(Beyond Pesticides, August 25, 2025) What the Republican-led Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the U.S. House of Representatives calls legislation to “Cut Red Tape and Increase Clean Water Act Permitting Efficiency” is being roundly criticized by environmental groups as an attack on the safety of the nation’s waterways. On June 25, the Committee passed the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today (PERMIT) Act, H.R. 3898, sponsored by Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA), which makes sweeping changes to the Clean Water Act (CWA) with serious consequences that will undermine water quality, pesticide oversight, and community right-to-know, according to environmental advocates. The PERMIT Act, now moving through Congress, is a package of over 15 anti-clean water bills and poses an extreme threat to clean water protections, thwarting to the goals of CWA.  

Beyond Pesticides is calling on the public to Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to oppose H.R. 3898, the “PERMIT Act.”

Ever since CWA became law in 1972 to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” the definition of the “Nation’s waters,” aka “waters of the U.S.” or “WOTUS,” has been cloaked in controversy. This controversy is coming to a head again as the Trump administration revises regulations in which the Biden administration attempted to interpret the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA (2023) in a way that is consistent with the goals of CWA.  

The declaration of goals and policy in CWA begins:  The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this Act—  

(1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985;  

(2) it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983;  

(3) it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited; . . .  

Section 502(7) of CWA defines the term “navigable waters,” which delineates the jurisdiction of CWA regulation to be “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,” thus removing the nexus to navigability in earlier law. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “The Clean Water Act itself does not expand further on the meaning of ‘waters of the United States.’ Instead, the Corps [Army Corps of Engineers] and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have expounded on this phrase through agency guidance and regulations, which federal courts have struck down on various occasions as failing to satisfy statutory or constitutional requirements.”

The CRS further explains:  

In debating the 1972 amendments that created the Clean Water Act, some Members of Congress explained that they intended the revised definition to expand the law’s jurisdiction beyond traditionally navigable or interstate waters. The conference report states that the “conferees fully intend that the term ‘navigable waters’ be given the broadest possible constitutional interpretation unencumbered by agency determinations which have been made or may be made for administrative purposes.” And during debate in the House on approving the conference report, one Representative explained that the definition “clearly encompasses all water bodies, including streams and their tributaries, for water quality purposes.” Courts have frequently referred to the act’s legislative history when interpreting its jurisdictional reach, but they have not always agreed on the import of this history.  

As a result, the jurisdiction of EPA and delegated state and tribal entities to protect water quality has varied according to the politics of the administration in power at the time. There is clearly a need to clarify the scope of CWA protections. In the last Congress, H.R. 5983, introduced by U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen and 131 co-sponsors, would have provided the needed clarity. 

Science also has a role to play. Bodies of surface water do not exist as independent entities. Intermittent streams flow into rivers and lakes. Ponds, ditches, and wetlands may feed lakes and streams either directly or through groundwater. Contaminants of intermittent or ephemeral water bodies can affect wildlife dependent on them, as well as the waters to which they are connected. The toxic soup in many U.S. waterways is unsustainable and threatens the foundation of many food chains. Imbalances in aquatic environments can ripple throughout the food web, creating trophic cascades that further exacerbate health and environmental damage. Studies of major rivers and streams find that 90% of fish, 100% of surface water samples, and 41% of major aquifers contain one or more pesticides at detectable levels. Almost 90% of water samples contained at least five or more different pesticides. Furthermore, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports at least 143 pesticides and 21 pesticide transformation/breakdown products (metabolites) in the groundwater of over 43 states.  

Promoted as a way to “streamline” permits for industry and development, the PERMIT Act weakens critical clean water protections, by: 

1. Cutting protections for streams and wetlands. The bill redefines which waters are protected, removing safeguards for many small streams, wetlands, and seasonal (ephemeral) waterways, allowing them to be polluted, filled in, or destroyed with no consequences. It would codify the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA (2023) in a way that is inconsistent with the goals of CWA.  
2. Allowing political appointees to exclude waters. Top officials at EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers could exclude any waters they choose from protection, without public input, science, or oversight. 
3. Prioritizing cost savings for polluters over science-based water quality standards. Contrary to the spirit of the CWA, EPA would have to consider cost to polluters, rather than relying on science to set water quality standards. Unsafe pollution could be labeled “safe” just because cleanup is expensive. 
4. Discouraging advancements in reducing wastewater pollution, resulting in outdated standards. The bill limits EPA’s ability to require regular updates to water pollution control standards based on advancements in technology.  The requirement to use best available technologies would be replaced by reliance solely on only those treatment technologies already widely used in the US. 
5. Removing State and Tribal Power. The bill narrows states’ and tribes’ authority to consider the broader impacts of an entire project on local water quality, forcing them to make decisions based solely on specific permit discharges. It strips away the power of states and tribes to review big federal projects like pipelines or dams, rejecting them or adding conditions that protect local water, leaving decisions to federal agencies with less voice to people living in impacted communities. 
6. Increasing the Use of Outdated Pollution Standards. Extending the permit duration from 5 to 10 years, eliminating the opportunity to apply improved science and technology, and allowing polluters to continue using outdated pollution limits and treatment standards, while reducing opportunities to provide public input. 
7. Protecting polluters instead of the environment by: Authorizing sweeping “general” pollution permits with fewer safeguards, and exempting pesticide spraying, fire suppression chemicals, and agricultural runoff from permitting and accountability. Eliminating responsibility for failure to report harmful pollutants in discharges, opening the door for dangerous chemicals like mercury or PFAS (“forever chemicals”) to end up in water with no consequences. 
8. Exempting pesticide discharges from CWA permits if the product is registered under FIFRA. This removes the only mechanism for site-specific protections, monitoring, and public notice of pesticide pollution. By removing CWA permit requirements for pesticides, it legalizes pollution without accountability, eliminates public notice and comment, and strips communities of recourse when their water is at risk. 

Letter to U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators:
H.R. 3898, the “PERMIT Act” makes sweeping changes to the Clean Water Act (CWA), with serious consequences for water quality, health and environmental protection, and community right-to-know.

The PERMIT Act (H.R. 3898) is a package of over 15 anti-clean water bills and poses an extreme threat to clean water protections, in contradiction to the CWA’s goals and objectives. Promoted as a way to “streamline” permits for industry and development, the bill weakens critical clean water protections by:

1. Cutting protections for streams and wetlands. The bill redefines which waters are protected, removing safeguards for many small streams, wetlands, and seasonal (ephemeral) waterways, allowing them to be polluted, filled in, or destroyed with no consequences. It would codify the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA (2023) in a way that is inconsistent with the goals of CWA. 
2. Allowing political appointees to exclude waters. Top officials at EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers could exclude any waters they choose from protection, without public input, science, or oversight.
3. Prioritizing cost savings for polluters over science-based water quality standards. Contrary to the spirit of the CWA, EPA would have to consider cost to polluters, rather than relying on science to set water quality standards. Unsafe pollution could be labeled “safe” just because cleanup is expensive.
4. Discouraging advancements in reducing wastewater pollution, resulting in outdated standards. The bill limits EPA’s ability to require regular updates to water pollution control standards based on advancements in technology.  The requirement to use best available technologies would be replaced by reliance solely on only those treatment technologies already widely used in the US.
5. Removing State and Tribal Power. The bill narrows states’ and tribes’ authority to consider the broader impacts of an entire project on local water quality, forcing them to make decisions based solely on specific permit discharges. It strips away the power of states and tribes to review big federal projects like pipelines or dams, rejecting them or adding conditions that protect local water, leaving decisions to federal agencies with less voice to people living in impacted communities.
6. Increasing the Use of Outdated Pollution Standards. Extending the permit duration from 5 to 10 years, eliminating the opportunity to apply improved science and technology, and allowing polluters to continue using outdated pollution limits and treatment standards, while reducing opportunities to provide public input.
7. Protecting polluters instead of the environment by: Authorizing sweeping “general” pollution permits with fewer safeguards, and exempting pesticide spraying, fire suppression chemicals, and agricultural runoff from permitting and accountability. Eliminating responsibility for failure to report harmful pollutants in discharges, opening the door for dangerous chemicals like mercury or PFAS (“forever chemicals”) to end up in water with no consequences.
8. Exempting pesticide discharges from CWA permits if the product is registered under FIFRA. This removes the only mechanism for site-specific protections, monitoring, and public notice of pesticide pollution. By removing CWA permit requirements for pesticides, it legalizes pollution without accountability, eliminates public notice and comment, and strips communities of recourse when their water is at risk.

Please oppose H.R. 3898, the “PERMIT Act.”

Thank you.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 22, 2025) Legislative language moving through Congress—intended to prevent farmers, consumers, and workers from holding pesticide manufacturers accountable for the harm caused by their toxic products—is being opposed by a broad coalition of farmers, beekeepers, consumers, environmentalists, and workers with the release today of a joint statement opposing a dramatic change in a fundamental legal right. The document, Protect the Right of Farmers, Consumers, and Workers to Hold Pesticide Companies Accountable for Their Harmful Products, is joined by 51 organizations, coalitions, businesses, and leaders representing tens of thousands of members and communities. The legislation at issue is hidden in a provision of the Appropriations bill (Section 453) that has passed through the Appropriations Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives and is headed for a vote of the full House in the next couple of weeks, followed by the U.S. Senate.

The Appropriations provision is being pushed by chemical companies in the wake of extraordinary jury verdicts against Bayer/Monsanto, amounting to billions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages, for “failure-to-warn” liability claims involving glyphosate (Roundupᵀᴹ) weed killer products. The pesticide has been classified as cancer-causing by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (a part of the World Health Organization).

As stated in the joint document, the coalition’s goal is to uphold the right of farmers, consumers, and workers to hold pesticide manufacturers responsible for their failure to warn about the harm caused by their products. The coalition is calling on Congress to:

• REJECT the provision, section 453, adopted in the House Interior-EPA Appropriations and full Appropriations Committee, in the final House bill;
• REJECT the language of section 453 being attached to the Senate Appropriations bill; and
• REJECT section 453 language from being incorporated in the final Appropriations bill.

The joint document focuses on five elements that are identified as critical to the protection of public health and safety in a climate of deregulation and reductions in federal funding for environmental and related programs. These include:

• Legacy. The courts have long served as a venue for farmers, consumers, and workers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for their failure to warn about the hazards of their products, including potential chronic adverse health outcomes, on the product label.
• Label. EPA pesticide product labels are not required to display long-term effects like cancer and reproductive problems that are linked to exposure.
• Legal. Section 453 in the House Appropriations bill would, in the future, prohibit cases like those filed by those harmed by glyphosate (Roundup™), who have won jury verdicts and compensation.
• Lasting. The House bill language removes the incentive for chemical manufacturers, under threat of compensatory and punitive damages, to develop safer products or remove products altogether — slowing the critically necessary shift to effective, less- and non-toxic land and building management practices and products to protect health and the environment.
• Law. Legislative history added to the bill in the committee will do little to ensure a fully functioning EPA and court redress.

A Broad Movement

“With the massive dismantling of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs by the current administration, Congress has been seeking, through Appropriations bill provisions, to limit court oversight, which in many cases serves as the only backstop for public health and environmental protections,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

“The challenges facing farmworkers are profound; from exposure to limited protections, our communities are already at the margins, with women and children shouldering the most severe impacts of forced pesticide contact,” said Mily Trevino-Sauceda, executive director of Alianza Nacional de Campesinas,  “This legislation would reduce their access to justice with this inhumane introduction of pesticide immunity shield language. There is no victory in harming the very workforce that feeds this nation.”

“Once you understand the pesticide registration process, the need to hold registrants accountable becomes very apparent,” said Richard Coy, third-generation commercial beekeeper and vice president of Coy’s Honey Farm, Inc. “In my opinion, legislation that impedes accountability is bad policy.”

“EPA pesticide product labels are often inadequate or inaccurate. Yet this dangerous legislation would shield pesticide companies from accountability for any harm their chemicals may inflict,” said Diane Rosenberg, president of Iowa Alliance for Responsible Agriculture and Jefferson County Farmers and Neighbors. “This is flat out wrong. Congress should protect vulnerable farmers, not multibillion-dollar chemical companies.”

“Farmers and consumers have long had venues, like courts, to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for their failure to warn about the health harms of their products. State laws have also historically been able to help protect the health of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers from health-harming pesticides,” said Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environment’s (ANHE) executive director, Katie Huffling, DNP, RN, CNM, FAAN. “We urge Congress to both develop and maintain a system that truly protects farmers, farmworkers, and consumers; a system that holds pesticide manufacturers responsible for their failure to warn about the harm caused by their products and a system that supports the development of safe and effective, less- and non-toxic products to protect health and the environment.”

“As Missourians, we see industry’s influence everywhere—on our highways, in our mailboxes, and on our screens—reminders of how aggressively they shape public opinion and policy,” said Ethan Duke, co-founder and co-director of Missouri River Bird Observatory. “At the Observatory, we’ve seen efforts like Section 453 have consequences for the welfare of our fields, waterways, and bird populations. Section 453 would silence communities and strip away one of the few tools people have to hold industry accountable for the harm they cause to both human health and the natural world.”

“Farmworkers are on the front line of pesticide exposure,” says Jeannie Economos, coordinator of the Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project at Farmworker Association of Florida. “In my 30 years of working with farmworkers, I have heard heartbreaking stories of health effects that farmworkers, their children, and/or their families have experienced. Farmworkers deserve fair treatment and justice!”

This groundswell of support emerges from a diverse range of voices, including environmental, conservation, climate, public health, and biodiversity groups, and includes farmers, beekeepers, businesses, medical professionals, farmworkers, farmers, and community-based groups. “We also know that there are significant disproportionate impacts that women and children face, not to mention farmworkers, agricultural, rural, working-class, and majority Black Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) communities, as documented in the scientific literature,” said Max Sano, Beyond Pesticides’ senior policy and coalitions associate.

Implications If Section 453 Passes

Bayer/Monsanto and the chemical and agribusiness group Modern Ag Alliance are leading the charge on efforts in Congress and state legislatures across the country to create immunity from failure to warn litigation. In this context, the chemical industry has successfully lobbied for what environmentalists and legal experts have called a weak federal pesticide law (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act—FIFRA), and then argues in court when sued for damages that their products are in compliance with pesticide registration standards and therefore they are protected from litigation. Juries have ruled that chemical manufacturers failed to provide adequate warning through their product labeling, given the independent peer-reviewed science, including what the company knew or should have known, and a clinical assessment of the harm caused to the plaintiff.

Under the Appropriations language moving through Congress, the only permitted EPA-approved label language must be consistent with a human health assessment or carcinogenicity classification previously approved by EPA—freezing in place EPA’s position on a pesticide for possibly decades, and eliminating the ability to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for damages. The bill language states: “None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action…” without conducting an entirely new assessment—which takes “no less than four years, and sometimes over 12,” according to EPA. [The bill language is found here. Search on Section 453.]  Under this provision, industry will argue that they, as registrants of pesticide ingredients, are unable to disclose potential harms that are different from the EPA-approved label. The industry is also pushing to amend the Farm Bill with similar language that shields chemical manufacturers from lawsuits on the harm caused by their products.

Signatories represent all 50 states and the District of Columbia, including the following:

Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments (ANHE), Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, American Bird Conservancy (ABC), American Sustainable Business Network (ASBN), Bee Squared Apiaries, Beyond Pesticides, Beyond Toxics, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Center for Environmental Health (CEH), Center for Farmworker Families (CFF), Center for Food Safety (CFS), Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Center for Progressive Reform (CPR), Children’s Environmental Health Network (CEHN), Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls (CAAN), Clean Water Action, Coming Clean Network, Coy’s Honey Farm Inc., CT Pesticide Reform, Farmworker Association of Florida (FWAF), Farmworker Self-Help, Friends of the Earth (FOE), Green America, Iowa Alliance for Responsible Agriculture (IARA), Jefferson County Farmers and Neighbors, Inc. (JFAN), Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), Maryland Ornithological Society, Maryland Pesticide Education Network (MPEN), Maryland Votes for Animals, Missouri Coalition for the Environment (MCE), Missouri River Bird Observatory (MBRO), Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC), Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Association (NODPA), Northeast Organic Farming Association of Massachusetts (NOFA-Mass), NOFA-NJ, NOFA-NY, NOFA-VT, Norwalk River Watershed Association (NRWA), Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP), Organic Consumers Association (OCA), People & Pollinators Action Network (P&PAN), Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network (PANNA), People Organized in Defense of Earth and Her Resources (PODER), Pollinate Minnesota, Pollinator Pathway, Pollinator Stewardship Council (PSC), Rachel Carson Council (RCC), Re:Wild Your Campus, Toxic Free North Carolina (TFNC), Valley Improvement Projects (VIP).

For a copy of the joint statement, please click here.

For a copy of the press release, please click here.

Additional Calls to Action

To stay informed on the latest updates on Congress, scientific literature, and other programmatic areas, consider signing up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Update. You can see all of Beyond Pesticides Resources compiling decades of research, analysis, and models for systemic change into actionable hubs.

U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act (S. 2324) earlier this summer, amending FIFRA to create a federal right of action for anyone who is harmed by a toxic pesticide. The public can take action to generate support for this legislation.

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

Source: Fact Sheet – Protect the Right of Farmers, Consumers, and Workers to Hold Pesticide Corporations Accountable; Fact Sheet – Endorsing Organizations

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2025) The presence of Varroa mites in combination with the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid increases the risk of bee mortality and disrupts the larval gut microbiome, according to a study of the synergy (a greater combined effect) between Varroa destructor, a parasitic mite that attacks and feeds on honey bees, and imidacloprid. The study in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology adds to the growing body of science on the severely declining bee population by investigating the toxic effects of both the parasites and pesticide stressors in honey bees (Apis mellifera). “Given that V. destructor may increase bees’ sensitivity to imidacloprid by compromising their physiological health and immunity, this study systematically assesses the effects of V. destructor infestation and imidacloprid exposure on honey bee survival, detoxification enzyme activity, and gut microbiota,” the authors explain.

The intestinal tract and gut microbiome are crucial for digestion, metabolism, nutrient absorption, immune regulation, and pathogen defense. Within honey bees, the gut microbiome is “highly susceptible to external environmental stressors, such as pesticide exposure and parasitic infections [and] these disturbances can lead to microbial imbalances, ultimately affecting bee health.” (See studies here and here.)

Previous research earlier this year, captured in Daily News Variability in Effect of Pesticides on Bumblebee Survival Tied to Gut Microbiome Health, shows intraspecific differences (between individuals of a species) in wild bumblebees (Bombus vosnesenskii) exposed to an herbicide (glyphosate), a fungicide (tebuconazole), and an insecticide (imidacloprid), with gut microbiome health as a factor. Additional coverage (see here, here, here, and here) highlights studies that show how pesticide exposure disturbs and shifts the abundance of certain microbes in the bee gut microbiome. These disturbances primarily occur in one of two ways—either by directly harming microbes or indirectly harming the host (bee) and subsequently shifting the microbiome.

Studying environmental stressors in combination is an important area of research, as organisms are not subjected to contaminants or parasites singularly. As the current study points out, “Honey bee health is affected by a variety of environmental factors, with Varroa destructor parasitism and pesticide exposure being important factors contributing to colony decline.” The loss of honey bees, and other pollinators, threatens crop productivity, natural plant diversity, and insect diversity.

The decline of pollinators is a major ecological crisis and contributes to the “insect apocalypse” currently occurring. There is a complex interplay of multiple factors in this decline, including pesticide exposure from chemical-intensive agriculture and land management, parasite infestations, and habitat degradation, among others. “Among the many stressors, pesticides and parasites are considered the primary drivers of the severe decline in honey bee populations,” the study authors note. (See more on What the Science Shows on Biodiversity.)

Neonicotinoid insecticides, in particular, are linked to adverse impacts on pollinators. Imidacloprid is associated with increased risks to not only pollinators but to human health and other wildlife as well. (See Daily News coverage on pollinators and imidacloprid here and here.)

Studies show that exposure to low doses of imidacloprid can impair honey bee cognition, foraging behavior, navigation, and overall survival. (See here, here, here, here, and here.) “While prolonged low-dose exposure may not cause immediate mortality, it can weaken their immune system, making them more susceptible to pathogens and other environmental stressors,” the researchers state. They continue, “[O]ur previous research further demonstrated that imidacloprid reduces the survival and learning ability of young bees, disrupts gut microbiota diversity, and leads to metabolic imbalances.”

Varroa mites parasitize honey bee larvae, pupae, and adults by extracting nutrients from them. Infestations of these mites “weakens individual bees, disrupts their growth and development, and ultimately compromises the health of the entire colony.” When combining this weakened state with exposure to pesticides, the honey bees experience cascading adverse health effects.

The current study collected honey bees from a research apiary, assessed the degree of Varroa destructor infestation across the colony, and selected colonies that were categorized as highly infested (if rates exceeded the threshold of 20%). Both forager bees and larvae to rear and become newly emerged bees were included for the acute (7-day) and chronic (14-day) exposure tests. After assessing mortality throughout the experiments, DNA extraction and sequencing was also conducted to analyze the intestinal flora of the honey bees.

“Our results showed that imidacloprid significantly reduced bee survival and that the synergistic effect of V. destructor and imidacloprid further exacerbated the risk of bee mortality,” the authors say. The data shows that as imidacloprid concentrations increase, the mortality rate of bees also increases. “This indicates that imidacloprid is highly toxic to bees, especially when exposed for a long period of time or at high concentrations, and can significantly reduce the survival rate of bees,” the researchers state. (See studies here and here.)

