pesticide discharges, including through point and non-point source pollution, in terms of potential drift. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs storage, handling, and cleanup of hazardous materials, including pesticide containers, storage, and disposal practices.

 For example, under RCRA regulations, pesticide containers are generally required to be triple-rinsed prior to disposal, and the associated “rinsate” may be classified as hazardous waste depending on composition and handling. Storage requirements—including container separation and off-floor storage—are governed by hazardous waste regulations, not FIFRA. These statutes address use patterns, storage conditions, and cleanup requirements that go well beyond product registration. Under CWA, permitting requirements for deposition of pesticides in waterways under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is intended to protect local waterways not covered by the baseline reviews under FIFRA. This permitting process would be eliminated with this provision.

8. Section 10211. Eliminates USDA Multiple Crop and Pesticide Use Survey.

Discontinues surveys, which provide baseline information to communities and farmers to inform practices and outcomes.  

 Call to Action

There are ongoing legislative campaigns in state legislatures across the country on granting liability shields to pesticide manufacturers. Please see the resource hub, bill tracker, and resources and assets pages to learn more.

There is also a need to reach out to your member of Congress in the U.S. House of Representatives to stop provisions in the Farm Bill that shield chemical companies from liability for the harm caused by their products, intrude on local communities’ democratic right to restrict pesticides, and eliminate pesticide restrictions governing clean water, environmental impacts, and endangered species.

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

Sources: Glyphosate Executive Order, Investigate Midwest

(Beyond Pesticides, February 19, 2026) A study published in Scientific Reports highlights the benefits of organic agriculture in comparison to different farming systems over five years on four crops (maize, tomato, faba bean, and potato). “Soil carbon sequestration is a long-time storage of carbon in soil which represents 70% of the carbon in land,” the authors note. “Therefore, the main aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the agricultural practice systems on the soil carbon sequestration and properties, productivity, water consumption, soil carbon sequestration, CO₂ emission and cost of some agricultural crops.” As a result, the experiment reveals that, compared to chemical-intensive farming, organic methods enhance soil properties, reduce water consumption, provide higher yields and higher soil carbon sequestration, reduce CO2 emissions, and achieve the highest total net profit for all four crops after five years.

Study Importance

The topic of food security and sustainable agricultural systems is a crucial one, particularly as environmental degradation escalates. “Recently, organic agricultural systems have drawn much attention as alternative ways to produce food and ensure security in terms of environmental sustainability,” the researchers say, while Beyond Pesticides and organic advocates have been discussing the viability of organic agriculture for decades. The most important factor for crop production is soil quality, as healthy soils provide vital ecosystem services for nutrient and water cycles, as well as offering habitat for soil biodiversity. Soil processes and the soil microbiome are very complex in nature, relying on many soil quality indicators such as soil organic carbon (SOC), pH, and available phosphorus.

“The SOC content has a direct and indirect impact on biological, chemical, and physical soil properties,” the authors share. They continue: “Nowadays, SOC contents decrease in the intensified agricultural system… Consequently, there is an urgent need for agricultural practices to counteract SOC losses and build additional SOC.”

Previous research shows that organic farming systems improve soil quality indicators such as SOC contents, microbial biomass, and soil respiration. These alternative management practices, as defined by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), provide a holistic solution to the escalating public health, biodiversity, and climate crises. As the only agricultural system with a requirement for a farm systems plan, inspections, and certification for compliance with organic standards, an enforcement mechanism, and rigorous public oversight, organic farming promotes sustainable, cost-competitive, and profitable practices that enhance soil health and biodiversity.

Under OFPA, organic producers are prohibited from using synthetic inputs unless found by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) that their use: “(i) would not be harmful to human health or the environment; (ii) is necessary to the production or handling of the agricultural product because of the unavailability of wholly natural substitute products; and (iii) is consistent with organic farming and handling.” Under this USDA organic standard, nearly all petrochemical pesticides and all synthetic fertilizers, as well as sewage sludge (biosolids), are prohibited, and the organic sector continues to grow exponentially. 

“Organic farming is one of the best ways not only to reduce the deterioration of water quality but also to decrease food toxicity,” the researchers write. “Fields that have been continuously managed organically for years have lower numbers of pests, which has been attributed to increased biodiversity and abundance of multiple trophic interactions as well as changes in plant metabolites.”

Methodology and Results

The current study was conducted on 27 plots at a farm in Belbeis, Al-Sharqia Governorate, Egypt. All plots had a five-year crop rotation of maize and tomato in the summer season and faba bean and potato in the winter season, with three replicates per farming system (conventional, organic, and biodynamic).

