(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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 23, 2025) Attention turns to the U.S. Senate on legislation that (i) shields pesticide companies from lawsuits by those harmed from pesticide product use, (ii) limits states’ authority to regulate pesticides, and (iii) prevents EPA from regulating PFAS—after passage in the House Appropriations Committee on July 22. The Senate Appropriations Committee meets tomorrow, July 24, to vote on language that has not yet been released to the public. Efforts by Democrats failed to strike sections 453, the shield provision, and 507, the PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) language, from the FY26 Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill. The same provisions could show up in the Senate Appropriations Bill.

Beyond Pesticides is: Asking U.S. Senators to help stop Appropriations Bill provisions that strip farmers and consumers from suing for pesticide harm, ensuring that language in House Appropriations Bill, Sections 453 and 507, not be included in the Senate bill. *If  Senator is on the Appropriations Committee, the letter submitted will automatically adjust the language by recognizing their Committee membership.

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, the appropriations bill provision limits court oversight, which in many cases serves as a backstop for public health and environmental protections. The language would in the future prohibit cases like those filed by victims of glyphosate (Roundup), 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 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 (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and then try 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, under the legislation before the Appropriations Committee, 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 is found here. Search on Section 453.]

Prohibits EPA from restricting PFAS. 
In addition, the bill removes funding for eliminating hazards associated with PFAS chemicals. Section 507 of the bill says, “None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the draft risk assessment titled ‘Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS)’ published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register on January 15, 2025 (90 Fed. Reg. 3859).”

Stay tuned for a vote on the House Floor soon after members return from the current summer recess.
The underlying problem with Section 453 is the vesting of all power in EPA over the label, without exception—prohibiting language (which includes packaging) that is “inconsistent with or in any respect different from the conclusion” that EPA derives from its health assessments. While not explicit, the language will release companies from liability for their “failure to warn,” allowing them to point to a law that prevents them from seeking label disclosures that go beyond EPA findings. Additionally, it would preclude states like California from requiring a cancer warning label, which it currently does.  

Strangely, under this language, EPA itself could not update its label—even when the manufacturer requests a change on a more restrictive label. “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. Meanwhile, the courts have historically held that a company can always ask EPA to update the label to reflect risks (like non-Hodgkin lymphoma with Roundup).  If the agency chose to act, this statutory language would prevent label changes without a long process—if at all. Therefore, responsibility for misbranding would fall to EPA, which would shield chemical companies from paying out damage claims—a goal of the pesticides industry since its failed attempts at Supreme Court review to reverse jury verdicts in the Bayer/Monsanto cases and earlier in Dow v. Bates, a case where farmers sued the company for crop damage associated with the use of their product. 

Although future interpretations of the language are unclear, the law is clear now, so opening the door to new interpretations with new language threatens the rights of victims.
__________

Here are the facts: 

**This is not about one product—it is about the future of 16,000 chemicals. 
From household weed killers to restricted-use agricultural pesticides, this legislation would apply across the board. It gives companies a free pass, even when they conceal risks or fail to warn about dangers—as long as their label was once approved by EPA. 

**The EPA does not independently test these products — it relies on their manufacturers. 
Federal law allows pesticide manufacturers to submit their own safety studies. The EPA does not conduct its own testing and relies heavily on industry submitted studies. And when companies manipulate or withhold critical data—as they’ve done in the past—this bill would still protect them. Immunity rewards companies for hiding the ball. 

**This legislation eliminates accountability—even when companies break the rules. 
It would override state protections, block juries from hearing the facts, and tie the hands of farmers and families when harm is caused. Illnesses linked to these pesticides include cancer, Parkinson’s disease, infertility, and developmental harm to children. If this becomes law, even when companies act unreasonably or deceptively, foreign chemical companies couldn’t be held responsible. 

**It gives total immunity to Chinese military-controlled pesticide giants. 
ChemChina—a state-owned company the Pentagon identifies as a Chinese military entity—owns Syngenta, which sells paraquat and hundreds of other EPA regulated pesticides in the U.S., some of them banned in China. If this bill passes, American families could be barred from suing a Chinese military-controlled company for harm caused by its dangerous products. Why would Congress protect China instead of American farmers and families? 

**It protects companies that destroy farmers’ crops—even when they lied to get EPA approval. 
If this bill passes, nothing will stop a foreign chemical from pushing a new product they know is likely to drift or damage nearby fields. It could downplay the risks to the EPA, get a label approved, and leave neighboring farmers with scorched crops, lost yields, and no legal recourse. Even when livelihoods are wiped out, immunity means farmers would be stuck with the costs—not the companies who caused the damage. 

That is the danger here: once pesticide companies know they cannot be held accountable, cutting corners and lying to regulators will become the business strategy. And it is U.S. farmers and families who will pay the price.

Section 507 of the bill removes funding for eliminating hazards associated with PFAS (aka “forever chemicals”).
_____________

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee

⬇️ Please see the members of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee listed below with their website link if you would also like to call! 