They continue, “At the same time, the presence of V. destructor reduced the resistance of bees to pesticides and exacerbated bee mortality, suggesting that V. destructor infestation may have a synergistic effect with pesticide exposure.” (See additional studies here and here.) The analysis also shows impaired immune defenses through altered enzyme activity levels, as well as reduced diversity of gut flora in the newly emerged bees. “These results indicated that V. destructor infection significantly affected the gut flora composition of newly emerged bees, especially the abundance of Proteobacteria and Firmicutes changed significantly, accompanied by significant fluctuations of some key genera,” the researchers explain.

The combination of exposure to Varroa mites and imidacloprid “significantly altered the diversity and composition of the flora in the intestinal tract of honeybees compared to healthy bees,” which is consistent with other studies that suggest these implications occur as a result of physical damage, immune system suppression, or pathogen transmission from the mites that may indirectly alter the microbial community of honey bees, thereby affecting immune function and overall health. (See here and here.)

The authors hypothesize that the suppression of immune and detoxification pathways leads to the bees’ inability to metabolize or resist the toxic effects of imidacloprid and results in impacts on survival. “This study shows that V. destructor infection and imidacloprid exposure significantly affect honey bee survival, gut enzyme activity, and the diversity and function of the gut microbiota through synergistic effects,” they conclude. “V. destructor may exacerbate immunosuppression and physiological damage in honey bees by altering the structure of their gut flora, while imidacloprid exposure may respond to toxicants by enhancing detoxifying enzyme activity, but may also lead to damage to the immune system.”

Beyond Pesticides, in a similar Daily News titled Neonicotinoid Insecticides Contribute to Honey Bee Vulnerability to Parasitic Varroa Mites, previously covered a 2024 study published in the Journal of Insect Science that addresses the debate on whether neonicotinoid insecticides or Varroa mites are more detrimental to the survival of bees. The evidence suggests that neonicotinoids are not only harmful individually but can increase vulnerability to parasitism from mites in western honey bees, showing heightened risks with combined exposure.

Additional research cited in the current study includes:

• One study finds V. destructor infestations “reduce bees’ tolerance to pesticides, making them more susceptible to pesticide-induced mortality.”
• Studies (see here and here) find synergistic and additive effects of acetamiprid, another neonicotinoid insecticide, and parasites on honey bees, with bee mortality risk increasing as the number of stressors rises.
• “Similarly, exposure to both chlorothalonil [an organochlorine fungicide] and V. destructor significantly reduced worker survival, with observed synergistic effects.” (See study here.)
• Research also indicates that exposure to neonicotinoid insecticides such as thiamethoxam increases parasitism and heightened risks to honey bee populations.

To mitigate these adverse health effects, Beyond Pesticides urges the widespread adoption of organic agriculture and land management. Not only does this holistic solution remove the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers that threaten honey bees and other pollinators, but it also protects and enhances biodiversity and mitigates both the climate change and public health crises.

For more information on the direct impacts of organic practices on pollinators, see Study Adds to Wide Body of Science Highlighting Benefits of Organic for Insect Biodiversity. Additional health and environmental benefits are available here and here.

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

Source:

Wang, Y. et al. (2025) Varroa destructor infestation amplifies imidacloprid vulnerability in Apis mellifera, Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048357525003293.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 20, 2025) As a part of a nationwide push to stop the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with the City of Excelsior, Minnesota, and Osborne Organics, announced the transition of city park land sites to organic land management. Under its program, Parks for a Sustainable Future, Beyond Pesticides underwrites the development of organic transition plans and staff training on holistic practices. The goal of the program is to advance practical, resilient, cost-effective management techniques that confront urgent threats to public health, biodiversity, and climate that are exacerbated by toxic pesticide and fertilizer use. See the link to our press release here. 

Excelsior City Councilmember Jennifer Caron said, “Excelsior has embarked on an exciting first step in organically managing our public parks and minimizing runoff into the lake.” Ms. Caron added: “By participating in the Parks for a Sustainable Future grant program with Beyond Pesticides, the city is learning how to eliminate herbicides, insecticides, and other pesticides on sites in the Commons, including the Ballfield and Great Lawn. The result will be a healthier Commons, particularly in areas heavily used by people, pets, and pollinators alike.”  

Kevin Quinn, parks and natural resources manager for Excelsior, said: “Working with Beyond Pesticides to help improve the health of our park system reminds me of the popular quote: ‘Treat the Earth as if your life depends on it—because it does.’ Organic lawn care is a new adventure for the City of Excelsior, and we are very fortunate for the opportunity to make this transition with such a dedicated and knowledgeable team of professionals, city residents, and volunteers.”  

The program received an initial push from community member, advocate, and horticulturist Colleen Lockovitch. Ms. Lockovitch started the Uncommon Gardeners volunteer group to maintain and care for public pollinator gardens planted by the City over the past four years.  

The program: Beyond Pesticides, through its program, has collaborated with dozens of communities across the country to transition parks, playing fields, and public spaces to organic land management by providing in-depth training to assist community land managers in transitioning three public demonstration sites and the knowledge necessary to eventually transition all public areas in a locality to these safer practices.

Steve Bernstein/Above Lake Minnetonka

The City: The City of Excelsior—located on Lake Minnetonka with a population of 2,335—is a popular regional recreational destination 15 miles southwest of downtown Minneapolis, attracting tens of thousands of visitors annually. All three demonstration sites for the program are immediately adjacent to Lake Minnetonka in the historic Excelsior Commons [135 Lake Street in Excelsior, MN]. The 13-acre park, whose origins date to the founding of the City, hosts open recreational areas, picnic sites, playgrounds, two swimming beaches, tennis courts, baseball fields, a band shell, a bathhouse, public restrooms, and docking for public lake access.  

The sites in the program:

• The Great Lawn: Recently resodded as part of the Pavilion and Plaza projects, this 113,400 square-foot site serves as a high-visibility centerpiece. Every summer, the Great Lawn hosts a popular concert series every other week—drawing between 2,000 and 7,000 attendees—as well as an annual 4th of July celebration. Designated for daily recreation, the Great Lawn is where residents and visitors can walk their dogs, play frisbee, gather at the picnic tables, and sit on benches or blankets to celebrate the Bay with friends and family.

• Commons Ballfield: This high-traffic ballfield, slated to be regraded and resodded as part of the Ballfield redesign project, is a historic feature of the Commons. At approximately 55,555 square feet, the WPA-era ballfield seating from the 1930s provides an incredible view of the lake. Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with the City and technical consultant Osborne Organics, will guide the ongoing installation and organic land management of the natural turf field, used daily during the summer months by men’s and women’s baseball and softball leagues.  

• The Shoreline: The Shoreline, a passive-use area of the Commons measuring approximately 14,000 square feet, is used for yoga and community classes. It is lined with benches that provide a place for people to fish, sit, and enjoy an expanded view of Lake Minnetonka, far beyond Excelsior Bay. As no synthetic fertilizers or pesticides are currently in use, given the site’s proximity to the lakeshore, the Parks for a Sustainable Future program will focus on upscaling the condition of the grass through organic land management. 

“We are excited to be working with the City of Excelsior on organic land management practices that protect community health and the environment, including bees, butterflies, and birds, and support efforts to mitigate climate change and biodiversity decline,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. 

Jennifer Caron/Activist Colleen Lockovitch

In the words of Ms. Lockovitch, transitioning away from the use of harmful chemicals, like petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, is vital to cultivating habitats for wildlife. “In every public garden I have managed, we never used synthetic fertilizers or any type of pesticide,” said Lockovitch. “Prioritizing the growth of diverse and chemical-free gardens benefits everyone. I am so proud of the City of Excelsior for its commitment to transition away from using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. We owe it to the lake, the ecosystems, and the entire community to take care of it the right and healthy way. Healthy lawns and gardens start out with healthy soils.”  

“Excelsior has embarked on an exciting first step in organically managing our public parks and minimizing runoff into the lake,” Ms. Caron adds. “By participating in the Parks for a Sustainable Future grant program with Beyond Pesticides, the city is learning how to eliminate herbicides, insecticides, and other pesticides on sites in the Commons, including the Ballfield and Great Lawn. The result will be a healthier Commons, particularly in areas heavily used by people, pets, and pollinators alike.” 

The Parks for a Sustainable Future program launched in time to organically welcome thousands of guests to the historic Excelsior Commons for the popular summer series “Concerts in the Commons,” hosted next on August 20 and August 27 at 6:30 PM CT, and “Cinema in The Commons,” featuring a family-friendly movie on August 22 and September 5 at 8 PM CT.  

Does your community have a pesticide-free park managed with organic practices? Do you wish it did? The time to take action to protect those parks and create new ones is now! 📣 Click here to take the first step and become a Parks Advocate!

ℹ️ For more information on the program launch, and to learn more about how YOU can bring the Parks for a Sustainable Future Program to a community near you, please contact Rika Gopinath, Community Policy and Action Manager at [email protected]!  

Envision an organic community where local parks, playing fields, and greenways are managed without unnecessary toxic pesticides, children and pets are safe to run around on the grass, and bees and other pollinators are safeguarded from toxic chemicals.  

At Beyond Pesticides, this is the future we envision and are working to achieve. 

Updated—Parks Flyer 3.24.25 by Beyond Pesticides

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 19, 2025) A new study from Argentina highlights the importance of applying the concept of the exposome (total exposures over lifetime) as a scientific framework, the value of biomonitoring, and findings of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The study documents the presence and effects of pesticides on maternal and fetal health during pregnancy. The results show that pregnant Argentine women are exposed to dozens of pesticides, and that certain mixtures of these chemicals are associated with harm to pregnancy outcomes, especially among rural women.

The exposome, the authors write, comprises the “non-genetic factors that may be involved in the development or aggravation of human disease. The prenatal exposome includes all environmental chemicals that the mother is exposed to during pregnancy (maternal exposome) and those chemicals that reach the placenta and fetus from the maternal circulation (fetal exposome).” The authors emphasize that understanding the exposome almost by definition requires studying mixtures of environmental chemicals rather than analyzing the effects of each in isolation.

The second important aspect of the study is its use of biomonitoring. The researchers analyzed urine samples from 90 pregnant women in various gestational stages from rural and urban regions of Argentina. The researchers also collected demographic information from the women, including education levels, agrochemical use, diet, smoking, and alcohol and drug use.

They tested the samples for 74 pesticides and found a total of 39. Eighty percent of the samples had detectable pesticides. Just over half of the pesticides were insecticides, about a third were fungicides, and nearly 18% were herbicides. Just over 60% are registered in Argentina; about 13% are unregistered, and a quarter of those found are banned there.

The fungicide vinclozolin, used in Argentina on fruits, vegetables, wine grapes, and chia plants (a type of Salvia), was the most frequently detected pesticide. This study reports the presence of vinclozolin for the first time in a biomonitoring study in Argentina. It is a possible human carcinogen also noted for its anti-androgenic effects, and thus is a factor in feminizing male animals. The second and third most common pesticides are the pre-emergent herbicide propazine, which is related to atrazine and used on ornamental plants in greenhouses, and the organophosphate insecticide and acaricide triazophos, which is applied to fruit and cereals. Both, also possibly carcinogenic to humans, have not been previously reported anywhere in maternal samples. Triazophos is banned in Argentina and the European Union. It is not registered in the U.S. and is being phased out in many regions. In all, a quarter of the pesticides detected in the current study are banned in Argentina, and this may be evidence not only of their continued use in some places, but also of their persistence in the environment. This highlights the extreme importance of both rapidly stopping the use of current highly toxic and persistent pesticides and preventing registration of new ones.

About two-thirds of the samples contained mixtures of the various pesticides detected, with a combination of fungicides and insecticides showing up in about a fifth of the samples and another fifth containing mixtures of herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides.

Regarding mixtures, the authors write, “When analyzing pregnancy outcomes in relation to the environmental exposome, it is essential to consider mixtures rather than individual pesticides. In this regard, we have found that samples from complicated pregnancies associated with fetal development had a higher number of pesticides.” Previous research has shown associations between the number of pesticides in cord blood and low birth weight, pesticide mixtures in maternal urine and smaller fetal head circumference, and multiple neonicotinoids in maternal urine and gestational diabetes.

There were few differences between the rural and urban women demographically, such as age, body mass index, education level, and diet. About half of the rural women reported using home insecticides during pregnancy compared to 39% of urban women. More rural women had mixtures of pesticides, but the researchers did not view the difference as striking. However, there were some important differences between the two groups.

Overall, about a third of the pregnancies were problematic, producing gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and anemia in the women and preterm birth, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), low birth weight, and congenital anomalies in the fetuses. Here, the urban-rural divide was striking: nearly half the rural women had adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to 19% of the urban women, and fetal development and growth were more common complications for rural women. There is a strong association between IUGR and the number of pesticides in the women’s urine, as was the occurrence of triazole fungicides, particularly tebuconazole, in this group. Tebuconazole is a known reproductive toxicant. In vitro studies have shown that it interferes with certain cellular processes affecting placental and fetal development, and exposure to tebuconazole results in low birth weight and feminization of male fetuses in rats.

The authors suggest a number of reasons for the higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes among rural women. Rural women live closer to crop fields and thus may have additional exposures beyond those common to urban women as well. The authors write that “the exposome in rural areas may contribute to adverse health outcomes in pregnant women and fetuses.” Further, they note, there is much less access to health care, especially prenatal care, in rural areas.

The Argentinian study adds to the abundant evidence that pesticides harm women’s health, and women’s reproductive health in particular, as well as offspring at every stage of development. See Beyond Pesticides’ Birth/Fetal Effects section of our Pesticide-Induced Diseases database. This resource provides links to numerous studies detailing the effects on pregnancy of everything from malathion and chlorpyrifos to paraquat and imidacloprid.

While there are limitations to the current study, including a small sample size, the collection of only a single urine sample per participant, and a mixture of pregnancy phases among the women, it demonstrates the usefulness of biomonitoring as a means of expanding and deepening the scientific understanding of pesticides’ global impacts. The concept of the exposome is especially helpful because it acknowledges that no one is exposed to just one thing at a time, in one life stage, and that environmental exposures to a plethora of external influences are cumulative over a lifetime, beginning at conception and sometimes producing their harms decades after they occur. In particular, it is urgent that we get an accurate picture of how mixtures of pesticides affect biological systems. The outdated, ineffectual toxicological framework entrenched in pesticide regulation and supported by the pesticide industry must give way to a more realistic and precise means of assessing the true effects of pesticides.

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

Sources:

Pesticide exposure as prenatal exposome: A biomonitoring study in pregnant women from Argentina
Racca et al
Chemosphere 2025
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40570729/

On International Women’s Day, Pesticide Risks to Women’s Health Call for Urgent Transition to Organic
Beyond Pesticides, March 7th, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/03/on-international-womens-day-elevated-pesticide-risks-to-womens-health-support-urgent-need-for-transition-to-organic/

Exposure to Glyphosate Herbicide Adversely Affects Perinatal Health, Study Finds
Beyond Pesticides, February 20, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/02/exposure-to-glyphosate-herbicide-adversely-affects-neonatal-health-study-finds/

Pesticide Exposure Contributes to Preterm Births and Low Birth Weight
Beyond Pesticides, November 18, 2021

Pesticide Exposure Contributes to Preterm Births and Low Birth Weight

Agrichemicals in surface water and birth defects in the United States
Winchester et al
Acta Paediatrica 2009
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2667895/?tool=pubmed

(Beyond Pesticides, August 18, 2025)  With pesticide manufacturers pushing to stop cancer victims (and others suffering adverse effects) from suing them under longstanding ”failure to warn law,“ U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) is proposing to uphold this unequivocal right to protection. Senator Booker has introduced the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act (S. 2324) to protect the rights of farmers and consumers to hold pesticide manufacturers responsible for the harm caused by their toxic products. This effort comes in the wake of congressional and state legislative attacks on “failure-to-warn” liability claims that are taking place in response to extraordinary jury verdicts against Bayer/Monsanto for harm caused by glyphosate weed killer products like Roundup.ᵀᴹ

📣 Beyond Pesticides, with allied organizations across the U.S., is asking the public to “Tell your U.S. Senator to co-sponsor S. 2324, the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act.” This bill will amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972 (FIFRA) to create a federal right of action for anyone who is harmed by a toxic pesticide. 

Despite growing peer-reviewed scientific evidence linking widely used pesticides to a host of health harms, including cancers, birth defects, endocrine disruption, Parkinson’s disease, and infertility, the chemical industry and its allies in elective office are pushing to deny victims access to the courts. Led by its lobbyists in state legislatures and in Congress, the pesticide industry is seeking legal immunity—a liability shield—for failing to disclose its products’ hazards. 

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

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

However, the Interior and Environment Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee voted to support a bill on July 15 that includes language that provides total pesticide immunity language, blocking farmers and consumers from suing chemical manufacturers when they fail to disclose the harm that their products cause and block states from providing information on product harm beyond EPA-approved language. (See Section 453.) The Subcommittee’s bill was then incorporated into the full Appropriations Committee bill on July 22. 

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

Therefore, Senator Booker proposes, “Rather than providing a liability shield so that foreign corporations are allowed to poison the American people, Congress should instead pass the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act to ensure that these chemical companies can be held accountable in federal court for the harm caused by their toxic products.”  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 15, 2025) In analyzing the data present in an article in Data in Brief, concerning levels of pesticide biomarkers are present in the urine of adolescents and young adults that are linked to numerous health implications. The biomonitoring data, collected at two time points from participants in a longitudinal cohort study in the agricultural county of Pedro Moncayo, Ecuador, encompasses a total of 23 compounds used as herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides and their associated metabolites (breakdown products), which include organophosphates, pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids. The results highlight the disproportionate risks to a Latin American population that occur as a result of living in areas with heavy chemical-intensive agriculture.

“This article presents urinary pesticide metabolite concentrations for 665 participants in the ‘Study of Secondary Exposure to Pesticides among Children, Adolescents, and Adults’ (ESPINA), which were collected during two follow-up assessments,” the authors describe. The first sampling period from July to October 2016, referred to as Follow-up Year [FUY]-8b, includes 529 of the participants, while the second sampling period from July to September 2022 (FUY-14a) includes 505 of the participants. All participants are within the agricultural community of Pedro Moncayo.

As the authors note, “The ESPINA study aimed to include a balanced mix of children who did and did not cohabitate with a floricultural or agricultural worker.” This highlights both the exposure routes from the surrounding environment as well as indirect occupational exposure from another occupant in the house through contaminated clothing and items.

The use of biomonitoring data in relation to pesticide exposure, particularly in agricultural communities, shows real-world exposure as well as the heightened health risks to farmworkers, their families, and individuals living near agricultural land. “Unlike self-reported data or environmental sampling, biomonitoring provides objective, quantitative evidence of exposure, capturing multiple pathways such as inhalation, ingestion, and dermal absorption,” the researchers state.

These pathways offer insight into acute, chronic, and low-dose exposure that studies connect to long-term adverse health effects. With this study focused on Latin America, where agricultural work is prevalent and supports many individuals and families, biomonitoring data is valuable in understanding the impacts of chemical exposure.

The ESPINA cohort was initially established in 2008 with a goal “to investigate the impacts of pesticide exposure on development from childhood to adulthood in individuals living within the agricultural community of Pedro Moncayo, Pichincha, Ecuador.” With cut flowers as one of the primary exports from Ecuador, and an emphasis in Pedro Moncayo on rose and flower cultivation, data from this region incorporates exposure to a variety of pesticides from multiple chemical classes.

“Of the 505 participants examined in 2022 (FUY-14), 212 were returning participants who had been examined in 2016, while the remaining 293 were newly recruited at that timepoint,” the researchers note. They continue, “Across both 2016 and 2022, a total of 665 distinct individuals contributed to the dataset, with 212 individuals contributing data at both timepoints and the remaining participants providing data at only one of the two examination periods.”

To assess the levels of biomarkers for specific pesticide metabolites, urine samples were collected from participants in 2016 and 2022 upon awakening, considered a first morning void, and analyzed through chromatography and spectrometry techniques. (See additional Beyond Pesticides coverage of biomonitoring studies using urine samples in agricultural communities here, in newborns and children here and here, and from nonoccupational exposure here.)

For the 2016 examination (FUY-8b), 19 metabolites are screened for that correlate with 21 total compounds. The second examination in 2022 (FUY-14a) screens for 14 metabolites that correlate with 20 total compounds, overlapping with 18 compounds from the first sampling period.

In FUY-8b, biomarkers included are associated with the following pesticides:

• Organophosphates (parathion, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion)
• Pyrethroids (cyhalothrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, fenpropathrin, permethrin, tralomethrin, cyfluthrin, flumethrin)
• Neonicotinoid Insecticides (imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, thiacloprid)
• Herbicides (glyphosate, 2,4-D)
• Fungicides (ethylene bis-dithiocarbamates (EBDC) such as maneb and mancozeb)
• Insect Repellent (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET))

The FUY-14a screening includes all of the above except for thiacloprid, glyphosate, and EBDC and has the addition of two systemic insecticides, sulfoxaflor (a sulfoxamine) and flupyradifurone (a butenolide).

The results show the FUY-14a participants have higher urinary pesticide biomarker concentrations for seven biomarkers that are associated with parathion, chlorpyrifos, cyhalothrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, fenpropathrin, permethrin, tralomethrin, cyfluthrin, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam but lower for 2,4-D, malathion, and DEET in comparison to the concentrations from the earlier FUY-8b screening.  

Metabolite concentrations with detection rates of 30% and above are noted for 11 out of 19 metabolites measured in 2016 and 12 out of 16 metabolites measured in 2022. The metabolites at the lower detection rates correlate with only seven of the above-listed parent chemicals in the 2016 screening and four from the 2022 screening. In both sampling periods, two organophosphate pesticide metabolites, which are associated with chlorpyrifos and parathion, have a 100% detection rate. These results highlight the widespread exposure to pesticides that the individuals living and working in agricultural communities experience.