Regarding effects on the physical and chemical properties of soil, the results “indicate that the bulk density of the soil changed with the type of farming practice,” with organic having lower bulk density (less compacted and more microbial activity) than conventional. The use of chemical fertilizers in the conventional system also shows an increase in soil pH. “These results agreed with those obtained by Lori et al. who found that the organic farming system gave the best soil quality compared to the conventional farming system,” the authors note.

The water consumption for the four different crops “increased during the experimental period for conventional farming system more than the other farming systems (organic and biodynamic), because the use of biofertilizers increases the water holding capacity, which shows how organic farming systems can save water compared to conventional ones. Water use efficiency values for organic plots were also higher than conventional plots. The experiment highlights how soil carbon sequestration is lowest in conventional systems, which is supported by previous research. The amount of CO₂ emission reduction is higher in organic systems when compared to conventional systems, also supported by previous scientific literature.

Regarding crop yield, and due to the improvement of soil properties with organic methods, the highest yield after the fifth season was with organic systems. “The maize yield increased by 6.97, 30.92 and 21.79% for conventional, organic and biodynamic, respectively, after five year,” the researchers report. They continue: “The tomato yield increased by 21.37, 65.89 and 54.48% for conventional, organic and biodynamic, respectively, while, the faba bean yield increased by 30.47, 51.69 and 31.96% for conventional, organic and biodynamic, respectively, and the potato yield increased by 27.19, 38.50 and 44.85% for conventional, organic and biodynamic, respectively.” These results agree with previous findings as well. (See studies here, here, and here.)

In summary, the authors state: “The experiment was carried out successively to investigate the effect of the agricultural practice systems on the soil properties, yield, water consumption, CO₂ emission and cost of some agricultural crops. It is concluded that the agricultural practices for different farming systems enhanced the soil properties,” with undeniable benefits of organic agriculture.

Previous Research

Scientific literature, as highlighted in the Daily News coverage below from the last two years, continues to support the viability, productivity, and profitability of widespread organic agriculture. In establishing healthy soils through organic practices, the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers becomes obsolete.

Through the following roundup of articles, the environmental and health benefits of organic systems that are crucial for sustainable food production continue to be documented:

• USDA Study Reports Pollution Control and Productivity in Organic Ag Outpaces Chemical-Intensive Ag (December 2025)
• Organic Farming Competes with Chemical-Intensive Practices on Resilience, Input Costs, and Profitability (September 2025)
• Study Shows Organic Practices Increase Crop and Nutritional Quality with Weather Uncertainty (August 2025)
• Literature Review Compares Increased Soil Benefits of Regenerative Organic to Chemical-Intensive Practices (April 2025)
• Study Affirms that Organic Farming Improves Soil Health, Microbial Life, and Pathogen Resistance (December 2024)
• Study Adds to Understanding of Importance of Soil Health to Ecosystem Stability and Biodiversity (November 2024)
• Study Shows Value of Soil Microbiome, Nurtured in Organic Farming, Harmed by Chemical-Intensive Ag (August 2024)
• Study Shows Value of Organic Practices in Lowering Environmental Impact of Agriculture (May 2024)

The Organic Solution

To learn more about what organic is and how organic farming can feed the world, see the Organic Q&A with the Rodale Institute and Supporting Life in the Soil—The Foundation of an Organic System from our Pesticides and You journal. Additional health and environmental benefits of organic practices can be seen here and here.

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

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

Source:

Khater, E.-S. et al. (2026) Effect of type of farming practices on the soil carbon sequestration and yield of some crops, Scientific Reports. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-35230-0.

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

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

Background

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

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

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

Study Methodology

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

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

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

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

Results

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

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

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

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

Previous Research

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

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

Moving Forward

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Full funding for the Organic Certification Cost Share Program; 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Full funding for the Organic Certification Cost Share Program; 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

Study Importance

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

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

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

Methodology and Results

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

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

(2) their combined diversity (multidiversity);

(3) the relative abundance of functional groups; and

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

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

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

The results reveal:

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

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

Previous Research

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

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

Additional research in the journal Biology and Fertility of Soils confirms once again that soil health is harmed by conventional, chemical-intensive farming practices, but that organic agriculture can improve the impacted ecological functioning. The study shows that organic farming creates a healthy ecosystem able to support a balance of life forms in the soil, while the use of chemical fertilizers for agricultural management disrupts the stable biological relationship between protistan predators and their bacterial prey in soils, adding to the argument for transitioning away from conventional systems that lean on toxic inputs. (See Daily News here.)

Protecting the Soil Microbiome and Health of All

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

Key Concepts from the Report

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

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

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

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

Legal and Regulatory History

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

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

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

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

Cumulative Impact Assessments for Pesticide Mixtures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risk Management

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background on Mertens Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paraquat’s Link to Parkinson’s Disease

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Coverage

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Study Methodology

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

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

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

Results

The authors share the results of the experiment, including:

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

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

The Organic Solution

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

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

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

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

Source:

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