For all of the compounds that are detected above 30%, the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management links them to a multitude of health and environmental implications including cancer, endocrine disruption, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, birth/developmental effects, and toxicity to birds, bees, and aquatic organisms, among others. 

As the authors of the current study point out: “One major limitation of measuring pesticide metabolites in urine using mass spectrometry is the short half-life of metabolites, which leads to a narrow window of exposure. Since pesticides are often rapidly metabolized and excreted, a single urine sample may not accurately reflect long-term exposure.” Additional biomonitoring studies for pesticide residues analyze breast milk, sperm, hair, nails, and blood.

In a recent study comparing pesticide concentrations in conventional and organic farmers, hair and nails are used for biological samples, which reflect cumulative exposure, unlike blood or urine, which only account for recent exposure. As the study authors point out, “Hair sequesters trace elements over weeks, while nails, due to their slower growth rate, reflect exposure over several months.” (See Daily News coverage here.) Additional sampling of the hair of over 200 French children finds 69 biomarkers of pollutants and pesticides—12 of which are banned—that highlight heightened risks of early childhood exposure in combination with prenatal exposure from their mothers. (See additional analysis of the study here.)

Biomonitoring studies not only inform disproportionate risks and the widespread pesticide contamination that contributes to body burden, but they also offer insight into how organic systems can eliminate direct and indirect exposure to these toxicants and reduce the levels of pesticide residues in the body even in short amounts of time.

A 2024 literature review, published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, explores levels of pesticide residues found in samples of human urine with environmental exposure and dietary intake and confirms prior findings about the benefits of an organic diet. Similar to past findings, lower concentrations of chemicals are detected in the urine of participants who report eating an organic diet. (See Daily News here.)

Another study in 2025, from a randomized clinical trial published in Nutrire, finds that adopting a fully organic diet can reduce pesticide levels in urine within just two weeks by an average of 98.6% and facilitates faster DNA damage repair relative to a diet of food grown with chemical-intensive practices. The authors explain that their finding “is likely due to two main factors: the presence of compounds characteristic of [an organic] diet, which may have high levels of antioxidants that can protect DNA and also induce DNA repair [], and the absence or decrease in the incidence of pesticides in this type of diet, which are recognized for their genotoxic effects and have the ability to affect the genetic repair system of organisms [].” (See Daily News here.)

Learn more about the health effects of pesticide exposure in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, as well as the health and environmental benefits of organic agriculture and land management here and here.

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

Source:

Parajuli, R. et al. (2025) Urinary pesticide biomarkers from adolescence to young adulthood in an agricultural setting in Ecuador: Study of secondary exposure to pesticides among children, adolescents, and adults (ESPINA) 2016 and 2022 examination data, Data in Brief. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352340925006067.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 14, 2025) A review in Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology links various classes of environmental pollutants including pesticides and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), both of which Beyond Pesticides has extensively covered, to adverse effects on the female reproductive system and common mechanisms of toxicity. These chemicals “disrupt the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis (HPG), impair ovarian function, and contribute to reproductive dysfunction through mechanisms such as oxidative stress, hormonal disruption, and epigenetic [gene expression or behavior] modifications,” the authors say. This leads to menstrual irregularities, infertility, and pregnancy complications, as well as increases in the risk of reproductive system disorders such as endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and ovarian cancer, among others.

“Additionally, transgenerational effects mediated by epigenetic modifications, germ cell damage, and placental transfer may adversely affect offspring health, increasing the risk of reproductive dysfunction, neurodevelopmental disorders, metabolic diseases, and cancer,” the researchers explain. This study, integrating recent epidemiological and experimental findings, provides an overview of major chemical classes that threaten women’s health and highlights the need for immediate action.

As the authors point out, female reproductive health is important not only for those who choose to plan for a family but also for the overall well-being and general health of women. Hormonal balance, immune regulation, and the proper functioning of the HPG axis are crucial in impacting other aspects of health aside from reproduction. A wide body of scientific literature finds that environmental chemicals disrupt the sensitive equilibrium of hormones within the body, as well as impair reproductive processes and contribute to long-term health outcomes. (See the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.)

However, many data and knowledge gaps still exist. “Real-world exposure typically involves long-term, low-level exposure to complex mixtures, yet most research focuses on the high-dose effects of individual chemicals,” the researchers note. They continue, “Additionally, the transgenerational [across multiple generations] effects of chemical exposure, particularly how maternal exposure may influence health and fertility in subsequent generations, are still not fully understood.”

Literature Review of Multiple Chemical Classes

The authors analyze studies that link exposure to environmental contaminants with adverse effects to women’s reproductive health. The chemical classes within the review include plasticizers, PFAS, heavy metals, pesticides, organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), microplastics, quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), many of which are related to chemical-intensive land management and can exacerbate health effects through additive or synergistic effects, like microplastics when in contact with petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers.  

PFAS

As explained in previous Daily News, the multitude of sources of PFAS and various exposure routes lead to widespread contamination of the environment and organisms. PFAS in agriculture represents a large source of exposure, as the chemicals can be pesticide active ingredients, used in the plastic containers pesticides are stored in, and as surfactants in pesticide products. Additionally, PFAS are used in many other plastic storage containers and food packaging, personal care products, nonstick cookware, cleaning supplies, treated clothing, firefighting foam, and machinery and equipment used in manufacturing—all of which contaminate food, water, soil, and the air. 

In the current literature review, the researchers share evidence of the link between PFAS exposure and adverse pregnancy outcomes, including hypertensive disorders such as preeclampsia, miscarriage, fetal growth restriction, low birth weight, and premature birth. “Such exposure can disrupt hormone signaling pathways by mimicking or blocking natural hormones, leading to impaired follicular development, reduced oocyte quality, and disrupted ovulation,” the authors state. “This hormonal imbalance may result in irregular menstrual cycles, amenorrhea [absence of menstruation], and overall decreased fertility.” (See studies here, here, and here, as well as additional studies on birth/fetal effects in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.)

Pesticides

Research shows that pesticides induce oxidative stress, which leads to the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that damage reproductive tissues. This can impact both males and females by impairing ovarian and testicular function, disrupting oocyte (a developing egg cell in the ovaries) maturation, and reducing sperm quality.

Study results highlighted in the review include:

• Organophosphates cause imbalances in sex hormone levels. (See here.) This can result in “reduced libido, altered menstrual cycles, ovarian dysfunction, and impaired spermatogenesis, ultimately decreasing fertility in both men and women.”
• Glyphosate and organochlorines are linked to DNA strand breaks, chromosomal abnormalities, and the formation of abnormal nuclear structures in reproductive cells. (See research here.)
• “Pesticides primarily affect human reproduction by functioning as endocrine disruptors, by either enhancing or inhibiting the effects of natural hormones. Additionally, they can induce oxidative stress, leading to cellular damage, metabolic disturbances, and cell death.” (See study here and recent Daily News coverage here.)
• Women exposed to pesticides experience “reduced fertility, increased risk of miscarriages, babies born prematurely or with low birth weight, developmental issues, ovarian dysfunction, and disruption of hormonal regulatory pathways.” (See studies here and here, as well as additional Daily News coverage on negative birth outcomes here.)
• Pesticide toxicity can additionally cause adverse pregnancy outcomes by disrupting placental function.

Mechanisms of Reproductive Toxicity

Exposure to toxic chemicals can result in negative impacts on the ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes, and hormonal regulation, among others. Since the female reproductive system is tightly regulated by hormones, any imbalance can lead to damaged cells and disrupted biological processes that are crucial for reproduction and development. Environmental contaminants can “impair oocyte multiplication, growth, and maturation through mechanisms such as oxidative stress, endocrine disruption, and DNA damage,” the researchers note. With many pesticides acting as endocrine disruptors, they can also influence cells within the ovaries and prevent processes, such as folliculogenesis and steroidogenesis, from properly occurring. (See research here and here.)

One study finds that neonicotinoid exposure, through the mechanisms of oxidative stress and DNA damage, leads to apoptosis (programmed cell death) and necrosis (uncontrolled cell and tissue death). Additional studies show PFAS exposure can harm uterine immunity, increasing the risk of endometrial disorders like endometriosis and uterine leiomyoma, as well as reduce ovarian reserve and disrupt menstrual cycles by interfering with hormone synthesis.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including pesticides, can impact the functioning of the HPG axis, which is “essential for regulating reproductive functions, including follicular growth, ovulation, spermatogenesis, and hormone production,” the authors note. Since EDCs mimic sex hormones, they disrupt homeostasis within the HPG axis, “leading to impaired folliculogenesis, ovulation, conception, spermatogenesis, and fertility.” (See study here.)

Transgenerational Effects

As the review emphasizes: “Environmental chemicals affect not only exposed individuals but also future generations through mechanisms such as epigenetic modifications, germ-cell damage, and placental transfer. Pollutants like PFAS, heavy metals, pesticides, microplastics, and QACs have been linked to adverse effects on offspring, including impaired reproductive, neurological, metabolic, and immune health, as well as increased cancer risk.” This occurs through induced epigenetic changes, defined as altered gene expression without changing DNA sequences. (See Daily News Multitude of Studies Find Epigenetic Effects from PFAS and Other Endocrine Disrupting Pesticides.) These alterations can be passed down through multiple generations and further impact health and development.

Chemical exposure can “directly damage DNA in oocytes and sperm, causing mutations or chromosomal abnormalities that are passed to offspring… [and] significantly impairs offspring reproductive health, including reduced ovarian reserve, disrupted follicular development, altered oviduct morphology and function, and poor sperm quality.” Studies also reveal that PFAS and pesticide exposure during pregnancy is linked to increased attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnoses in children. (See studies here and here and relevant Daily News coverage here.)

Transgenerational exposure is also associated with a heightened risk of hormone-related cancers, such as breast and testicular cancer. Maternal PFAS exposure “has been implicated in an elevated risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and chromosomal abnormalities.” The authors continue, “Similarly, maternal exposure to EDCs—such as PCB, pesticides, benzene, and DDT—during fetal development is consistently associated with a higher risk of testicular cancer, particularly nonseminomas, in male offspring.” (See study here.)

The direct link to adverse reproductive effects in individuals exposed to environmental contaminants like pesticides and PFAS, as well as the subsequent effects on their offspring, requires systemic change. As the researchers advocate, “Taking proactive measures now is critical for ensuring the health and well-being of future generations.”

Organic Solution

Eliminating the use of harmful chemicals is at the forefront of Beyond Pesticides’ mission. Through the widespread adoption of organic agriculture and land management, Beyond Pesticides seeks to protect healthy air, water, land, and food for ourselves and future generations by removing the chemicals that pose unreasonable risks to life.

Learn more about how pesticide exposure impacts women’s reproductive health on Beyond Pesticides’ newly published Reproductive Health Effects page, as well as the health and environmental benefits of organic here and here.

📣 Tell Congress to insist on eliminating pesticides that endanger women’s health.

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

Source:

Xie, Y., Peng, R. and Xiao, L. (2025) Environmental Chemicals and Female Reproductive Health: Unraveling Mechanisms and Societal Impacts — A Narrative Review, Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology. Available at: https://www.imrpress.com/journal/CEOG/52/8/10.31083/CEOG39882/htm.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 13, 2025) The data on the adverse effects of the insecticide chlorpyrifos, still widely used in food production, continued to accumulate with the latest being a study published in PLOS One that finds perinatal exposure to the chemical in mice can alter sleeping patterns, lead to brain inflammation (particularly in female individuals), and impact gene expression linked to immune response and epigenetic effects. The adverse health effects are greater overall in female mice than male mice, emphasizing the significance of disproportionate impacts across species.

Chlorpyrifos has been a threat to human and ecological health for decades, originally as a general-use pesticide for homes, gardens, and agriculture, and then restricted to most nonresidential uses in 2000. Currently, the chemical’s permitted uses include food and feed crops, golf courses, as a non-structural wood treatment, and adult mosquito control for public health (insect-borne diseases) uses only. According to health and environmental advocates, there is a long history of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failure to adequately protect human and environmental health from chlorpyrifos, which is linked to endocrine disruption, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, brain, kidney, and liver damage, and birth and developmental effects.

It took 21 years after negotiating a stop to most residential uses for EPA to negotiate a ban of the agricultural uses of chlorpyrifos in 2021 after a U.S. Court of Appeals found its registration to be flawed; then, that court decision was vacated by a 2023 Appeals Court decision (see also Daily News), sending EPA back to its pre-2021 allowed agricultural uses. In December 2024, EPA issued a proposed rule to restrict chlorpyrifos’ allowance to 11 major crops, which are among the most extensively grown and used in the U.S.: soybeans, sugar beets, cotton, wheat, apples, citrus fruits, strawberries, alfalfa, cherries, peaches, and asparagus. The public comment period closed in February 2025. (See Beyond Pesticides’ commentary on some of chlorpyrifos’ history.)

In addition to the adverse human health effects, chlorpyrifos is also known to be toxic to birds, bees, fish, and other aquatic organisms and is detectable in groundwater. Advocates continue to call for a more transformational approach rather than focusing on whack-a-mole tactics that focus on the harm of one pesticide after pesticide, rather than advocating for alternative agricultural and land management systems that render their perceived utility moot.

Background and Methodology

In the study, the test subjects are “wild-type C57BL/6” mice (a common strain of laboratory mouse species) in a controlled environment kept at 23-25 degrees Celsius (roughly 73 to 77 degrees Fahrenheit) on a 12-hour light-dark cycle. Mice are fed “ad libitum,” or as they desire. Mice were split up into groups exposed to chlorpyrifos via oral gavage in peanut oil and a control group. The exposure window was from mating until weaning, with mouse offspring (“pups”) not directly exposed to the pesticide to home in on perinatal exposure.

The main hypothesis of this study was to determine if perinatal exposure to chlorpyrifos, during pregnancy and lactation periods, causes long-lasting disruptions in sleep-related breathing and promotes neuroinflammation for subjects moving into adulthood, possibly in a sex-specific manner. The researchers based their hypothesis on prior evidence of the insecticide crossing the placental barrier and showing up in breast milk, as well as links to adverse effects on neurodevelopment and respiration in humans and non-humans.

The experimental procedures to test for perinatal health include confirmation that the offspring were properly exposed to chlorpyrifos by assessing acetylcholinesterase (AChE) (enzyme necessary to nervous system transmission) activity, various behavioral tests (pre-birth surgery), surgical implantation of electrodes to assess brain activity and muscle movement, sleep and breathing recordings, blood test to assess stress via corticosterone levels, and oesterous cycle monitoring to assess behavioral and brain activity for female mice. After all the tests, the mice were euthanized and hippocampi collected to measure inflammation, anti-inflammatory regulation, stress response, and epigenetics. The researchers leveraged various statistical analysis tools to account for these various biological indicators, which can be found in more detail on pages three to seven of the study.

The researchers for this study are all experts at the University of Bologna in various specialties, including the Department of Pharmacy and Biotechnology, the Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, the Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, the Center for Applied Biomedical Research, and PRISM Lab. This study was approved by both the University’s Committee on the Ethics of Animal Experiments and the Italian Ministry of Health, following guidelines laid down by the Committee and ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines.

Results

The authors were able to prove their hypothesis that chlorpyrifos exposure leads to adverse health effects in mice, particularly on sleep, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental harms and disruptions. The six main categories of findings include:

1. Mother mice treated with the pesticide had significantly reduced AChE activity, confirming that Chlorpyrifos was present during pregnancy and breastfeeding of offspring mice.
2. Adult mice with perinatal Chlorpyrifos exposure faced more apneas and more sighs, with apneas occurring during both light and deep sleep cycles.
3. The hippocampus of female mice showed higher levels of inflammatory genes and lower levels of their anti-inflammatory counterparts, suggesting chronic brain inflammation.
4. Enzymes involved with regulating inflammation (histone demethylases) were significantly reduced in female mice
5. Male mice exposed to the insecticide showed an increased expression of Nr3c1 (glucocorticoid receptor), which could signal an altered stress response regulation.
6. Chlorpyrifos-exposed mice were described as having mixed results in terms of other cognitive and behavioral findings, including potential indicators for improved working memory or hyperactivity.

Previous Research and Actions

The scientific literature demonstrates that toxins like microplastics, heavy metals, synthetic fertilizers, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and pesticides (including whole formulations, active ingredients, “inerts”, synergists, pesticide-treated seeds, and plant growth regulators) have synergistic effects that threaten biodiversity, including aquatic organisms. This means the combined toxicity of the two (or multiple) substances is greater than the sum of the two individual exposures. The most recent study to demonstrate this, published in Ecotoxicology, focuses on the impacts of microplastics and chlorpyrifos on cladocerans, a group of microcrustaceans. There was no mortality observed in microplastic-only treatments, while microplastics preconditioned with the insecticide showed acute effects. Chronic exposure also shows reduced survival and reproductive output in both species. The researchers state: “A significant delay in age at first reproduction and shorter generation time were observed in the presence of MP^CPF, suggesting MP-mediated enhanced toxicity of CPF, wherein CPF could have accumulated onto the MP surface, thus, intensifying its toxicity.” (See Daily News here.) Researchers developed a novel tool in a study published in Nature Communications this year that successfully creates a map of the “pesticide-gut microbiota-metabolite network,” identifying “significant alterations in gut bacteria metabolism. Chlorpyrifos was one of eighteen pesticide compounds showing significant potential metabolic shifts in the gut microbiome. (See Daily News here.)

There has been a somewhat global shift in recognizing the toxicity of chlorpyrifos. The United Nations’ Conference of Parties (COP) for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), originally adopted by 128 countries in 2001, voted to move chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxicant linked to brain damage in children, to Annex A (Elimination) with exemptions on a range of crops, control for ticks for cattle, and wood preservation, according to the POPs Review Committee. (See Daily News here.)

In terms of recent legal history on the organophosphate insecticide, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2021 instructed EPA to either revoke the tolerances the agency had set for chlorpyrifos’s residue in various foods or demonstrate that they meet the statutory and regulatory standards. Finally, after 21 years of delay, EPA issued a final rule in August 2021 revoking all food tolerances for the chemical. This seemed to signal a step in the right direction after relentless grassroots advocacy and judicial oversight prompted regulatory action until February 2022, when a different set of petitioners—pesticide corporations, groups representing industrial agriculture, and other countries’ agricultural interests vested in fossil fuel-dependent food systems—filed an action in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2023, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit reversed EPA’s momentous 2021 decision, rendering the Ninth Circuit’s opinion moot. (See additional Daily News coverage and additional commentary on the saga of chlorpyrifos litigation and regulations here, here, here, and here.)

Call to Action

Beyond Pesticides submitted comments (see here) earlier this year on a Federal Register notice to “to revoke all tolerances for residues of chlorpyrifos, except for those associated with the use of chlorpyrifos on the following crops: alfalfa, apple, asparagus, tart cherry, citrus, cotton, peach, soybean, strawberry, sugar beet, and spring and winter wheat.” Beyond Pesticides, citing alternatives and the clear weight of evidence on neurological and a suite of health impacts, called for the total cancellation of chlorpyrifos use. This builds on decades of previous advocacy in offering comments rooted in the latest scientific evidence and findings, as you can see in the pesticide’s entry in the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management.

Consider taking action today by subscribing to Action of the Week and Weekly News Update, and stay updated on the latest studies, analysis, what’s going on in Congress, and other developments that impact your community!

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

Source: PLOS One

(Beyond Pesticides, August 12, 2025) Last week on August 9, the United Nations observed International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, a critical acknowledgement of Indigenous “food sovereignty, food security, biodiversity conservation and climate resilience,” as outlined in the report of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Eighteenth Session (July 14–18, 2025).

As the report states, under Article 20 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “Indigenous Peoples possess distinct economic systems rooted in traditional knowledge, practices and resources and have the right to sustain, strengthen and develop these systems in accordance with their cultures, traditions, values and aspirations.” It continues, “When deprived of their means of subsistence and development, this article provides that Indigenous Peoples are entitled to just and fair redress.” In a statement recognizing the importance of the day, Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K. Barume, focuses on the need for Artificial Intelligence (AI) to recognize that, “Indigenous Peoples have long been stewards of knowledge, biodiversity, and sustainable living [and] [w]ithout their meaningful participation, AI systems risk perpetuating historical injustices and deepening the violation of their rights.”

Meanwhile, the current U.S. administration has shifted away from federal policies and is dismantling programs, including the termination of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Environmental Justice program, intended to address disproportionate harm associated with chemical exposure among Native Americans and people of color communities. (See EPA Launches Biggest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History.)

Indigenous communities lead the charge in biodiversity protections and pollinator well-being, having thrived and lived in coexistence with nature long before the industrialized food systems and systemic separation from, and poisoning of, the land. The organic movement of the post-World War II era emerged with individual farmers selling pesticide-free produce to interested community members, eventually coming together to form networks with other like-minded environmental justice and public health advocates in the 1970s and 1980s to form voluntary organic standards that eliminate the need for toxic agricultural chemicals while creating a new, vibrant, organic economic sector. With the U.S. organic sector valued at $71.6 billion in 2024, according to the Organic Trade Association, advocates must recognize the leadership of Indigenous sovereignty and stewardship in laying the foundation for organic criteria and principles rooted in a precautionary principle that prioritizes nature, health, and sustainability before profits.

Recent Developments

Indigenous people around the world are playing a leadership role in challenging disproportionate harm from chemical exposure patterns associated with chemical-intensive agriculture.

Exposure in agricultural areas are often due to the chemical characteristics that influence leachability, solubility, and volatility of synthetic pesticides, which allow for movement off their target site, even when licensed applicators (for restricted-use pesticides) are being used at labeled rates recommended by the manufacturer and approved by EPA in the U.S. Chemical residues in air, land, water, and food result in aggregate exposure to multiple pesticides and their breakdown materials (metabolites), many of which bioaccumulate. Without adequate assessment of these complexities by pesticide regulatory systems, where they exist worldwide, Indigenous communities are on the frontlines of advocating for a more sustainable and just future.

In Brazil, there is an ongoing legislative battle over strengthening environmental governance at the expense of the safety of Indigenous communities. Panh-ô Kayapó, an Indigenous woman from Baú Indigenous Territory and director of the Kabu Institute, said in an August 7 press release issued by Amazon Watch: “This bill shows that Congress doesn’t care about the Brazilian people. They want more profits for agribusiness and foreign companies, while regular people pay more for toxic food and suffer through droughts, floods, and the climate crisis. President Lula must veto this bill – it’s a matter of life and sovereignty.” This “devastation bill,” as it is called, is the recently passed Bill 2159/2021, which would undermine regulatory agency authority by “exempt[ing] activities such as mining and soy and cattle production from formal licensing procedures by Brazil’s environmental agencies…despite the potential social-ecological consequences” according to an analysis by Federal University of Santa Catariana, Amazon Regional Observatory, Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ORA/OTCA), Juruá Institute, and University of Santiago de Compostela published in Science.

Irepoiti Metuktire, a Kayapo leader from the Kapot Nhinore Indigenous Territory and representative of the Ropni Women’s Department of the Raoni Institute, in response to the threat of chemical-intensive soybean production to Indigenous health and sovereignty, said: “This soy doesn’t feed our people. We don’t eat soy – it’s for export and corporate profit. Meanwhile, pesticides contaminate our water, our soil, and even the rain. It’s poisoning all of us, not just Indigenous peoples. And food in the cities gets more expensive every day. Defending the forest is defending life for everyone.”

Previous Research

Pesticide residues have been found to drift across surprising distances through the air, water, and soil, based on decades of scientific literature that continues to emerge this troubling trend.

There is published research identifying various current-use pesticides in urine samples of an Inuit population in the rural area of Nunavik, Quebec. Published in 2024 in International Journal of Circumpolar Health, researchers at Boston University, Quebec-based institution Laval University, and the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec compared the biomarker levels of various pesticides known to be “capable of long-range transport” in an Indigenous community to the general Canadian population. Even though they did not find conclusive evidence of higher risk for this specific Inuit population, this “… study was the first to document environmental exposures to pesticides in an Arctic community using a cost-effective and reliable method” of analyzing urine sampling of the Inuit population, according to the authors. Chlorpyrifos, parathion, and several other pyrethroids and their metabolites were detected in the highest concentrations, which is consistent with other research.

In a survey-based study published in Journal of Environmental Health in 2023, approximately 11,326 participants identifying as “American Indian and Alaska Native” shared their experiences with occupational and environmental exposures for the Education and Research Towards Health (EARTH) Study in the Southwest U.S. and Alaska. Pesticides and petroleum ranked first and second among the most commonly reported hazards for participants in the Southwest U.S. The goal of this study was to provide “baseline data to facilitate future exposure-response analyses.”

This research builds on calls from existing reports that emphasize the links between Indigenous communities’ environmental and occupational exposure to toxic chemicals, like pesticides, and severe health issues, such as cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, metabolic disorders, and chronic illnesses. A 2022 report published in The Lancet speaks to the systemic effects of pesticide policies in the U.S. and the failure of leadership in the United Nations to protect the Yaqui Nation in Mexico. The piece finds: “The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is a U.S. statute that allows “pesticides that are not approved – or registered – for use in the U.S.” to be manufactured in the U.S. and exported elsewhere. The UN Rotterdam Convention also allows the global exportation of “banned pesticides.” The ongoing exportation of banned pesticides leads to disproportionately high rates of morbidity and mortality, most notably in Indigenous women and children. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

It comes as no surprise that the focus of this year’s International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples is on the impacts of AI on Indigenous communities, given the potential environmental implications as demands for data centers continue to mount globally and domestically. Organic, pesticide, and pollinator advocates stand in solidarity with the right of Indigenous communities to self-determination and advancing policies and systems that support their well-being, as much of the transformative change is inspired by the First Nations leadership in leading with nature, rather than in exploiting it to its inevitable destruction.

There are also the mounting concerns on artificial intelligence and pesticide development from scientists, bioethicists, and food sovereignty advocates in the European Union; Save our Seeds Foundation produced a report earlier this year warning of various threats that generative artificial intelligence would impose on the already flawed regulatory system, including data distortions and hallucinations, the lack of transparency in how AI agents or systems make their decisions, and the lower barrier that could lead to further unregulated and untested pesticide products. (See Daily News here.)

In response to the proliferation of dangerous pesticide products threatening Indigenous and general populations, you can take action here by telling EPA to ban the use of the herbicide dicamba and other drift-prone pesticides.

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

Sources: United Nations, Amazon Watch, Science, International Journal of Circumpolar Health

(Beyond Pesticides, August 11, 2025) With the reintroduction of legislation in July to support organic dairy production, Beyond Pesticides is calling on the public to support small organic farms that are hurting because of feed shortages, increased costs, and low premium to farmers, despite higher prices at the grocery store. Beyond Pesticides has called for an investment in organic as a long-term investment in the public good, given the value that organic brings as a solution to the health, biodiversity, and climate crises. (See previous Daily News, here and here.)

Legislation, the Organic Dairy Assistance, Investment, and Reporting Yields Act (O DAIRY Act), S. 2442, introduced by U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Rural Development, Energy, and Credit, along with Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) will expand federal support for organic dairy farmers by extending emergency assistance to farmers facing losses due to factors like feed shortages and increased costs. The Senators’ legislation also increases investments in the organic dairy industry to ensure resiliency and longevity and works to improve data collection for organic milk production to enhance price accuracy and transparency. Beyond Pesticides is suggesting that the public Tell U.S. Senators to cosponsor the O DAIRY Act, S. 2442. 

Analysts point to the growing market for organic milk, driven by consumer demand, as supported by clinical studies, for hormone-free, antibiotic-free, and non-GMO products, as well as environmentally friendly production methods. Organic milk also provides more omega-3 fatty acids, disease-fighting antioxidants, and essential minerals than non-organic milk.  

In spite of the rising demand for organic milk, organic dairies—particularly the smaller dairies—are not prospering. Small producers have little bargaining power with buyers. In addition, organic dairies have costly overhead, including providing consistent pasture, which is expensive in today’s booming land markets. Organic dairies must maintain production and herd health without resorting to antibiotics, hormones, and other chemicals. As a result, according to Matthew Dillon, co-CEO of the Organic Trade Association, the U.S. has lost 13% of organic dairy producers since 2021. 

The O DAIRY Act will extend emergency assistance to organic dairy farmers facing losses, including any time a farm’s net income decreases by over 10% in any given year, and invest $25 million annually in dairy infrastructure investments, research, and innovation. The legislation also calls for increased organic industry data collection that will be shared with farmers for better planning. Additionally, the bill would direct USDA to study the viability of an organic safety net program, which would provide aid to farmers faster when disasters hit.  

The O DAIRY Act has the broad support of farms, dairy cooperatives, producers, and associations across the country. 

Readers can Tell your U.S. Senators to cosponsor the O DAIRY Act, S. 2442. 

Letter to U.S. Senators [Request to cosponsor]:
Analysts point to the growing market for organic milk, driven by consumer demand, as supported by clinical studies, for hormone-free, antibiotic-free, and non-GMO products, as well as environmentally friendly production methods. Organic milk also provides more omega-3 fatty acids, disease-fighting antioxidants, and essential minerals than non-organic milk.

In spite of the rising demand for organic milk, organic dairies—particularly the smaller dairies—are not prospering. Small producers have little bargaining power with buyers. In addition, organic dairies have costly overhead, including providing consistent pasture, which is expensive in today’s booming land markets. Organic dairies must maintain production and herd health without resorting to antibiotics, hormones, and other chemicals. As a result, according to Matthew Dillon, co-CEO of the Organic Trade Association, the U.S. has lost 13% of organic dairy producers since 2021.

In order to address the problems facing organic dairies, U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Rural Development, Energy, and Credit, along with Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) reintroduced the Organic Dairy Assistance, Investment, and Reporting Yields Act (O DAIRY) Act, S. 2442, legislation to expand federal support for organic dairy farmers by extending emergency assistance to farmers facing losses due to factors like feed shortages and increased costs. The Senators’ legislation also increases investments in the organic dairy industry to ensure resiliency and longevity and works to improve data collection for organic milk production to enhance price accuracy and transparency.  

The O DAIRY Act will extend emergency assistance to organic dairy farmers facing losses, including any time a farm’s net income decreases by over 10% in any given year, and invest $25 million annually in dairy infrastructure investments, research, and innovation. The legislation also calls for increased organic industry data collection that will be shared with farmers for better planning. Additionally, the bill would direct USDA to study the viability of an organic safety net program, which would provide aid to farmers faster when disasters hit. 

The O DAIRY Act has the broad support of farms, dairy cooperatives, producers, and associations across the country. I hope I can count on you to cosponsor S. 2442 and support organic dairy farmers.

Thank you!

Letter to U.S. Senators [Thank you to sponsors]:
Analysts point to the growing market for organic milk, driven by consumer demand, as supported by clinical studies, for hormone-free, antibiotic-free, and non-GMO products, as well as environmentally friendly production methods. Organic milk also provides more omega-3 fatty acids, disease-fighting antioxidants, and essential minerals than non-organic milk.

In spite of the rising demand for organic milk, organic dairies—particularly the smaller dairies—are not prospering. Small producers have little bargaining power with buyers. In addition, organic dairies have costly overhead, including providing consistent pasture, which is expensive in today’s booming land markets. Organic dairies must maintain production and herd health without resorting to antibiotics, hormones, and other chemicals. As a result, according to Matthew Dillon, co-CEO of the Organic Trade Association, the U.S. has lost 13% of organic dairy producers since 2021.

In order to address the problems facing organic dairies, I appreciate your leadership in reintroducing the Organic Dairy Assistance, Investment, and Reporting Yields Act (O DAIRY) Act, S. 2442, legislation to expand federal support for organic dairy farmers by extending emergency assistance to farmers facing losses due to factors like feed shortages and increased costs. This legislation also increases investments in the organic dairy industry to ensure resiliency and longevity and works to improve data collection for organic milk production to enhance price accuracy and transparency.  

The O DAIRY Act will extend emergency assistance to organic dairy farmers facing losses, including any time a farm’s net income decreases by over 10% in any given year, and invest $25 million annually in dairy infrastructure investments, research, and innovation. The legislation also calls for increased organic industry data collection that will be shared with farmers for better planning. Additionally, the bill would direct USDA to study the viability of an organic safety net program, which would provide aid to farmers faster when disasters hit. 

The O DAIRY Act has the broad support of farms, dairy cooperatives, producers, and associations across the country. Thank you once again for your leadership in support of organic dairy farmers.

Thank you!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 8, 2025) In a study published in Environmental Pollution, researchers have detected eighty pesticides (35 insecticides, 29 fungicides, and 11 herbicides, and metabolites) in the ambient air of a rural region of Spain (Valencia) between 2007 and 2024. Despite these dramatic findings, the authors conclude that there is “no [observable] cancer risk,” “no inhalation risk for adults,” and only one pesticide concentration (the insecticide chlorpyrifos) showing “a potential risk to toddlers.” However, the authors did not conduct an aggregate risk assessment that would typically consider all routes of exposure to the individual pesticides detected, including through water, food, and landscapes.

Not considered by the authors are the potential effects of pesticide mixtures and full pesticide product formulations (with all potentially toxic ingredients), also a deficiency in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registration of pesticides under federal law. Of concern, as well, are other contaminants in pesticide products, including but not limited to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), heavy metals, plastics (including microplastics), which contribute to chronic diseases and health risks, and adverse effects to ecosystem stability exacerbated by the climate crisis.

Background and Methodology

“This work aims to conduct a further study on the situation of pesticides in ambient air of a rural Mediterranean Region, describing spatial and temporal variations in pesticide uses, as well as a human health risk assessment based on pesticide inhalation exposure,” according to the study authors. They gathered 717 air samples at 12 locations in the rural agricultural region of Valencia, with nine sites considered “rural/agricultural,” two “urban” sites, and one remote site that serves as a control for this experiment. The researchers used three different sampling protocols over the 18-year-long study. Between 2007 and 2016, they used high-volume air samplers to capture particulate phase samples on a daily basis; meanwhile, between 2016 and 2024, they used low-volume samplers to gather particulate and gaseous phase (to account for volatilization) samples on a weekly basis. The third protocol (2008-2009) was supplementary sampling at four stations to capture gaseous phase samples that were previously missing. Since atmospheric pesticide presence can be detected in both the particulate and gaseous phases, the researchers were careful to capture both in their study.

The authors are based at CEAM Foundation (“a research, development and technological innovation center for the improvement of the environment in the Mediterranean area”), Research Institute for Pesticides and Water at Jaume I University, and Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research in the Valencia Region. They “declare[d] that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.” They received funding from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries (Spain), with some of the analytical support being “financed by the European Commission under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Operational Programme of the Valencia Region (2014–2020).”

Discussion and Results

The researchers targeted 120 pesticides in this study, with 80 different insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, acaricides, and metabolites detected:

• 35 insecticides were detected. (Chlorfenvinphos, Abamectin, Chlorpyrifos-methyl, Spinosad, Diphenylamine, Chlorpyrifos-ethyl, Dichlorvos, Methidathion, Hexythiazox, Ethoprophos, Omethoate, Pyriproxyfen, Acetamiprid, Alpha-Endosulfan, Beta-Endosulfan, Bendiocarb, Bifenthrin, Buprofezin, Carbofuran, Cypermethrin, Deltamethrin, Diazinon, Dimethoate, Dioxacarb, Fenazaquin, Fenthion, Fipronil, Flufenoxuron, Imidacloprid, Lambda-cyhalothrin, Malathion, Permethrin, Pirimicarb, Pirimicarb-desmethyl, Propargite, Spirotetramat, Tebufenpyrad, and Thiamethoxam.)
• 29 fungicides were detected. (Azoxystrobin, Benalaxyl-M, Bitertanol, Boscalid, Carbendazim, Chlorothalonil, Cyproconazole, Cyprodinil, Diphenylamine, Fenbuconazole, Fludioxonil, Flusilazole, Folpet, Imazalil, Iprodione, Iprovalicarb, Kresoxim-m, Metalaxyl, Myclobutanil, O-Phenylphenol, Penconazole, Prochloraz, Pyrimethanil, Tebuconazole, Thiabendazole, Triadimefon, Tricyclazole, Triflumizole, and Vinclozolin.)
• 11 herbicides were detected. (Benfluralin, Chlorpropham, Dichlobenil, Diuron, Endothal, Fluazifop, Glyphosate, Propachlor, Propanil, Terbuthylazine, and Trifluralin.)
• 5 additional pesticides and metabolites were detected. (Prohexadione, Terbuthylazine-2-OH, Terbuthylazine-desethyl,  Terbuthylazine-desethyl-2-OH, and Endosulfan-sulphate.)

“The ten most frequently detected pesticides were spirotetramat (83 %), glyphosate (65 %), terbuthylazine-desethyl-2-OH (59 %), metalaxyl (56 %), carbendazim and pyriproxyfen (51 %), omethoate (46 %), spinosad (44 %), terbuthylazine (44 %), and chlorpyrifos-ethyl (43 %),” says the authors. There were significant declines in detectable carbendazim, omethoate, and terbuthylazine, which the authors believe correlate with European Union bans or restrictions.

There are various limitations to this study, including that there was no risk assessment included for subgroups that face disproportionate risks, including pregnant individuals. As mentioned earlier, this study was also not comprehensive in that it did not detect potential contamination or exposure via soil, water (surface or groundwater), dietary intake, and bioaccumulation. That being said, it is significant in that it is considered the first long-term (more than 15 years) regional study of pesticide air monitoring in the Mediterranean.

Previous Research

Pesticide residues are being found in increasingly remote locations across the globe. Documented for the first time, 15 currently used pesticides (CUPs) and four metabolites (breakdown or transformation products—TP) were found in the deep marine atmosphere over the Atlantic Ocean. Three legacy (banned) pesticides were also discovered. According to the recent study published in Environmental Pollution, researchers found empirical evidence for pesticide drift over remarkably long distances to remote environments. (See Daily News here.)

People face multiple avenues of pesticide exposure and may be unwittingly subject to multiple exposures even if they do not live or work in agricultural areas/professions. A study published in Environmental Science and Technology found that there are 47 current-use pesticides—products with active ingredients that are currently registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) —detected in samples of indoor dust, drinking water, and urine from households in Indiana. (See Daily News here.) There are other peer-reviewed studies documenting the presence of pesticide residues in indoor dust samples. A large European study of house dust contaminants, published in Science of the Total Environment, finds more than 1,200 anthropogenic compounds, including numerous organophosphates, the phthalate DEHP, PCBs, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products, in indoor dust samples. Additionally, an Argentine study centered around households with nonagricultural workers found that all dust samples contained mixtures, averaging 19 pesticides per sample and with a maximum of 32 per sample. Twelve pesticides were detected in more than 75 percent of the samples. Imidacloprid, carbaryl, glyphosate, and atrazine were detected in all samples. Seven of the 49 are used as both agricultural and veterinary or household pest compounds. (See Daily News here.)

It is also critical that studies are conducted specifically on pregnant individuals. In a first-of-its-kind series of biomonitoring studies published in Agrochemicals, researchers identified the presence of the herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D in all pregnant participants from both cohorts in 2010-2012 and 2020-2022.  “The overall level of 2,4-D use (kilograms applied in one hundred thousands) in the U.S. was highest in 2010 for wheat, soybeans, and corn. The amount of 2,4-D applied increased the most for soybeans and corn from 2010 to 2020.” The researchers focused on the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, given the increase in dicamba and 2,4-D during the study period for both cohorts (2010-2022). (See Daily News here.) A comprehensive literature review in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety links a heightened risk of spontaneous abortion (SAB) with pesticide exposure. “The strengths of our study include being the first systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the association between exposure to pesticides and the risk of SAB,” the authors say. This novel approach incorporated the analysis of 18 studies, totaling 439,097 pregnant participants, which allowed the researchers to highlight an important public health issue and raise concerns for maternal contact with the harmful chemicals in pesticide products. (See Daily News here.) Ongoing exposure to pesticide residues in indoor and outdoor environments poses broader neurodevelopmental consequences for children. A study in Environment International finds that young children who exhibit higher levels of pesticide metabolites in their urine show more pronounced neurobehavioral problems at the age of ten. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

Communities across the nation are speaking out to elected officials about the threat of aerial pesticide spraying to their loved ones. Earlier this year, in 2025, protests were held in various California counties (see Inside Climate News and KSBW8 Action News) over the controversial continued use of the carcinogenic 1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D) in spite of its ban in over 40 countries and links to cancer. Communities in Oregon have mobilized for years against the aerial spraying of pesticides into public lands, including Lincoln County, which faced a setback to local control of pesticide use when a court ruled against a pesticide ordinance due to preemption language codified in state law in previous sessions. (See Daily News here.) Protests this year in Iowa and North Dakota were organized as their state legislatures voted on preempting the ability for victims of pesticide exposure to sue manufacturers for misleading labels that fail to warn of health risks. (See Daily News here.)

You can become an advocate too! Consider subscribing to the Action of the Week and Weekly News Update to stay informed on how and when to take action. You can also sign up and become an advocate for the Parks for a Sustainable Future Program.

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

Source: Environmental Pollution

(Beyond Pesticides, August 7, 2025) The novel study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology is the largest investigation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in women to date, finding evidence of heightened risks when exposed to insecticides through data collected from over 400 eligible women in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). AHS participants include a cohort of thousands of licensed pesticide applicators and their spouses from Iowa and North Carolina, with this particular study as the first to consider the link between pesticide exposure and RA as it affects women’s health.  

“Growing evidence suggests farming and agricultural pesticide use may be associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but few studies have examined specific pesticides and RA among farm women, who may personally use pesticides or be indirectly exposed,” the study authors explain. The findings reveal that organochlorine insecticides that continue to persist in the environment, as well as organophosphate and synthetic pyrethroid pesticides used in public health or residential settings, correlate with RA diagnoses in women. 

As shared in previous Daily News, for the most part organochlorine pesticides, including dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), are no longer used worldwide, but the legacy of their poisoning and contamination persists. These compounds are primarily made up of chlorine atoms, classified as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) due to their toxic longevity in the environment. Although many countries ban most organochlorine compounds, the chemicals remain in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. While EPA has ended pesticide registration for virtually all of the original POPs, the United States has not joined over 150 countries in ratifying a 2001 United Nations treaty known as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which requires the elimination of POPs’ production, use, and/or release. 

Of the participants in the current study who report using pesticides, “[p]ersonal use of organochlorine insecticides was associated with incident RA, especially DDT and lindane,” the researchers say. Regarding organophosphate insecticides, a weaker association is seen apart from coumaphos and malathion. For carbamate insecticides, carbofuran use is associated with RA, as is the use of synthetic pyrethroid insecticides like permethrin and fungicides including captan and metalaxyl. Of the women who do not report personal use of pesticides, RA is associated with their spouses’ use of carbaryl, metribuzin, and maneb/mancozeb. Increased risks are also noted for indirect exposure to DDT, toxaphene, coumaphos, captan, metalaxyl, and malathion. 

Rheumatoid arthritis, one of many types of arthritis, is classified as a systemic autoimmune disease that causes joint inflammation and pain. The disease involves both genetic and environmental risk factors, with many factors and triggers still unknown. According to the Arthritis Foundation, 1.5 million people in the U.S. have rheumatoid arthritis, with women three times more likely than men to develop the disease. A study by the Centers for Disease Control‘s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics finds that the percentage of adults with arthritis increases in nonmetropolitan areas when compared to metropolitan areas, highlighting the potential role of agriculture and environmental contaminants. 

Additional research (see here and here) suggests that, “RA may be associated with farming and pesticide use, but less is known about risks for women living on farms and the role of specific pesticides is not well understood.” With women already more likely to develop RA, exposure to environmental contaminants, such as pesticides, exacerbates the risks. 

In the current study, the researchers review 410 cases of RA reported in women within the AHS cohort. The diagnoses were identified by self-reporting and then confirmed through validation, medication, and/or Medicare claims data. “We examined incident RA and personal pesticide use (including overall type, classes, and 32 specific pesticides), considering correlated pesticides and farming tasks, and explored associations with potential indirect exposures through applicator use among women who did not personally apply specific pesticides,” the authors state. 

In assessing farming activities, the study also finds RA is associated with several other chemicals used in chemical-intensive agriculture, including but not limited to cleaning with solvents, grinding feed, applying fertilizers, and planting. “The AHS offers a unique opportunity to investigate RA risk in relation to specific pesticide types,” the researchers note. They continue, “With nearly 10 additional years of follow-up and more than 3-times as many cases than previous AHS reports on RA in spouses, this study of incident RA provides robust evidence that some insecticides may increase RA risk among women.”  

These results add to a growing body of science that suggests both direct and indirect exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of RA in women. (See here and here.) Studies show that pesticides can impact the development of RA through multiple pathways that are both direct (immunotoxic) or indirect (neuroendocrine, microbiome). As the authors state, “Pathogenesis [how the disease develops] of RA includes several pathways by which pesticide immune effects may play a role, including antigen citrullination and presentation, autoantibodies production, dysregulated innate and adaptive immune function, and local and systemic inflammation.” 

Previous research shows that DDT contributes to inflammation and decreases the body’s response to infection, as well as the immunosuppressive effects of malathion and lindane. The triazine herbicide metribuzin also has reported toxicity for endocrine and hepatic effects, in addition to impacts on neurological and immune pathways. 

“Several pesticides associated with RA in this study have been associated with other diseases indicative of immune dysregulation among AHS spouses, including maneb/mancozeb and metalaxyl with hypo- or hyperthyroid diagnoses (mostly autoimmune, i.e., Grave’s or Hashimoto’s disease), and malathion, permethrin/pyrethroids, and metribuzin (asthma),” the researchers report. (See more information on immune system disorders and autoimmune diseases here and here.) 

In finding a greater RA risk in females, this suggests a role of both endogenous (internal) and exogenous (external) hormonal exposures and pathways. Research shows that insecticides, including the organochlorines DDT and lindane and the organophosphates carbofuran and malathion, can impact hormone receptors and affect female reproductive function. Similar findings to the current study, from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, also highlight the connection between insecticides and a heightened risk of RA, particularly among post-menopausal women who lived or worked on farms. 

Previous Beyond Pesticides Daily News coverage, titled Exposure to Widely Used Bug Sprays Linked to Rheumatoid Arthritis, shows that exposure to widely used synthetic pyrethroids, present in many mosquito adulticides and household insecticides like RAID, is associated with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, according to research published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research.  

The same pyrethroid metabolite was later found to be associated with increased osteoarthritis risk among U.S. adults, as shared in the Daily News Popular Pyrethroid Insecticides, Already Linked to Rheumatoid Arthritis, Associated with Osteoarthritis. In detecting levels of harmful compounds within the body, and connecting the high concentrations to diseases like arthritis, this study is one of many whose findings suggest the importance of an organic diet. 

While certain diseases like arthritis have no cure, adopting an organic diet can eliminate exposure to toxic chemicals that increase disease risk. Studies show that switching to an organic diet can reduce pesticide levels in urine within just two weeks, and that organic agricultural practices and maintaining an organic diet reveal evidence of reduced concentrations of metabolites and lower body burden. 

Beyond Pesticides urges farmers to embrace regenerative organic practices and for consumers to support this holistic, systems-based approach to land management by buying organic products (even on a budget!) or growing organic food. Learn more about the health benefits of organic agriculture here, and stay engaged by signing up to receive Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered straight to your inbox here. 

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

Source: 

Parks, C. et al. (2025) Associations of specific pesticides and incident rheumatoid arthritis among female spouses in the Agricultural Health Study, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Available at: https://acrjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.43318. 

(Beyond Pesticides, August 6, 2025) A study published in Science of The Total Environment finds that “chronic pesticide exposure alters metabolism and impairs fish growth and health.”

With increasing concern about the long-term consequences of pesticide persistence in ecosystems, the scientific literature continues to expand the body of research findings on adverse effects, including impacts on marine or aquatic ecosystems and organisms. Given the known and growing risks, there is an ongoing movement to move beyond petrochemical-based chemicals for agriculture and land management by adopting policies and programs that advance organic criteria and principles, as outlined in national organic law and practiced by tens of thousands of certified farmers and land managers across the country, and even more at the international level.

Background and Methodology

“The objective of this study was to assess the physiological responses of juvenile P. lineatus exposed to environmentally relevant pesticide mixtures by integrating multiple biological endpoints across sub-individual and organismal levels,” the authors write.

The study was conducted at two sites in the Tibagi River watershed located in Paraná, a southern region in Brazil. There was a reference site (RFS) and an agricultural site (AGS), the former having minimal pesticide contamination and the latter having been managed with pesticides. The test organism for this study was the six-month-old Prochilodus lineatus (a native Neotropical freshwater fish), which is a keystone species known for its contribution “to nutrient cycling, energy flow, and sediment bioturbation [mixing of soil materials by living organisms].” The fish were exposed for 120 days, with sampling conducted at days 5, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120.

The authors gathered biomarkers on hematological, metabolic, neurological, and histopathological data at the sub-individual level, as well as organism-level endpoints, including growth rates (absolute and specific), somatic indexes on overall nutritional health (Fulton’s Condition and Liver Somatic Index), and behavior (Swimming Endurance Index). More information can be found in the methodology section of the study. The researchers analyzed 22 organochlorine (legacy) and 33 current-use pesticides in the water samples. While the paper does not include a full list of the 55 pesticides in the study, the fungicide carbendazim, the insecticide fipronil, and the insecticide breakdown product endosulfan sulfate are specifically mentioned in terms of significant findings. The data was analyzed through three tools: Two-Way analyses of variance (Two-Way Anova) to test for significance, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and Integrated Biomarker Response (IBR) index. PCA is used to better understand patterns among the various biomarkers over the course of the experiment, and the IBR index is used to combine and summarize biomarker responses into one number.

The authors are researchers at the State University of Londrina in Brazil, based in the Physiological Sciences Department. The authors declare “no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.” The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development and funding from the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel in support of one of the PhD student co-authors on the study.

Results

The authors successfully answered their hypothesis that “chronic pesticide exposure elicits compensatory and adaptive responses in fish, increasing energetic demands and ultimately compromising growth and swimming performance.”

More specifically, AGS (agricultural site) fish exhibit various metabolic and hematological disruptions, including increased blood glucose, elevated hematocrit (percentage of red blood cells compared to blood volume), and high hemoglobin levels early in the exposure period, which the authors believe is indicative of an acute stress response. AGS fish were found to face transient inhibition of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity in the muscle and brain, which the authors suggest could be attributed to neurotoxic pesticide exposure, such as organophosphates.

As mentioned earlier, the authors mention carbendazim, fipronil, and endosulfan sulfate specifically, given that these compounds were detected at higher concentrations at the AGS site than at the RFS (reference or control) site. These active ingredients are linked to altered energy metabolism and growth suppression, with fipronil specifically linked to the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme necessary for nervous system functioning.

In terms of data analysis, IBR scores were higher at the AGS site, which the authors indicate as having greater overall stress and biological disruption. Additionally, the PCA analysis (found in Figures 8 and 9) finds that pesticide exposure was a primary driver for these physiological changes in demonstrating site- and time-dependent clustering of various biomarker responses.

Previous Research

Freshwater organisms and ecosystems are at serious risk of collapse given the cumulative exposure to pesticides, microplastics, and other toxic substances, as documented in the literature. One of the most recent studies to demonstrate this, published in Ecotoxicology, focuses on the impacts of MPs and chlorpyrifos (CPF), a widely used organophosphate insecticide, on cladocerans, a group of microcrustaceans. Chronic exposure shows reduced survival and reproductive output in both cladoceran species in this study. (See Daily News here.) A 2025 study, published in Environmental Pollutants and Bioavailability, assesses the impacts on Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), with subacute and chronic exposure to thiamethoxam, a neonicotinoid insecticide, and finds genotoxicity, oxidative stress (imbalances affecting the body’s detoxification abilities that lead to cell and tissue damage), and changes in tissue structure, among other threats to organ function and overall fish health. (See Daily News here.)

Another study published in Ecotoxicology earlier this year finds that Nile tilapia exposure to the herbicide florpyrauxifen-benzyl (FPX) elicits oxidative stress, with specific genotoxic (damage to genetic material) and hepatotoxic (damage to the liver) effects on nontarget species. (See Daily News here.) At the ecosystem level, a 2025 study in Ecology Letters finds “severe degradation of ecosystem functioning in the form of loss of organic matter consumption and dramatic shifts in primary productivity,” after performing an experiment with “36 naturally established freshwater ecosystems exposed to increasing field-realistic concentrations of the neonicotinoid thiacloprid.” (See Daily News here.)

Communities near agricultural fields are also known to experience elevated exposure to wastewater contaminants, per a recent study published in Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. (See Daily News here.) In analyzing nonagricultural streams in Germany in a 2025 study published in Water Research, researchers find that pesticide contamination, while lower than levels found in streams directly next to agricultural land, can occur through various routes and threatens biodiversity in essential ecosystems. (See Daily News here.)

Pesticide exposure also induces critical effects on non-freshwater ecosystems. A study in Environmental Science and Technology Letters, funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is the first to find halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) in deep ocean sediment and biota off the coast of California. The test area, known as the Southern California Bight (SCB), is home to historic offshore DDT waste dumping, with part of the SCB designated as a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund site. A total of 49 HOCs were detected in the sediment and biota, many of which are DDT-related and not previously screened for. (See Daily News here.) Pesticide exposure has also been detected in the atmosphere of deep ocean ecosystems (see Daily News here) and found to impact coral reef health. (See Daily News here.)

With the climate crisis leading to increased likelihood and severity of extreme weather events such as flooding, research published through the American Chemical Society finds that frequently flooded sites have higher levels of pesticides present due to the pesticides in surface waters contaminating the soil. The study results show that the plant vegetation in the contaminated soil then takes up the pesticides, which bioaccumulate and lead to higher contamination that can further cascade throughout the ecosystem and affect terrestrial food webs. (See Daily News here.)

For further Daily News coverage on the latest peer-reviewed science, consider reviewing the sections dedicated to water, water regulation, and aquatic organisms.

Call to Action

Beyond Pesticides continues to advocate for solutions that address the root causes of the existential threats to biodiversity, public health, and climate change. If we do not move beyond siloed approach to environmental, public health, and climate policies, there is risk of advancing piecemeal solutions that fail to meet this moment of cascading and intersecting crises.

Take action: Tell state legislators to focus on ecosystem protection, not just individual pesticides. You can also tell Congress to ensure that federal agencies affirm U.S. commitment to restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all the nation’s protected water resources.

Featured Image Credit: dariocrosa from iNaturalist, CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication, via Wikimedia Commons.

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

Source: Science of The Total Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, August 5, 2025) A biomonitoring study in Environmental Geochemistry and Health, focused on small-scale farms in Pahang, Malaysia, analyzes levels of essential and toxic elements in hair and nail samples from chemical-intensive and organic farmers. While the results reveal elements that correlate with specific farming practices, common elements to both chemical-intensive and organic farming highlight the role of pesticide drift in off-target contamination, diminishing some of the benefits of organic agriculture. The persistent and pervasive nature of many pesticide products results in exposure patterns, in addition to direct occupational exposure on chemical-intensive conventional farms, that trespass onto organically managed land and threaten health and the environment—raising policy and practice issues needed to safeguard the public.

Cameron Highlands in Malaysia is a region known for intensive pesticide use as well as for its vegetable and flower farming, where both conventional and organic agriculture exist in close proximity. “Despite different agricultural approaches, both groups remain at risk of environmental exposure due to long-term pesticide application in the region,” the authors write. They continue, “While organic farming practices may reduce direct exposure to synthetic agrochemicals, the risk of cross-contamination from surrounding conventional farms remains a concern due to environmental dispersion through soil, water, and air.”

Farmers, farmworkers, and their families across the globe face disproportionate risks from pesticide exposure. (See more here and here.) As previously shared in Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News, Disproportionate Pesticide Hazards to Farmworkers and People of Color Documented. . .Again, there is a long history of documented hazards and government failure to protect farmworkers from pesticide use in agriculture. Farmworkers, some of whom can be pesticide applicators, often live very near the fields and orchards where pesticides are applied. These chemicals are prone to drift and can volatilize (evaporate/disperse), causing nontarget exposure to humans, wildlife, and the environment. (See additional Daily News coverage on farmworkers here.)

Within the current study, the researchers note that an increasing number of farmers in the Cameron Highlands are responding to the growing concerns of adverse health impacts tied to prolonged exposure to the harmful chemicals used in conventional agriculture, with many transitioning to organic farming. “However, despite these efforts to reduce synthetic agrochemical exposure, organic farmers remain susceptible to environmental contamination from neighbouring conventional farms,” the authors write.

The use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers in conventional agriculture represents not only a direct occupational exposure route to trace elements for those who apply the chemicals, but it is a source of contamination to those in the surrounding environment. These elements are bioaccumulative, with both acute and chronic health effects.

In the study, hair and nail samples are analyzed for essential metals such as sodium (Na), magnesium (Mg), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), which “are crucial for various physiological functions, including enzymatic reactions, cellular metabolism, and immune regulation, but must remain within optimal ranges to prevent deficiencies or toxicity,” the researchers state. (See research here.)

They continue: “Conversely, toxic metals such as chromium (Cr), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), lead (Pb) pose significant health risks due to their ability to bioaccumulate and cause neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and metabolic disturbances. These elements exhibit distinct toxicokinetic [how a substance moves through the body and relates to its toxic effects] properties; some disrupt essential biochemical pathways, while others contribute to cumulative toxicity with prolonged exposure.” (See studies here and here.)

In using hair and nails as biological samples, this reflects longer-term, cumulative exposure for trace elements, unlike blood or urine, which only account for recent exposure. As the study authors point out, “Hair sequesters trace elements over weeks, while nails, due to their slower growth rate, reflect exposure over several months.”

The participants in the study include vegetable farmers who have lived and worked in the study area for at least 12 months and are between 18 and 60 years of age. The organic farmers, 15 of the 62 total farmers, were also required to have experience in organic agriculture, with no use of synthetic agrochemicals for at least the past year, while the conventional farmers, the remaining 47 participants, reported routine use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.

The results reveal significant differences in trace element concentrations between the farmers of conventional and organic farms. “Overall, conventional farmers exhibited higher median concentrations of most toxic elements compared to organic farmers,” the authors state. Specifically, in the hair samples, chromium levels are significantly higher in conventional farmers, with elevated mercury levels noted as well. Of the essential elements, iron and sodium were both slightly higher in organic farmers, which can be attributed to variations in soil management and fertilizer use. These variations between the two groups suggest a strong link between agrochemical uses and exposure.

Within the nail samples, zinc levels are significantly higher in conventional farmers compared to organic farmers, which shows a link between conventional farming practices and exposure to this element in excess from zinc-enriched products. “For conventional farmers, continuous exposure to zinc through fertilizers, pesticides, and soil contact over time may lead to its accumulation in the body, which is reflected in higher zinc concentrations in nail samples,” the authors explain. Of the toxic elements, the conventional farmers also show higher mean concentrations of chromium, manganese, lead, and mercury in their nails as compared to organic farmers.

“However, the detection of certain trace elements in both groups highlights the impact of shared environmental contamination, driven by historical and ongoing pesticide and fertilizer use in the highlands,” the researchers state. They continue: “[T]oxic elements such as arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), and lead (Pb) did not differ significantly between the two groups, although median levels were slightly higher among conventional farmers… [B]oth groups showed overlapping exposure profiles, potentially due to shared environmental background contamination in this pesticide-intensive highland region.”

The long-standing use of pesticides and fertilizers within the region plays a critical role in exposure to contaminants for all farmers and residents. “Despite having different farming methods, agrochemicals’ historical and ongoing use has contaminated soils and caused environmental interactions that have an impact on both conventional and organic farmers,” the authors conclude.

They continue: “This shared environmental exposure can mask the potential impact of farming practices, leading to similar levels of these toxic elements in both groups… The potential cross-contamination raises concerns about the exposure risk for all farmers in the region and emphasizes the need for improved safety measures, environmental monitoring, and sustainable farming practices.”

The shared contamination in the environment through farmland soils, atmospheric dispersion, and water sources highlights the urgent need to fully transition agriculture to sustainable methods. Previous research suggests “that pesticide drift, contaminated irrigation systems, and soil leaching facilitate the unintended transfer of synthetic agrochemicals and trace elements, undermining the benefits of organic farming.” (See studies here and here.)

Beyond Pesticides has extensively covered the multitude of health and environmental benefits of organic land management practices. These benefits are not only for farmers and farmworkers, but for all consumers, wildlife, and the ecosystems in which they depend upon. Regenerative organic agriculture provides soil health benefits (see Daily News here), as well as mitigates the current crises of climate change and biodiversity (see here and here). These methods result in both more nutritious food and higher crop yields, as shown in scientific literature covered in the Daily News Sixteen Year Field Trial Shows Organic Corn Outcompetes Chemical-Intensive Fields in Kenya.

Additional research, highlighted in Study Demonstrates Health Benefits of Organic Diet Over That Consumed with Toxic Pesticides, shows how adopting a fully organic diet can reduce pesticide levels in urine within just two weeks, “by an average of 98.6%” and facilitate faster DNA damage repair relative to a diet of food grown with chemical-intensive practices. These benefits, however, as documented in the current study, can be overshadowed by the widespread contamination that occurs with chemical-intensive methods.

The findings in this study reinforce the urgent need for a full transition to organic in both agriculture and land management to protect the health of all individuals.  >> Tell Congress To Restore Funding that Protects the Health of Farmers, Farmworkers, and Families.

To stay up-to-date on the latest news and opportunities to lend your voice to the organic solution, sign up now to get Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered right to your inbox! Support Beyond Pesticides’ holistic mission of ending the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by becoming a member today.

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

Source:

How, V. et al. (2025) Evaluation of trace element in the hair and nail samples of conventional and organic farmers in pesticide-treated highland villages, Environmental Geochemistry and Health. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10653-025-02635-1.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 4, 2025) Comments on EPA proposal to bring back controversial use of herbicide dicamba due by Saturday, September 6, 2025, at 11:59 PM ET. With more than 90 percent of soybeans (also corn and the most common species of cotton) planted in varieties genetically engineered to be herbicide-tolerant, the agrichemical industry and industrial agribusiness are lining up to bring back agricultural spraying of the controversial weed killer dicamba—linked to crop damage associated with the chemical’s drifting off the target farms. The courts in 2020 and 2024 vacated EPA’s registration authorizing “over-the-top” (OTT) spraying of dicamba, leading to these uses being stopped in the 2025 growing season. (See Daily News.)             

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

The pattern of pesticide dependency, often referred to as the pesticide treadmill, continues with EPA’s latest proposal to allow the return of OTT dicamba uses, after Bayer submitted a new registration request to EPA with claims of a “low-volatility” formulation and proposed product label changes. Bayer, in a statement cited in Progressive Farmer on dicamba’s use in genetically engineered crops, said, ”This technology provides tremendous value to soybean and cotton farmers across the U.S.” Recognizing the continuing problem of target weed resistance to the weed killers, the American Soybean Association is quoted by the news outlet, saying, “Dicamba is a critical crop-protection tool for soybean farmers, particularly in managing herbicide-resistant weeds like Palmer amaranth.” The court decision cites survey data that finds “weed resistance is not being effectively managed,” as required by dicamba’s original registration.

Despite the history of dicamba drift and a history of failed weed resistance management in genetically engineered crops, EPA is now considering three new dicamba registrations that continue use of the chemical in its most drift-prone uses. As a result, Beyond Pesticides is calling on the public to: Tell EPA to ban use of dicamba and other drift-prone herbicides.

Pesticide drift harms people, crops, and wildlife. Although the term “drift” applies to airborne movement off the target site, pesticides may also move as runoff and in soil carried by water or wind. Drift may consist of particles or droplets of pesticide as it is applied or vapors that evaporate and are carried in the air. Farmers and applicators may take steps to avoid drift—including buffer zones, thickening agents, and attention to wind direction—but drift-prone pesticides like dicamba are not adequately controlled by these actions. Those harmed by the drift are generally not those whose crops are sprayed, so the risk-benefit analysis pits farmer against farmer, neighbor against neighbor, with one case involving a murder resulting from a dispute over crop damage. The manufacturers of dicamba-based herbicides—who also sell seeds of crops engineered to tolerate dicamba—benefit from this conflict, as farmers buy the engineered seeds in an effort to defend themselves against drift damage, a strategy encouraged by pesticide manufacturers.

Despite findings of dicamba’s harm and EPA failure to comply with standards, the continued use of the weed killer through the 2024 growing season was effectively authorized in a decision of the U.S. District Court of Arizona, which vacated the EPA’s 2021 authorization of the use of three OTT uses of dicamba-based herbicide products. In response, EPA issued an existing stocks order, with a February 2024 stop sale order and allowances of state-specific end-uses through spring and early summer of 2024. It is this decision that will effectively be overturned by Bayer’s and EPA’s changes to the products’ registrations and labels, despite concerns about the limited effectiveness of the proposed changes.

Now, proposed registrations would allow those uses to continue. The docket on these registrations is open for comment until September 6. (See Beyond Pesticides’ comments from August 2025.)

The proposed labels allow for application preplant, at-planting, preemergent, and post-emergent (in-crop) for broadleaf weeds. There are label restrictions purporting to reduce drift damage, but they are subject to exceptions. For example, there is a downwind buffer of 240 feet—though “downwind” may change during application as well as post-application when vapor drift is likely. The buffer distance may be reduced by reducing the number of passes when applied to fields, presence of a windbreak, or use of directed spray equipment. Additional mitigation measures include prohibiting aerial application and temperature restrictions. The maximum allowed temperature during and following application depends on the concentration of additives to reduce drift and volatilization, but may be as high as 95°F. The new proposed uses, since they increase use of dicamba and subsequent harm from pesticide drift, should be denied for failure to meet the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requirement of no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. 

Increasing global temperatures have become an important factor in pesticide exposure, resulting from the volatilization of dicamba and pesticides generally. All dicamba formulations have the potential to volatilize, since dicamba has a high vapor pressure. Increases in air temperature can cause dicamba to turn into a gas even after successful application on target surfaces. Since volatilization increases with an increase in temperature, this exposure route is more and more concerning as temperatures are rising higher each year and the length, intensity, and onset of seasons have changed with the climate crisis. The longer and hotter summers will exacerbate dicamba volatilization; therefore, any proposal that allows dicamba application in late Spring and Summer will lead to more drift—especially for post-emergent and over-the-top applications. 

Although pesticides are by definition harmful, critics say that what makes these adverse effects “unreasonable” is the existence of an alternative—an organic production system—that does not harm human health, other species, or ecosystems and, in addition, helps to mitigate climate change. In this context, these critics argue that EPA’s registration decisions for dicamba and other pesticides must use organic production as a yardstick, denying any use for which organic production is successful. 

Tell EPA to ban use of dicamba and other drift-prone herbicides.

Comment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Dicamba is a drift-prone herbicide that has proved to be extremely difficult to control by regulation. EPA is now considering three new dicamba registrations that continue use of the chemical in its most drift-prone application uses.

Pesticide drift harms people, crops, and wildlife. The term “drift” applies to airborne movement off the target site—though pesticides may also move as runoff and in soil carried by water or wind. Drift may consist of particles or droplets of pesticide as it is applied or vapors that evaporate and are carried in the air. Farmers and applicators may take steps to avoid drift—including buffer zones, thickening agents, and attention to wind direction—but drift-prone pesticides like dicamba are not adequately controlled by these actions. Those harmed by the drift are generally not those whose crops are sprayed, so the risk-benefit analysis pits farmer against farmer, neighbor against neighbor, even resulting in a murder. 

The manufacturers of dicamba-based herbicides—who also sell seeds of crops engineered to tolerate dicamba—benefit from this conflict, as farmers buy the engineered seeds in an effort to defend themselves against drift damage, a strategy encouraged by pesticide manufacturers.

Despite a finding of dicamba’s harm and EPA’s failure to comply with standards, EPA proposes registrations that would allow those uses to continue.

The proposed labels allow for application preplant, at-planting, preemergent, and post-emergent (in-crop) for broadleaf weeds. There are label restrictions purporting to reduce drift damage, but they are subject to exceptions. For example, there is a downwind buffer of 240 feet—though “downwind” may change during application as well as post-application when vapor drift is likely. The buffer distance may be reduced by reducing the number of passes when applied to fields, presence of a windbreak, or use of directed spray equipment. The maximum allowed temperature during and following application depends on the concentration of additives to reduce drift and volatilization, but may be as high as 95°F. The new proposed uses, since they increase use of dicamba and subsequent harm from pesticide drift, should be denied for failure to meet the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requirement of no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.

Although pesticides are by definition harmful, what makes these adverse effects “unreasonable” is the existence of an alternative—an organic production system—that does not harm human health, other species, or ecosystems and, in addition, helps to mitigate climate change. In its registration decisions, EPA must use organic production as a yardstick, denying any use for which organic production is successful. This includes the proposed uses.

Increasing global temperatures also need to be considered. All dicamba formulations have the potential to volatilize since dicamba has a high vapor pressure. Increases in air temperature can cause dicamba to turn into a gas even after successful application on target surfaces. Since volatilization increases as temperatures increase, this is more and more concerning as temperatures are rising higher each year. The length, intensity, and onset of seasons have changed, which can be attributed to climate change. The longer and hotter summers will exacerbate dicamba volatilization; therefore, any proposal that allows dicamba application in late Spring and Summer will lead to more drift—especially for post-emergent and over-the-top applications.

EPA must not approve the proposed expanded use of dicamba and must cancel uses of all drift-prone pesticides.

Thank you.

View this document on Regulations gov [EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0154-1233]. By submitting a comment, you agree to the terms of participation and privacy notice of Regulations.gov.

*UPDATED and Photo Correction: August 18, 2025. This Daily News has been updated to reflect the comment deadline extension from August 22 to September 6. We have also updated the photo for the piece to reflect EPA’s proposed allowance of ground spraying and prohibition of aerial application, as indicated in the text of the article. As we note in the article, pesticide applications drift through air currents picking up the sprayed chemical, or as a result of volatility off the treated surfaces, and move long distances depending on the weather conditions.*

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 1, 2025) On June 30, Kyle Kunkler started work as deputy assistant administrator for pesticides in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Mr. Kunkler is an experienced agribusiness lobbyist, having come directly from the American Soybean Association, where he was director of government affairs. He joins Nancy Beck, PhD, herself a migrant from the American Chemistry Council. Not coincidentally, a mere three weeks after Mr. Kunkler’s appointment, EPA opened the floodgates to allow use of the controversial herbicide dicamba to flow unrestricted once again through the nation’s ecosystems. Dicamba has been associated with phytotoxic crop/plant damage (leaf damage, stunted growth, or death) and cancer. Three formulations of the herbicide whose registrations had been vacated via litigation will be reinstated by EPA after a public comment period that expires on August 22 at 11:59 PM EDT.

Dicamba is manifestly one of the worst ideas the pesticide industry has ever devised, according to many farmers and pesticide safety advocates. Because of resistance to other herbicides, pesticide scientists developed the “[insert pesticide]-ready” concept in which a crop plant is genetically engineered to resist exposure to a herbicide, “Roundup-Ready” seeds being the most obvious example, so that the herbicide can be sprayed liberally on fields to kill all other susceptible plants. Dicamba plus dicamba-ready seeds follow this pattern. The application technique is called “over-the-top” (OTT) because it is sprayed directly above resistant plants to kill target plants around them.

Introduced in 1967, dicamba rapidly showed itself to be associated with extensive crop damage. A 1969 study in Weed Science compared damage to soybeans from 2,4-D, picloram and dicamba. The authors wrote, “[E]xperience with dicamba and picloram indicates that these compounds may have far greater potential for damage to nearby soybean fields. Spray or vapor drift into nearby soybean fields might seriously damage soybeans.” In fact, dicamba is extremely volatile compared to other herbicides like glyphosate and 2,4-D. Because of its propensity to volatilize and drift, EPA registered it initially only for use in late winter or early spring.

In 2016, EPA registered three “less volatile” forms of dicamba when Monsanto marketed genetically engineered soybean and cotton seeds, largely because weeds were by then resistant to glyphosate. But within a year, the damage was staggering. State agriculture departments reported 2,708 official crop injury investigations to EPA. Between 2021 and 2023, that number approached 3,500. In 2017, at least 5 million acres of non-dicamba-resistant soybeans in 24 states were damaged; the next year, 15 million acres were struck. Downwind specialty crops and, actually, anything that was not dicamba-ready soybean or cotton, faltered or failed.

The pesticide industry claimed to have solved the spray drift problem by adding ammonia compounds called amines to their formulations. Amines were supposed to increase solubility and tamp down dicamba’s extreme volatility. Beyond Pesticides reported on a study in 2022 in Environmental Science & Technology that tracked the environmental behavior of the amines used in dicamba, 2,4-D, and glyphosate. As the pesticide application dried, more amines than pesticides entered the atmosphere. Amines in the air oxidize to form the potent carcinogens nitrosamines and nitroamines. Because at least half of glyphosate and 2,4-D and almost 90% of dicamba formulations contain amines, the “solution” to the spray drift problem is yet another example of the endless chain of pesticide-created threats to ecosystem and human health.

And dicamba itself is no Good Witch Glinda. As Beyond Pesticides noted last year, “[T]here is a strong association between dicamba use and increased risk of developing various cancers, including liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and acute myeloid leukemia. In the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management entry for Dicamba, there is a slew of medical studies detailing adverse health and environmental effects, including neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, sensitization/irritation, birth/developmental defects, reproductive damage, and respiratory illnesses.” And because dicamba kills nontarget plants, including trees and critical pollinator species, entire ecosystems are at risk.

The initial registrations for the claimed “low-volatility” OTT dicamba products were set to expire in 2018, but EPA granted extensions with some rather complicated and difficult-to-enforce restrictions on application conditions. A group of environmental stakeholders petitioned the Ninth Circuit to review EPA’s action. In June 2020, the court found that EPA violated the Federal Fungicide, Insecticide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in six ways. The next week EPA canceled all OTT uses of dicamba—for a mere four months. In October, EPA abruptly, and without notice to any adversarial stakeholder, reregistered all three products unconditionally for five years. The Center for Biological Diversity and others sued EPA and Bayer CropScience. In February 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona re-vacated the 2020 registrations for the three “low-volatility” dicamba products. This once again made the sale and use of these products illegal.

Just as with the tobacco industry and innumerable other chemical industry strategies, the companies that had developed dicamba and its resistant seeds—BASF and Monsanto—covered up dicamba’s dirty little secret in their pitches to growers. An Investigate MidWest report in 2020 revealed that Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) knew there would be massive crop kills. Monsanto’s own pre-market tests revealed so much spray drift that Monsanto simply suspended the tests. The company subsequently gave Midwest farmers an offer they could not refuse: either buy Monsanto’s dicamba-ready soybean and cotton seeds, or expect their own crops to die, according to Investigate MidWest.

Dicamba use will inevitably surge if EPA is not stopped from this policy change. But for those hoping to resist its damage, it is getting even easier to detect dicamba spray drift. Researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign have developed a method to detect and measure dicamba’s damage to soybeans at one ten-thousandth of the amount prescribed for application as long as eight days after application. The team used drones fitted with cameras, but are now working on adapting the spectroscopic signature of dicamba to satellite imagery. It will also be applicable to dicamba spray drift injury to any plant cover, from trees to ornamental shrubs and other plants.

Many plants are exquisitely sensitive to dicamba at very low concentrations. There is evidence that even residues left over in spray applicator reservoirs can be enough to harm plants being sprayed with some other pesticide. A 2019 study by scientists at the University of Missouri examined the effects of 2,4-D and dicamba with or without glyphosate on a large set of ornamental, fruit, and nut species. They tested three levels of exposure, or driftable rates, as fractions of the manufacturer’s labeled rates for each of the four chemical formulations. Visual injuries were seen at up to 1/200^th of the manufacturer’s labeled rate for both dicamba and 2,4-D. These did not change the plants’ survival, but likely made them unmarketable. At higher concentrations, there were changes in shoot length and trunk diameter as well as malformed leaves. The most sensitive species to all the herbicides was grapevine—bad news for viniculture everywhere—but apple, peach, elderberry, dogwood, maple, oak, and viburnum were also extremely sensitive to dicamba.

The EPA’s July 23 announcement claims it “has conducted a robust human health risk assessment for these proposed products and has not identified any human health or dietary risks of concern,” nor any “risks of concern for aquatic invertebrates, fish or aquatic plants,” and only “low risk for honeybees and other non-listed bees from the proposed uses of dicamba.” It also includes proposed “mitigation measures,” including a requirement not to apply dicamba at temperatures above 95 degrees Fahrenheit and to maintain a 240-foot downwind buffer. Several comments on EPA’s regulations page note that the temperature requirement will be impossible to conform to because of the unpredictable nature of weather conditions and the importance of applying pesticides at the right time in the crop cycle. Nor will climate change be reducing the number of 95-degree days any time soon. A 240-foot buffer does not appear to be nearly large enough to contain spray drift that can travel up to at least two to three miles.

The saga of dicamba also reflects the current administration’s efforts to deregulate chemicals. It seems unlikely that the agency’s forthcoming registration rationale will be more restrictive than the ones that have already failed it twice, in the district and appeals courts. It appears EPA is going to claim that further instructions to users—such as wearing long-sleeved shirts, long pants, and socks and shoes—will suffice to solve any downsides to dicamba. The agency clearly is choosing winners and losers here: pesticide companies and large soybean and cotton operations are the winners, while farmers of the vast number of vital food crops and ornamental and specialty plants will be left holding their shrinking investments, leaf by wilting leaf. And since the agency has already decided there are no health or environmental risks associated with dicamba, those risks will likely be completely ignored as well.

The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which shares some values and goals with the organic and regenerative agriculture community, is coming into conflict with corporate power both directly and through its influence on lawmakers. President Trump appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has attacked the pesticide industry for years, as Secretary of Health and Human Services and created a Make America Healthy Again Commission. To encourage the administration to adopt more restrictive pesticide regulations, the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a petition to the President, Secretary Kennedy and the commission last April to significantly alter EPA, FDA and USDA rules concerning pesticide residues on foods and to require USDA to subsidize crop insurance for farmers pledging to eliminate use of many pesticides, including glyphosate, atrazine, paraquat and several neonicotinoids, according to a Civil Eats analysis. This prompted pushback in a letter to the commission from 79 U.S. senators from both parties worried that “safe, well-regulated agricultural inputs” —namely, pesticides—would be banned under a MAHA administration. Beyond Pesticides issued the action: Tell HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to revise the memorandum of agreement with EPA on pesticide residues in food and set protective levels.

Mr. Kunkler’s appointment and EPA’s reversal on dicamba indicate that the Trump administration is siding with industry interests. In May, Mr. Kennedy assured the Senate Appropriations Committee that he was not going to “jeopardize” the “business model” represented by corn and glyphosate. Clearly Kennedy’s promises to reform pesticide policy are likely to die on the vine—killed by the spray drift from the pesticide industry.

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

Sources:

EPA Announces Proposed Decision to Approve Registration for New Uses of Dicamba, Outlines New Measures to Protect Human Health, Environment
Environmental Protection Agency July 23, 2025
https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-announces-proposed-decision-approve-registration-new-uses-dicamba-outlines-new

EPA Hires Farm and Pesticide Lobbyist to Oversee Pesticide Regulation
Lisa Held
Civil Eats June 30, 2025
https://civileats.com/2025/06/30/epa-hires-farm-and-pesticide-lobbyist-to-oversee-pesticide-regulation/

Court Strikes Down EPA’s Allowance of Weedkiller Dicamba after Scathing Inspector General Report
Beyond Pesticides, February 13, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/02/court-strikes-down-epas-allowance-of-weedkiller-dicamba-after-scathing-inspector-general-report/

Chemicals Added to Herbicides to Reduce Drift Actually Drift Themselves, Are Significant Air Pollutants
Beyond Pesticides, November 2, 2022
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2022/11/chemicals-added-to-herbicides-to- reduce-drift-actually-drift-themselves-and-represent-significant-source-of-air-pollution/

‘Buy it or else’: Inside Monsanto and BASF’s moves to force dicamba on farmers
Johnathan Hettinger
Investigate Midwest December 4, 2020
https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/12/04/buy-it-or-else-inside-monsanto-and-basfs-moves-to-force-dicamba-on-farmers/

Dicamba: concerns about health risks and crop damage
Carey Gillam
U.S. Right to Know July 23, 2025
https://usrtk.org/pesticides/dicamba/

Scientists warned this weed killer would destroy crops. EPA approved it anyway
Liza Gross
Reveal News November 13, 2018
https://revealnews.org/article/scientists-warned-this-weed-killer-would-destroy-crops-epa-approved-it-anyway/

New research detects dicamba damage from sky
AgriNews July 24, 2025
https://www.agrinews-pubs.com/news/science/2025/07/24/new-research-detects-dicamba-damage-from-sky/

(Beyond Pesticides, July 31, 2025) A study published in Environmental Advances finds that hundreds of honeybee hives across central and northern Italy are contaminated with various pesticides and their metabolites, including glyphosate and fosetyl. 

“There was no significant difference in glyphosate presence between dead/dying and live bees, suggesting chronic exposure rather than acute toxicity. However, higher pesticide concentrations in dead/dying bees indicate potential sublethal effects contributing to colony distress,” according to the authors. This peer-reviewed study builds on the mounting evidence outlined in the literature connecting pesticide residues to nontarget harm to pollinators and other insects and animals that are critical to biodiversity.

Background and Methodology

“The primary objectives of this study were to develop and validate a reliable, sensitive method for analyzing polar pesticides [highly soluble in water] in honeybees and to investigate polar pesticides residue levels in honeybees across northern and central Italy,” say the researchers of this study, who conduct research at the Experimental Zooprophylactic Institute of Lombardy and Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Experimental Zooprophylactic Institute of Umbria and Marche “Togo Rosati”, and Experimental Zooprophylactic Institute of Lazio and Tuscany “M. Aleandri.”

314 honeybee samples were gathered voluntarily from local beekeepers in six regions of northern and central Italy—Lombardy, Emilia Romagna, Lazio, Tuscany, Umbria, and Marche. Two sample types—dead or dying bees and live bees from healthy hives—enable a comparison of contamination levels based on bee mortality and sublethal effects. Four pesticides and their associated metabolites are the focus of this study. They include the weed killer glyphosate (its major metabolite/breakdown chemical AMPA [Aminomethylphosphonic acid], N-acetyl-AMPA, and N-acetyl-glyphosate), fosetyl (Phosphonic acid), glufosinate (NAG [N-acetyl-glufosinate] and MPPA [3-Methylphosphonicpropionic acid] and ethephon (HEPA [Ethephon hydroxy]). These pesticides were targeted because they are considered polar pesticides, meaning that they are more challenging to analyze due to their small molecular size and water solubility.

There were two primary analytical tools, LC-MS/MS (Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry) and IC-HRMS (Ion Chromatography-High Resolution Mass Spectrometry), used to address this obstacle. The first tool was used in Umbria, Marche, Lazio, and Tuscany to identify the herbicides glyphosate, ethephon, glufosinate, fosetyl, and their metabolites (AMPA, N-acetyl-AMPA, HEPA, MPPA, NAG). Meanwhile, the second tool was used in Lombardy and Emilia Romagna and can also identify N-acetyl-glyphosate and phosphonic acid. Financial support was provided by the Italian Ministry of Health, but otherwise the authors declared “no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.”

Results and Discussion

The researchers identified eight notable findings in developing their research.

1. Glyphosate was found in 33.4 percent of samples, making it the most frequently detected pesticide in this study;
2. There was no significant distinction between glyphosate residues in dead/dying bees and healthy, live beehives; however, sublethal effects are possible, considering that average concentrations were higher in the former group;
3. Fosetyl contamination was localized to Emilia Romagna and some in Lombardy, with 85 percent of fosetyl-positive samples also containing glyphosate;
4. Glufosinate and ethephon were never detected in the samples;
5. There was co-occurrence of multiple pesticides, including 16 percent of all samples containing both glyphosate and fosetyl;
6. Higher pesticide detection correlated with herbicide-intensive regions;
7. This study validated the dual methodology of LC-MS/MS and IC-HRMS since it was the first large-scale application of these methods in Italy; and,
8. The health of honeybees can be considered an effective bioindicator when it comes to ecological and human health.

For additional information and analysis, please consider reading the Results and Discussion sections.

Previous Research

A recently published study in Royal Society Open Science shows intraspecific differences (between individuals of a species) in wild bumblebees (Bombus vosnesenskii) exposed to glyphosate, a fungicide (tebuconazole), and an insecticide (imidacloprid), with gut microbiome health as a factor. In collecting 175 individuals of this wild, foraging species from an alpine meadow, a valley lake shoreline, and a suburban park and exposing them to a diet with individual pesticides and mixtures, the researchers assess the varying lethal and sublethal effects that can occur with pesticide exposure. (See Daily News here.) A 2024 research article in Biology Letters, published by The Royal Society, finds that the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid disrupts survival and reproductive patterns in Bombus impatiens bumblebees. The study adds to the wide body of science highlighting how exposure to pesticides “can result in immediate mortality or cause long-term detrimental effects on pollinators‘ health, lifespan and reproductive success,” the authors state. (See Daily News here.) A different novel study published in 2025 in Chemosphere built on existing research of pesticide impacts on honeybee fertility. This study identifies impacts on male fertility in a bee species (Osmia bicornis) with exposure to sulfoxaflor, a systemic sulfoximine insecticide with similar mechanisms to neonicotinoids. “For the first time, we demonstrate that short-term chronic, field-realistic exposure to a common pesticide reduced pre-copulatory display (36%) and sounds (27%) [courtship behaviors], increased the number of copulations (+110%) and the mating duration (+166%), while finally reducing sperm quantity (25%) and mating success (43%),” the researchers report. They continue, “Our research raises considerable concern on the impact of field-realistic, low sublethal pesticide levels on the fertility and reproductive success of pollinators.” (See Daily News here.)

Bees are not the only critical wildlife species at elevated risk. A 2025 study following a mass mortality event of approximately 200 monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus plexippus) in Pacific Grove, California, highlights the role of pesticides, synthetic pyrethroids in particular, in causing lethal and sublethal effects to nontarget organisms. The research, published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, detects residues of 15 pesticides and associated metabolites in the bodies of 10 deceased butterflies collected from the January 2024 event that occurred near an overwintering site frequented by monarchs.

“On average, each monarch butterfly contained 7 pesticides,” the authors report. They continue, “Notably, three pyrethroid insecticides—bifenthrin, cypermethrin, and permethrin—were consistently detected at or near each chemical’s lethal dose (LD50).” LC50, or Lethal Concentration 50, values represent the concentrations of chemicals lethal to 50% of a test population. (See Daily News here.)

A 2025 study conducted in rural Pennsylvania and published in Environmental Entomology highlights threats to nontarget organisms from neonicotinoid insecticide exposure. Using nine different species of ground beetles as examples, the study documents sublethal behavioral effects as well as decreased week-long survival. “Based on this current study, neonicotinoid sprays and seed treatments are likely to have acute, sublethal effects on carabid beetles when applied at label-recommended rates,” the study concludes. “While neonicotinoid use is unlikely to cause direct, acute (<24 h) losses to carabid populations, exposure is likely to reduce feeding activity and longer-term (>7 d) carabid survival.” (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

At the end of this year’s Pollinator Week in June, Beyond Pesticides called on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to meet its obligations under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) by facilitating a transition to organic practices, given the unreasonable adverse effects to pollinators associated with pesticide use. If you have not already, you can take this action today! (See Daily News here and Action of the Week here.)

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

Source: Environmental Advances

(Beyond Pesticides, July 30, 2025) The definition of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence, continues to be debated in regulatory agencies, with many scientists arguing that certain types of chemicals in this vast group are not accurately captured in risk assessments. A wide body of science on the adverse health and environmental effects of PFAS exists, as these synthetic chemicals have become ubiquitous in nature, wildlife, and humans, as demonstrated by biomonitoring studies. Recent research, documented in a literature review in Environmental Science & Technology and additional articles, highlights the importance of a universal, cohesive definition of PFAS that incorporates all fluorinated compounds, including the long carbon chain PFOA (perfluorooactanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) as well as the ultrashort-chain perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs). In order to protect health and the environment from the ever-increasing threat of both long and short chain PFAS’ adverse effects, including cancer, endocrine-disrupting effects, and immune system damage, a comprehensive definition of the compounds causing harm is critical to adequate protection and regulatory decisions.

The multitude of sources of PFAS and various exposure routes leads to widespread contamination of the environment and organisms. PFAS in agriculture represents a large source, as PFAS can be pesticide active ingredients, used in the plastic containers pesticides are stored in, and as surfactants in pesticide products. Additionally, PFAS are used in many other plastic storage containers and food packaging, personal care products, nonstick cookware, cleaning supplies, treated clothing, firefighting foam, and machinery and equipment used in manufacturing—all of which contaminate food, water, soil, and the air.

A previous Daily News piece, titled “Science on ‘Forever Chemicals’ (PFAS) as Pesticide Ingredients and Contaminants Documented,” shows how and to what extent PFAS can be introduced into pesticide products, and how this impacts health and the environment. The findings are gleaned from public records requests to state and federal agencies in the U. S. and Canada, as well as from publicly accessible databases discussed in the commentary “Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment.” According to the authors: “The biggest contributor to PFAS in pesticide products was active ingredients and their degradates [chemical breakdown products]. Nearly a quarter of all U.S. conventional pesticide active ingredients were organofluorines and 14% were PFAS, and for active ingredients approved in the last 10 y[ears], this had increased to 61% organofluorines and 30% PFAS.”

In 2025 alone, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed the registration of four new PFAS active, or fluorinated, ingredients: cyclobutrifluram, isocycloseram, diflufenican, and trifludimoxazin. Beyond Pesticides’ comments to EPA regarding these chemicals, including 20 signatories on the isocycloseram submission, are available here, here, here, and here.

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

The OECD chemical definition of PFAS states:

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

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

In the literature review in Environmental Science & Technology, peer-reviewed scientific evidence points to five ultrashort-chain PFAAs as examples of harmful compounds that are historically overlooked and not included in all definitions of PFAS. The PFAAs, which all contain less than four carbon atoms, include TFA, perfluoropropanoic acid (PFPrA), trifluoromethanesulfonic acid (TFMS), perfluoroethanesulfonate (PFEtS), and perfluoropropanesulfonate (PFPrS). Of these, TFA is the smallest perfluoroalkyl acid with only two carbon atoms.

The authors report: “Our data mining and analysis reveal that (1) ultrashort-chain PFAAs are globally distributed in various environments including water bodies, solid matrices, and air, with concentrations usually higher than those of longer-chain compounds; (2) TFA, the most extensively studied ultrashort-chain PFAA, shows a consistent upward trend in concentrations in surface water, rainwater, and air over the past three decades; and (3) ultrashort-chain PFAAs are present in various organisms, including plants, wildlife, and human blood, serum, and urine, with concentrations sometimes similar to those of longer-chain compounds.”

Ultrashort-chain PFAAs are created both intentionally and unintentionally as byproducts through the process of the synthesis of other PFAS and are not captured in all regulatory assessments. Yet, studies extensively document the presence of ultrashort-chain PFAAs in water, soil, air, and dust. One study finds both TFA and PFPrA (perfluoropropionic acid) in ice caps in remote locations, showing the widespread contamination present with these compounds.

Like other PFAS with long chains of carbon atoms, ultrashort-chain PFAAs are very stable due to carbon-fluorine bonds. The shorter-chain compounds, however, have unique properties that create additional threats. With increased hydrophilicity (attraction to water) and enhanced water solubility (ability to dissolve), ultrashort-chain PFAAs within global waterways and the atmosphere are more easily able to circulate and be widely distributed. An additional risk with ultrashort-chain PFAAs contamination in water is that these properties result in ineffective removal by conventional water treatment methods.

A study in Northern California reports that TFA concentrations in surface water increased by an average of 6-fold between 1998 to 2021. Additional research finds ultrashort-chain PFAAs omnipresent in groundwater throughout North America, Europe, and Asia, with TFA as the most detected compound. (See here, here, here, and here.)

Drinking water is also an exposure route for ultrashort-chain PFAAs that threaten human health. Research finds both tap water and bottled water contamination in the U.S. and China. (See studies here, here, here, and here.) A study of dust and drinking water samples from residential homes in Indiana, as well as blood and urine samples of the residents, shows TFA as the predominant PFAS in all of the samples, also noting the concentrations surpass those of longer-chain compounds.

Previous scientific literature indicates PFAS can cross into the placenta and accumulate in the fetus, with a higher potential for short-chain PFAS revealed in recent research. (See here, here, and here.) While some researchers have hypothesized that ultrashort-chain PFAAs have a lower risk of bioaccumulation in animals than compounds with longer chains, studies find evidence that they accumulate within plants, wildlife, and humans at comparable or elevated levels. (See studies here, here, here, and here.) The presence of these compounds in food sources throughout various trophic levels poses a risk to both humans and ecological health.

Proving further evidence of TFA’s prevalence and subsequent health threats, a viewpoint article in ACS ES&T Water highlights additional scientific research. One study identifies several fluorinated pharmaceuticals and pesticides in sewage sludge (biosolids) that transform into TFA, which contributes to the long list of sources for exposure to ultrashort-chain PFAAs.

Another study assesses TFA formation from “plant protection products” (PPP), another name for pesticides, across Europe, the U.S., and China. The results find that any PPPs that contain trifluoromethyl groups can lead to substantial TFA emissions. The study also finds higher levels of TFA from groundwater monitoring data that correlate with agricultural areas.

Daily News coverage of pesticide contamination in waterways highlights the most recent report on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in which PFAS are recognized as a contaminant of concern. The report notes, “Within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, PFAS were detected in every smallmouth bass plasma sample amongst four varying land use locations (agriculture versus developed land).” This adds to the growing body of research identifying the deleterious effects of PFAS on ecosystems and individual species, including humans.

The Daily News also points out that despite the evidence and EPA’s own admission of PFAS’s toxicities, the number of products containing PFAS is burgeoning out of control to replace banned organochlorines, such as DDT and methoxychlor. In 2020, fluorinated agrochemicals comprised about nine percent of the pesticide market, and have now reached almost 70 percent of newly-approved pesticides, according to a 2025 review in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

A guest editorial piece in Archives of Toxicology also references the upward trend in PFAS contamination, including ultrashort-chain PFAS (US-PFAS) like TFA. The authors conclude that: “[R]egulatory agencies should unify in the classification of US-PFAS within the broader category of PFAS. The current omission of TFA and TFMS [trifluoromethanesulfonic acid] from the EPA PFAS definition contributes to different regulatory strategies between Europe and the United States and hinders a unified and standardized approach to this global growing problem.”

The authors of the ACS ES&T Water viewpoint piece agree, saying: “As the scientific community grapples with the challenges posed by TFA and other ultra-short-chain PFAS, there is a growing consensus on the need for more comprehensive research and regulatory action… The emerging concerns surrounding TFA and other ultra-short-chain PFAS call for a reevaluation of our approach to chemical regulation and environmental protection.”

The persistence and pervasiveness of these compounds are public health and environmental threats that cannot be ignored. “As we continue to unravel the complex environmental fate and potential health impacts of TFA, it is crucial that we adopt a precautionary approach, prioritizing research into safer alternatives,” the researchers summarize.

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

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

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

Source:

Jagani, R. et al. (2025) Trifluoroacetic Acid: An Ultra-Short PFAS with Emerging Environmental and Public Health Concerns, ACS ES&T Water. Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestwater.5c00599.

Maerten, A. et al. (2025) Tiny molecules, big concerns: ultrashort-chain PFAS on the regulatory radar, Archives of Toxicology. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-025-04126-9.

Sigmund, G. et al. (2025) Scientists’ Statement on the Chemical Definition of PFASs, Environmental Science & Technology Letters. Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00478.

Zhi, Y. et al. (2024) Environmental Occurrence and Biotic Concentrations of Ultrashort-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Acids: Overlooked Global Organofluorine Contaminants, Environmental Science & Technology. Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c04453.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 29, 2025) Are neurological diseases increasing around the world? Yes and no, according to a report published by The Lancet in 2024 on the global burden of nervous system diseases between 1990 and 2021. About 3 billion—a third of the world’s people—suffer from some nervous system condition. These diseases cause 11 million deaths and 443 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), which are a measure of the years lost to illness, disability, or early death. Neurological disorders are now the world’s largest source of disability.

The Lancet report does not include an analysis of the role of pesticides in the burden of neurological disease worldwide, although environmental health research continues to expand the evidence that pesticide exposure is a major contributor to that burden. The Lancet report indicates that DALYs from Parkinson’s disease have increased by 10 percent, and autism spectrum disorder and dementia by 2 percent each. Multiple sclerosis has declined by 11 percent, according to the report. Importantly, most of the improvement has come from medical interventions, not prevention—in other words, people are living longer with the diseases rather than avoiding them altogether. But this is not true globally: The burden of disease, and particularly premature death, rests most heavily on the developing world, where medical interventions are much more scarce. A focus on prevention would be a more equitable approach to the problem. See Beyond Pesticides’ deep archive of the evidence on pesticides and neurological diseases in Pesticide-Induced Diseases: Brain and Nervous System Disorders section. Our Gateway on Pesticide Hazards is also invaluable for information about specific pesticides and their adverse health effects.

The Lancet’s big picture does not demonstrate that the burden of pesticide-induced neurological disease is declining. Such a decline seems a logical impossibility, given that more and more people are chronically exposed to more and more pesticides, and more and more research is establishing both population-level and mechanistic evidence of pesticides’ influence on disease induction and outcome, including neurological disorders.

A recent review by Chinese researchers demonstrates that there is no category of pesticide—not herbicides, not fungicides, not insecticides—that does not contribute to neurological dysfunction. The authors recite numerous examples: the herbicide glyphosate affects both cognitive and motor functions. The fungicides tebuconazole and azoxystrobin are associated with neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders. Organophosphate insecticides lead to sensory disruption, emotional disturbances, and neurodevelopmental problems. Several “natural” chemicals, including rotenone and the plant growth regulators gibberellic acid and indole-3-butyric acid, affect the expression of some neurologically relevant enzymes. One research group found that the insect repellent DEET applied to rats’ skin killed their neurons.

The review examines studies showing pesticides’ neurological damage relevant to long-term exposures, rather than the usual acute exposures that form the outdated regulatory toxicological approach to pesticide hazards and risks. The studies considered encompass pre-clinical research, including in vivo studies involving both humans and animals—as well as in vitro experiments with molecular processes common to both, along with results from clinical and epidemiological studies.

In all, the authors include 47 preclinical and 40 clinical reports involving about 30 pesticides, singly and in combination, including all the major groups. Their analysis shows that the cellular and molecular mechanisms by which pesticides cause neurotoxicity are many and varied. For example, glyphosate produces high levels of inflammatory cytokines in the brains of mice. Rotenone likely disrupts the blood-brain barrier and causes neurons to commit suicide in rodents and aquatic organisms. The organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos and the herbicide atrazine affect neurons in the hippocampus region of the brain, which is important to memory. Deltamethrin, a pyrethroid insecticide, likewise affects the hippocampus by preventing new neurons from forming and distressing neurons’ endoplasmic reticulum (cells’ internal transportation and structural system). The fungicide tebuconazole disturbs the gut-brain axis, affecting learning and memory. The organophosphate malathion produces neuroinflammation, cognitive deficits, and amyloid beta deposition in neurons reminiscent of Alzheimer’s disease. Virtually every neonicotinoid insecticide affects the vital neurotransmitter acetylcholine’s functioning. The review’s recitation of pesticides associated with Parkinson’s disease and dementias is too long to mention here.

It is important to note that many of the pesticides included in the review are no longer registered for use in the United States and other countries (e.g., endosulfan, DDT, carbofuran, maneb), but this is cold comfort, because most of these are so persistent that they continue to expose millions of people long after their discontinuance. This is a problem in indoor environments where organochlorine insecticides like carbofuran and DDT were used in the past. Many old pesticides still linger in soils as well.

But it is also clear that newer pesticides present gross risks to humans and ecosystems. Pesticide use has doubled globally since 1990, according to an analysis by the Food and Agriculture Organization, with the greatest jump—from about a million tons in 1990 to about 2.75 million tons in 2023—in herbicides.

One set of pesticides has received very little attention until recently, when evidence has emerged that these chemicals do indeed have neurological effects: gibberellic acid and indole-3-butyric acid, both derived from natural plant growth regulators. These substances are not technically classed as pesticides, but they remain as residues on plant products.

The review authors cite studies showing that their effects on plants are very different from their effects on animals. Gibberellic acid has been given a pass by EPA since its registration review in 1995. It induces cell division in plants, but a pair of studies found that prenatal exposure to gibberellic acid in rats produces oxidative stress during the development of the cerebellum when the brain requires high amounts of oxygen but has few defense mechanisms against reactive oxygen species. Indole-3-butyric acid exerts effects on the brain through the gut-brain axis and has been shown to affect the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which is also targeted by organophosphate and carbamate pesticides. EPA considers Indole-3-butyric acid to be essentially nontoxic. In addition, there is some evidence that some indole compounds may actually be protective against dementia, so this is an area in need of much more research.

What this review indicates is that, despite The Lancet’s assessment that the global burden of many neurological diseases is static or declining, there is a serious undertow in the wave of progress in the form of burgeoning pesticide usage. For example, Parkinson’s disease is undoubtedly on the increase worldwide, but the 2024 Lancet report on neurological diseases conflicts with an earlier Lancet report specific to Parkinson’s from 2018. The latter report notes that Parkinson’s is the primary reason for the jump in neurological diseases. The 2024 Lancet report said there was a 10 percent increase in the incidence of Parkinson’s between 1990 and 2021. But the 2018 Parkinson’s report stated DALYs increased from 2.5 million in 1990 to 6.1 million in 2016—a jump of 21 percent. More recent work shows even worse acceleration: according to a 2025 review in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, DALYs from Parkinson’s have increased 85 percent since 2000, and deaths have jumped by more than 100 percent. And environmental toxicants, particularly pesticides associated with food, are very strongly implicated in these increases, as detailed in a 2024 review of environmental toxins and Parkinson’s in Science of the Total Environment.

Beyond Pesticides has accumulated overwhelming evidence from scientific studies that Parkinson’s and the other neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficits, memory and cognition disorders, and more, are strongly linked to pesticide exposures. While there is no question that therapeutic and palliative practices can reduce some of the suffering victims endure, the more obvious and prudent course would be to work on prevention. Eliminating pesticides from all forms of agriculture, public lands, gardening, municipal landscapes, and the like would go further to protect public health than simply trying to treat the symptoms once a disease has taken hold. Organic and regenerative practices are the key.

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

Sources:
Neurotoxic risks of long-term environmental exposure to pesticides: a review
Yumeng Leng et al
Chemico-Biological Interactions, 5 September 2025
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000927972500256X

Global, regional, and national burden of disorders affecting the nervous system, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
GBD 2021 Nervous System Disorders Collaborators
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1474-4422%2824%2900038-3

Global, regional, and national burden of Parkinson’s disease, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016
GBD 2016 Parkinson’s Disease Collaborators
The Lancet Neurology 2018
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6191528/

Pesticide-Induced Diseases: Brain and Nervous System Disorders
Beyond Pesticides
https://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/pesticide-induced-diseases-database/brain-and-nervous-system-disorders

(Beyond Pesticides, July 28, 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, including Daily News reporting of yet another study in June in Environmental Geochemistry and Health, the 79^th 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.

According to the UN’s political declaration, “[G]lobally, antimicrobial resistance could result in US$ 1 trillion of additional health-care costs per year by 2050 and US$ 1 trillion to 3.4 trillion of gross domestic product losses per year by 2030, and that treating drug-resistant bacterial infections alone could cost up to US$ 412 billion annually, coupled with workforce participation and productivity losses of US$ 443 billion, with antimicrobial resistance predicted to cause an 11 per cent decline in livestock production in low-income countries by 2050.” These findings grow out of “[G]eneral Assembly resolution 78/269, to review progress on global, regional and national efforts to tackle antimicrobial resistance, to identify gaps and invest in sustainable solutions to strengthen and accelerate multisectoral progress at all levels, through a One Health approach, with a view to scaling up the global effort to build a healthier world based on equity and leaving no one behind. . .” (More background can be found in Daily News.)

All causes of resistance are now on the table for action, given the health implications of ineffective treatments for bacterial and fungal diseases. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “More than 2.8 million antimicrobial-resistant infections occur in the U.S. each year, and more than 35,000 people die as a result. When Clostridioides difficile—a bacterium that is not typically resistant but can cause deadly diarrhea is associated with antibiotic use—is added to these, the U.S. toll of all the threats in the report exceeds three million infections and 48,000 deaths.” According to a 2021 article in Current Research in Microbial Sciences, “Antibiotic resistance in agriculture: Perspectives on upcoming strategies to overcome upsurge in resistance,” the leading consumers of antibiotics in developed countries are U.S. consumers. So, the U.S. population may have the most to lose from antibiotic resistance.

As a result, Beyond Pesticides is asking that: EPA must not register pesticides, and Congress must not allow their registration, unless they have been demonstrated not to contribute to antimicrobial resistance and must cancel the registration of those that do.

By 2050, various sources other than the UN estimate that antibiotic resistance could increase global health care costs by $1 trillion to $100 trillion. While the world slowly realizes the urgent need to counter antibiotic resistance, the role of pesticides in generating it has received less political and public attention. But there is no doubt that pesticides are strongly implicated. In fact, the resistance of microbes to antibiotics is no different from the well-documented resistance of insects and plants to pesticides.

When antimicrobial or antibiotic pesticides are sprayed on a crop, they induce antibiotic resistance in bacteria that are present by killing susceptible bacteria—which may or may not be pathogenic—and allowing resistant bacteria to proliferate. Those resistant bacteria move off the site on produce, workers’ clothing, and the wind. Prevention of chemical drift is therefore inadequate to protect against the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The now well-known phenomenon of horizontal gene transfer (movement of genes in bacteria from one bacterial species to another) means that antibiotic resistance genes in those (possibly harmless) bacteria can move to bacteria that cause disease in plants or humans.

A 2022 study “elaborate[s] [on] the mechanism underlying the effects of pesticides on bacterial antibiotic resistance acquisition as well as the propagation of antimicrobial resistance. Pesticide stress enhanced the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in bacteria via various mechanisms, including the activation of efflux pumps (removing substances from cells), inhibition of outer membrane pores for resistance to antibiotics, and gene mutation induction.” Furthermore, the study found, “Pesticides promoted the conjugation transfer of ARGs [antibiotic resistance genes] by increasing cell membrane permeability and increased the proportion of bacterial mobile gene elements, which facilitate the spread of ARGs.”

The presence of both pesticides and antibiotics in water bodies—lakes, rivers, and oceans—and especially those receiving both agricultural runoff and hospital waste—multiplies the risk of antimicrobial resistance. Further, the waters of the world are largely connected, from snow zones to oceans, so that in many cases what enters one body of water affects everything downstream.

The antibiotic streptomycin has been banned for agricultural use on crops in many countries, and after the Ninth Circuit’s December 2023 decision vacating the 2021 registration amendments for streptomycin because of the Agency’s failure to comply with the Endangered Species Act, it is no longer registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Oxytetracycline hydrochloride is registered for use on tree crops. Kasugamycin is also registered by EPA. Oxolinic acid and gentamicin are registered as antimicrobials in other countries. All of these have therapeutic uses in humans.

In addition to use on crops, antimicrobials used to manage synthetic turf for bacteria, mold, and fungus raise serious health issues and represent a threat that does not exist in organic land management. A builder of sports facilities, American Athletic, states, “Beyond surface cleaning, the artificial turf should be sanitized weekly or monthly to protect the players’ and coaches’ health. This disinfection requires special solvents, cleansers, and anti-microbial products to remove invisible particles and bacterial growth. You should strive to sanitize the field after every game and throughout the school day if it’s used for physical education classes.”

Finally, two facts lead to the conclusion that focusing on materials sold as antibiotics or antimicrobials is too shortsighted. First, science shows that the use of any antibiotics anywhere can increase antibiotic resistance everywhere. Second, many pesticides not intended to kill microbes—such as the herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba—also induce antibiotic resistance in deadly human pathogens. These two facts lead to the conclusion that we must stop broadcasting pesticides in the environment and applying them to food. The crisis in antibiotic resistance, which creates a threat of another pandemic, is ignored in the registration of pesticides. The antibiotic impacts of pesticides cited above were discovered only after the pesticides had been disseminated in the environment for decades.

Letter to U.S. Congress
Antibiotic resistance is rising to dangerously high levels in all parts of the world. Globally, about five million people died in 2019 from antibiotic-resistant microbial infections. We cannot afford to ignore any cause of resistance, given the health implications of ineffective treatments for bacterial and fungal diseases. According to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “More than 2.8 million antimicrobial-resistant infections occur in the U.S. each year, and more than 35,000 people die as a result. When Clostridioides difficile—a bacterium that is not typically resistant but can cause deadly diarrhea is associated with antibiotic use—is added to these, the U.S. toll of all the threats in the report exceeds 3 million infections and 48,000 deaths.”

When antimicrobial pesticides are sprayed on a crop, they induce resistance in bacteria that are present by killing susceptible bacteria—which may or may not be pathogenic—allowing resistant bacteria to proliferate. The resistant bacteria move off the site on crops, workers, and the wind. Prevention of chemical drift is thus inadequate to protect against the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The fact of horizontal gene transfer means that antibiotic resistance genes in those (possibly harmless) bacteria can move to pathogens.

In addition, pesticides produce enhanced antibiotic resistance in bacteria by activating efflux pumps (removing substances from cells), inhibiting outer membrane pores for resistance to antibiotics, promoting gene mutation, and increasing conjugation transfer of antibiotic resistance genes through increased cell membrane permeability and a greater proportion of bacterial mobile gene elements.

In addition to crops, antimicrobials are used to manage synthetic turf. A builder of sports facilities, American Athletic, states, “Beyond surface cleaning, the artificial turf should be sanitized weekly or monthly to protect the players’ and coaches’ health. This disinfection requires special solvents, cleansers, and antimicrobial products to remove invisible particles and bacterial growth. You should strive to sanitize the field after every game and throughout the school day if it’s used for physical education classes.”

Finally, focusing on materials sold as antibiotics or antimicrobials is too shortsighted. First, science shows that the use of any antibiotics anywhere can increase antibiotic resistance everywhere. Second, many pesticides not intended to kill microbes—such as the herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba—also induce antibiotic resistance in deadly human pathogens. Thus, we must stop broadcasting pesticides in the environment. The crisis in antibiotic resistance, which creates a threat of another pandemic, is ignored in the registration of pesticides. The antibiotic impacts of pesticides cited above were discovered only after the pesticides had been disseminated in the environment for decades.

EPA must not register pesticides unless they have been demonstrated not to contribute to antibiotic resistance and must cancel the registration of those that do.

Thank you.

Letter to EPA
Antibiotic resistance is rising to dangerously high levels in all parts of the world. Globally, about five million people died in 2019 from antibiotic-resistant microbial infections. We cannot afford to ignore any cause of resistance, given the health implications of ineffective treatments for bacterial and fungal diseases. According to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “More than 2.8 million antimicrobial-resistant infections occur in the U.S. each year, and more than 35,000 people die as a result. When Clostridioides difficile—a bacterium that is not typically resistant but can cause deadly diarrhea is associated with antibiotic use—is added to these, the U.S. toll of all the threats in the report exceeds 3 million infections and 48,000 deaths.”

When antimicrobial pesticides are sprayed on a crop, they induce resistance in bacteria that are present by killing susceptible bacteria—which may or may not be pathogenic—allowing resistant bacteria to proliferate. The resistant bacteria move off the site on crops, workers, and the wind. Prevention of chemical drift is thus inadequate to protect against the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The fact of horizontal gene transfer means that antibiotic resistance genes in those (possibly harmless) bacteria can move to pathogens.

In addition, pesticides produce enhanced antibiotic resistance in bacteria by activating efflux pumps (removing substances from cells), inhibiting outer membrane pores for resistance to antibiotics, promoting gene mutation, and increasing conjugation transfer of antibiotic resistance genes through increased cell membrane permeability and a greater proportion of bacterial mobile gene elements.

In addition to crops, antimicrobials are used to manage synthetic turf. A builder of sports facilities, American Athletic, states, “Beyond surface cleaning, the artificial turf should be sanitized weekly or monthly to protect the players’ and coaches’ health. This disinfection requires special solvents, cleansers, and antimicrobial products to remove invisible particles and bacterial growth. You should strive to sanitize the field after every game and throughout the school day if it’s used for physical education classes.”

Finally, focusing on materials sold as antibiotics or antimicrobials is too shortsighted. First, science shows that the use of any antibiotics anywhere can increase antibiotic resistance everywhere. Second, many pesticides not intended to kill microbes—such as the herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba—also induce antibiotic resistance in deadly human pathogens. Thus, we must stop broadcasting pesticides in the environment. The crisis in antibiotic resistance, which creates a threat of another pandemic, is ignored in the registration of pesticides. The antibiotic impacts of pesticides cited above were discovered only after the pesticides had been disseminated in the environment for decades.

EPA must not register pesticides unless they have been demonstrated not to contribute to antibiotic resistance and must cancel the registration of those that do.

Thank you.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 25, 2025) The scientific literature shows that microplastics (MPs) and pesticides, both ubiquitous throughout the environment, have synergistic effects that threaten aquatic organisms. This means the combined toxicity of the two substances is greater than the sum of two individual exposures. The most recent study to demonstrate this, published in Ecotoxicology, focuses on the impacts of MPs and chlorpyrifos (CPF), a widely used organophosphate insecticide, on cladocerans, a group of microcrustaceans.

As Beyond Pesticides has previously reported, microplastics are found in all environments and threaten not only human health but all wildlife in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The universal distribution of plastics means that they cannot be avoided. Humans and other organisms take up plastics in the form of microparticles and nanoparticles by inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact every day. Microplastics are about the width of a human hair; nanoplastics are much smaller, about twice the width of a DNA strand. Larger pieces of plastic are ground down to these tiny sizes by weathering, temperature, biological processes, and chemical conditions. (See additional Daily News coverage on the health and environmental hazards of plastics here, here, and here.)

The authors of the current study, in exposing two cladocerans, Ceriodaphnia cornuta (daphnids or water fleas) and Echinisca triserialis (tardigrades or water bears), to MP and CPF both singularly and in combination, are able to assess the short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) effects for nontarget aquatic organisms and the ecological risks they face from environmental contaminants. As a result, no mortality is observed to MP only treatments while MPs preconditioned with CPF (MP^CPF) show acute effects. Chronic exposure also shows reduced survival and reproductive output in both cladoceran species, with C. cornuta as more vulnerable than E. triserialis.

The researchers state: “A significant delay in age at first reproduction and shorter generation time were observed in the presence of MP^CPF, suggesting MP-mediated enhanced toxicity of CPF, wherein CPF could have accumulated onto the MP surface, thus, intensifying its toxicity. The enhanced toxicity of organic pollutants by MPs in aquatic environments especially in pelagic [open water] organisms is a matter of concern.”

Background

Cladocerans play an important role in the aquatic food web, helping to transfer carbon and nutrients from lower to higher trophic levels. In documenting impacts to cladoceran species, this represents threats to other aquatic organisms and overall biodiversity. “Ingestion of MP particles or the epiplastic substances by these organisms could be the entry point in the food chain that not only affects the population dynamics of C. cornuta and E. triserialis but also other aquatic organisms,” the authors warn.

MP in bodies of water come from various sources including wastewater effluents. “Studies have shown that wastewater treatment plants discharge around 160–300 million MP per day into aquatic habitats,” the researchers note. MPs that are smaller than 2 mm can be easily ingested by cladocerans and other zooplankton.

“Various aquatic organisms such as zooplankton, corals, fish, and marine mammals have been reported to ingest MP directly and/or indirectly leading to the transfer of MP across trophic levels,” the authors share. (See research here and here.) They continue: “The average size range of MP overlaps with the body size of planktonic organisms, and remains suspended in the water column for a long duration. They are easily mistaken with natural food particles, and hence particulate and filter-feeding zooplankton are more likely to ingest MP-preconditioned with dissolved organic contaminants. Thus, MP have the potential to impact a wide range of aquatic organisms including zooplankton.” (See studies here, here, and here.)

These MPs, based on their hydrophobicity (tendency to repel water) and higher surface area, can easily adsorb (adhere to the surface) pesticide molecules. The adsorption of pesticides on MP surfaces is extensively covered in scientific literature, such as with the insecticides malathion and carbofuran and the fungicide carbendazim. (See research here, here, and here.)

For the present study, CPF was chosen as the pesticide to analyze, as it is “representative of a highly occurring group of pollutants in the aquatic environment, such as organophosphate pesticides, which have been included in various monitoring programs.” Studies show CPF in surface and ground water, as well as larger bodies of water, that then impacts aquatic community structure and ecosystem processing. (See here, here, and here.) Previous research also shows CPF can be sorbed onto plastic surfaces. (See Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News coverage on chlorpyrifos here.)

“Thus, understanding the combined effects of MP and insecticides on aquatic organisms such as zooplankton is vital for thorough environmental evaluation and effective environmental management of aquatic ecosystems,” the researchers note. They continue, “In the natural environment, MP co-exists with organic pollutants, and the present study explores the response of the combined effects of MP and insecticide, CPF on pelagic [open water] and littoral [shallow water] cladoceran species.”

Study Methodology and Results

The two cladocerans utilized in this study represent species throughout the water column that are important in aquatic food chains. C. cornuta prefers open-water habitats while E. triserialis is typically found in shallower water and is known for its adaptability to various environmental conditions. “Furthermore, these species are the preferred diet of planktivorous fish, playing pivotal roles in transferring carbon through freshwater food webs, and serving as reliable indicators of aquatic ecosystem health,” the authors write.

To test the effects of exposure to MP and CPF individually and in combination in the two species, polyethylene plastics were crushed and ground, and CPF stock solutions were prepared. Between the control and test groups, the organisms were assessed for mortality and reproductive impacts both acutely (48 hours) and chronically (until the last organism perished).

As the researchers note: “The environmentally relevant concentrations of CPF and MP do not incur instant mortality; rather, they are more likely to affect the physiology, behavior, and survival patterns of the exposed organisms. The physiological responses of an organism, which determine survival and ability to contribute to the next generation, are ecologically more relevant parameters.”

The acute tests for both species reveal concentration-dependent mortality patterns for MPs preconditioned with CPF, but “the absence of mortality in the MP alone treatment condition, in either species at all the concentrations in acute test, suggests that MP alone does not have any toxic effect on the organisms in the short term.” More importantly, within the chronic tests, increased toxicity is observed when MPs are combined with CPF. Decreases in survivorship and reproduction rates, as well as a delay in reproduction, are noted, with higher sensitivity in C. cornuta than E. triserialis.

“These results indicate the synergistic effect of MP by accumulating CPF on the surface of MP at higher concentrations, suggesting that filter-feeding zooplankton may be more susceptible to the effects of MP^CPF compared to the presence of either MP or the insecticide alone in the aquatic environment,” the authors conclude.

In explanation of the sensitivity variations between the two species, the researchers say: “This difference in susceptibility can be attributed to a variety of factors, including their distinct habitat preference, behavior, and respective positions in the food chain. Ceriodaphnia cornuta, a pelagic species, may have greater exposure to contaminants in the water column, making them more susceptible to the effects of CPF and MP. The presence of C. cornuta in the surface and water column enhances the chances of encounter with floating MP, and their filter-feeding mechanism exposes them to higher quantities of MP and associated CPF, as MP has a larger surface area compared to larger plastic particles.” (See scientific literature here, here, and here.)

Previous Research

In Daily News, titled Microplastics Interact with Pesticides, Exacerbating Environmental Health Threats, Studies Find, Beyond Pesticides shares the findings of a literature review of over 90 scientific articles in Agriculture that document how MPs increase the bioavailability, persistence, and toxicity of pesticides used in agriculture. These interactions between MPs and pesticides enhance the threat of pesticide exposure to nontarget organisms, threaten biodiversity, and perpetuate the cycle of toxic chemical use.

Additional research, cited in the Ecotoxicology study, shows:

• Chronic exposure to polyethene MP impacts the growth and reproduction of both the freshwater amphipod Hyalella azteca and Ceriodaphnia dubia.
• Daphnia magna, with chronic exposure to polyethene MP, experience alterations in food uptake rate and immobilization.
• “MP-mediated effects increase with increasing exposure duration and concentration and have been reported to incur mortality through entanglement and blockage of the digestive tract in aquatic organisms.” (See here, here, and here.)
• Previous studies highlight MPs as vectors of toxic compounds in aquatic food chains. (See here and here.)
• “Recent studies have reported the joint toxic effects of CPF and MP on aquatic organisms, such as the fish Oncorhynchus mykiss and copepod Acartia tonsa.”
• “Similarly, previous studies on the effects of MP and CPF showed reduced feeding efficiency, fecundity, and survivorship when Acartia tonsa were exposed to CPF-loaded MP.”
• A study shows bioaccumulation of CPF in the muscles and tissue of Dicentrarchus labrax transferred through MP.
• “Studies have also reported the adverse effects of conditioned MP with pesticides, such as endocrine perturbation, hepatic damage, oxidative stress induction, and enzymatic activity modifications leading to early-life mortality in mussels and sea urchin embryos.” (See here, here, and here.)

A Holistic Solution

Organic agriculture negates microplastic–pesticide interactions that influence aquatic food webs, overall biodiversity, and environmental health. In adopting organic methods for land management, a holistic solution protects the health of all ecosystems and the organisms within them. Organic agriculture embodies an ecological approach to farming that does not rely on or permit toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, sewage sludge, or irradiation. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) works to continuously improve upon these standards and acts as a lifeline from the government to the organic community as it considers input from the public regarding organic integrity. In this context, Beyond Pesticides has urged the NOSB (see here and here) to phase out the use of plastic in its certification production systems and in the packaging of organic food, as well as protect organic production by denying the petition to allow synthetic “compostable materials.”

Visit Keeping Organic Strong to learn more about the 2025 NOSB meeting from earlier this spring. Reference our previous actions (here and here) regarding plastics in farming, water, and food, and stay informed on other opportunities to engage by signing up to receive our Action of the Week and Weekly News Update emails.

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

Source:

Rajan, K., Yadav, D. and Kumar, R. (2025) Microplastic contamination worsens the ecotoxicity of chlorpyrifos to cladoceran Ceriodaphnia cornuta (Sars, 1885) and Echinisca triserialis (Brady, 1886), Ecotoxicology. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10646-025-02909-5.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 24, 2025) In a sixteen-year field trial based in Central Kenya, researchers have found higher crop yield stability in low-input organic systems with previously degraded soil than in high-input organic and nonorganic agricultural systems.

One of the agrichemical industry-fed arguments against organic production is the false belief that, if all agricultural production went organic, then it would lead to a crisis of food security. Proponents of transitioning to organic continually push back, given the steady flow of evidence, backed by decades-long field trials, that organic can compete—and even outcompete—conventional systems after a transitional period.

Background and Methodology

This long-term field trial, published this year in European Journal of Agronomy, was conducted at two sites in Central Kenya—Chuka (lower soil fertility) and Kandara (higher soil fertility)—between 2007 and 2022.  Both Chuka and Kandara share bimodal rainfall (two wet seasons split up with distinct dry seasons) and consist of two growing seasons in a given calendar year. There were six crop rotation cycles for the maize, which included various legumes, vegetables, and root crops depending on the input level and farming system.

The experimental design was a randomized complete block design in agricultural plots, with the fields split up into four farming systems: organic high input (Org-High), conventional high input (Conv-High), organic low input (Org-Low), and conventional low input (Conv-Low). High versus low inputs refer to the quantity and types of soil inputs, mulch, irrigation, and pest management tools (pesticides). Mulch was only applied in organic systems. Organic systems were fed natural forms of soil supplements (i.e., compost) and rain-fed, while conventional systems were sprayed with synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and supplemented with irrigation. Using statistical analysis tools, the researchers measured plant growth through the height and stem diameter of ten randomly selected plants across all plots; for yield, the crop was harvested from the center of each plot to ensure robust data results.

The researchers of this study are based at Switzerland-based Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology in Nairobi, Kenya. The authors declared that “they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.” Funding for this research was provided by Biovision Foundation for Ecological Development, the Coop Sustainability Fund, the Liechtenstein Development Service (LED), and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).

Discussion and Results

“Based on the findings of our study, organic farming systems have the potential to achieve yields that match or exceed those of conventional farming systems, particularly in the long term when given adequate time for soil adaptation and improvement in soil fertility,” the authors write in the conclusion of their study.

Some additional key findings from this field trial include:

• Organic systems show steady improvement in fertility over time, with Org-High yields matching Conv-High yields, especially in less fertile soils in the Kandara site;
• At Kandara, Org-Low had the most stable yields out of the four farming systems; and
• Low-input systems have more consistent crop yields across all seasons of the trial, with authors noting this to be a particular feature of organically managed systems.

Previous Research and Actions

There is increasing evidence that organically managed crop production systems are more sustainable than chemical-intensive fields, or those that operate under the model of pesticide reduction, in terms of biodiversity, public health, and climate mitigation.

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

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

For more information and background on Rodale Institute, please consider reading the Daily News announcing the findings of the FST, Longest Field Trials Show Organic Practices Yield Higher Returns than Chemical-Intensive Agriculture.

The production of organic bananas in the Caribbean nation of Martinique was determined to outcompete chemical-intensive counterparts in terms of microbial decomposition, according to research by the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development. “Macrofaunal decomposition was increased more (55%) than microbial decomposition (20%), indicating that organic farming removes a constraint of conventional farming, especially affecting macrofauna,” the researchers say. (See Daily News here.) A literature review published in Ecosystem Services by researchers at Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies and Rodale Institute European Regenerative Organic Center drew similar conclusions on the ecological and soil health benefits of regenerative organic agriculture (ROAg). In comparison to chemical-intensive farming, ROAg increases soil organic content by 22 percent, soil total nitrogen by 28 percent, and soil microbial biomass carbon by 133 percent, according to the research. (See Daily News here.) In terms of another popularly consumed crop, certified organic coffee producers in Peru have been found to have a lower carbon footprint than transitional organic coffee farmers, based on “cradle to gate” analysis of ten farms in an organic coffee collaborative in the Cajamarca region. (See Daily News here.)

There are successful alternatives developed for crops previously deemed to be economically infeasible to grow in organic systems, including cotton and hops (for beer). The Center for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI) earned the 2024 Innovators Award from The Better Cotton Initiative (Better Cotton) for its leadership in developing capacity and expansion of organic standards and practices in the Pakistani cotton sector, according to a press release by Better Cotton. Given that the Pakistan Credit Rating Agency attributes approximately 69% of total domestic agricultural pesticide use to cotton, it is understandable why the government is looking to address pesticide-free alternatives. (See Daily News here.) Developing robust statutory language through Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) includes “continuous improvement,” based on public and producer input working as intended. Listening to the facts, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) passed a recommendation to remove hops from 7 CFR § 205.606 (Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic”) under OFPA. This gave breweries time to transition organic labeled beer to organically grown hops without breaking existing production contracts with nonorganic growers. (See Daily News here.)

Kenya, like many Global South nations across the globe, is reckoning with the legacy of Green Revolution-style policies and approaches to land management, leading some political momentum toward organic and tougher regulations on pesticides more broadly. According to reporting by The Kenya Times in late June, the Pest Control Products Board (PCPB) moved forward to ban 77 pesticide products, and restricted the use of 202 other products, not approved for use in the European Union, Canada, and the United States, citing public health risks. These pesticide active ingredients, including Acephate, Chlorothalonil, Diuron, and Thiacloprid, were deemed by the PCPB to impose “unacceptable risks” to human and ecological health. Earlier this year, “[T]he Kenya Court of Appeal blocked the Kenyan government from importing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the country[,]” according to a press release by Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)—an alliance of organizations and movements across the continent advocating for agroecology and food sovereignty. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action for Organic

It is time to contact our elected officials to demand structural changes to food and land management systems, including the incentive structures in place that perpetuate the chemical-intensive status quo. You can take action here by telling Congress to urgently transition away from petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use and call for an across-the-board shift to organic regenerative land management systems.

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

Source: European Journal of Agronomy, The Kenya Times