Republican members:

• Senator Susan Collins (Republican – Maine) Official Website » Chair; Majority 

• Senator Mitch McConnell (Republican – Kentucky) Official Website » 

• Senator Lisa Murkowski (Republican – Alaska) Official Website » 

• Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican – South Carolina) Official Website » 

• Senator Jerry Moran (Republican – Kansas) Official Website » 

• Senator John Hoeven (Republican – North Dakota) Official Website » 

• Senator John Boozman (Republican – Arkansas) Official Website » 

• Senator Shelley Moore Capito (Republican – West Virginia) Official Website » 

• Senator John Kennedy (Republican – Louisiana) Official Website » 

• Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (Republican – Mississippi) Official Website » 

• Senator Bill Hagerty (Republican – Tennessee) Official Website » 

• Senator Katie Britt (Republican – Alabama) Official Website » 

• Senator Markwayne Mullin (Republican – Oklahoma) Official Website » 

• Senator Deb Fischer (Republican – Nebraska) Official Website » 

• Senator Mike Rounds (Republican – South Dakota) Official Website » 

Democratic members:

• Senator Patty Murray (Democrat – Washington) Official Website » Vice Chair; Minority 

• Senator Richard Durbin (Democrat – Illinois) Official Website » 

• Senator Jack Reed (Democrat – Rhode Island) Official Website » 

• Senator Jeanne Shaheen (Democrat – New Hampshire) Official Website » 

• Senator Jeff Merkley (Democrat – Oregon) Official Website » 

• Senator Christopher Coons (Democrat – Delaware) Official Website » 

• Senator Brian Schatz (Democrat – Hawaii) Official Website » 

• Senator Tammy Baldwin (Democrat – Wisconsin) Official Website » 

• Senator Chris Murphy (Democrat – Connecticut) Official Website » 

• Senator Sen. Chris Van Hollen (Democrat – Maryland) Official Website » 

• Senator Martin Heinrich (Democrat – New Mexico) Official Website » 

• Senator Gary Peters (Democrat – Michigan) Official Website » 

• Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (Democrat – New York) Official Website » 

• Senator Jon Ossoff (Democrat – Georgia) Official Website » 

Letter to U.S. Senators not on the Appropriations Committee:

Please voice your opposition to any language in the Senate Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill that (i) shields pesticide companies from lawsuits by farmers and consumers harmed from pesticide product use, (ii) limits states’ authority to regulate pesticides, and (iii) prevents EPA from regulating PFAS (“forever chemicals”). The Senate Appropriations Committee meets tomorrow, July 24, to vote on language that has not yet been released to the public at 9:30 AM ET.

It is a basic right of people who have been harmed in the marketplace to seek compensatory and punitive damages. This has played a critical role in establishing accountability when people suffer adverse effects from pesticide exposure. Language in the House Appropriations Bill, Section 453, would grant pesticide companies sweeping legal immunity, and Section 507 would restrict EPA from issuing protections from PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). These sections should not be included in the Senate Appropriations Bill.

Here are the facts:

**This is not about one product—it is about the future of 16,000 chemicals. From household weed killers to restricted-use agricultural pesticides, this legislation would apply across the board. It gives companies a free pass, even when they conceal risks or fail to warn about dangers—as long as their label was once approved by EPA.

**The EPA does not independently test these products — it relies on their manufacturers. Federal law allows pesticide manufacturers to submit their own safety studies. The EPA does not conduct its own testing and relies heavily on industry submitted studies. And when companies manipulate or withhold critical data—as they’ve done in the past—this bill would still protect them. Immunity rewards companies for hiding the ball.

**This legislation eliminates accountability—even when companies break the rules. It would override state protections, block juries from hearing the facts, and tie the hands of farmers and families when harm is caused. Illnesses linked to these pesticides include cancer, Parkinson’s disease, infertility, and developmental harm to children. If this becomes law, even when companies act unreasonably or deceptively, foreign chemical companies couldn’t be held responsible.

**It gives total immunity to Chinese military-controlled pesticide giants. ChemChina—a state-owned company the Pentagon identifies as a Chinese military entity—owns Syngenta, which sells paraquat and hundreds of other EPA regulated pesticides in the U.S., some of them banned in China. If this bill passes, American families could be barred from suing a Chinese military-controlled company for harm caused by its dangerous products. Why would Congress protect China instead of American farmers and families?

**It protects companies that destroy farmers’ crops—even when they lied to get EPA approval. If this bill passes, nothing will stop a foreign chemical from pushing a new product they know is likely to drift or damage nearby fields. It could downplay the risks to the EPA, get a label approved, and leave neighboring farmers with scorched crops, lost yields, and no legal recourse. Even when livelihoods are wiped out, immunity means farmers would be stuck with the costs—not the companies who caused the damage.

That is the danger here: once pesticide companies know they cannot be held accountable, cutting corners and lying to regulators will become the business strategy. And it is U.S. farmers and families who will pay the price.

Section 507 of the bill removes funding for eliminating hazards associated with PFAS (aka “forever chemicals”).

Please insist that sections 453 and 507 in the House Appropriations Bill not be included in the Senate bill.

Thank you!

Letter to U.S. Senators on the Appropriations Committee:

Please voice your opposition to any language in the Senate Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill that (i) shields pesticide companies from lawsuits by farmers and consumers harmed from pesticide product use, (ii) limits states’ authority to regulate pesticides, and (iii) prevents EPA from regulating PFAS (“forever chemicals”). As you are probably aware, the Senate Appropriations Committee meets tomorrow, July 24, to vote on language that has not yet been released to the public at 9:30 AM ET.

It is a basic right of people who have been harmed in the marketplace to seek compensatory and punitive damages. This has played a critical role in establishing accountability when people suffer adverse effects from pesticide exposure. Language in the House Appropriations Bill, Section 453, would grant pesticide companies sweeping legal immunity, and Section 507 would restrict EPA from issuing protections from PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). These sections should not be included in the Senate Appropriations Bill.

Here are the facts:

**This is not about one product—it is about the future of 16,000 chemicals. From household weed killers to restricted-use agricultural pesticides, this legislation would apply across the board. It gives companies a free pass, even when they conceal risks or fail to warn about dangers—as long as their label was once approved by EPA.

**The EPA does not independently test these products — it relies on their manufacturers. Federal law allows pesticide manufacturers to submit their own safety studies. The EPA does not conduct its own testing and relies heavily on industry-submitted studies. And when companies manipulate or withhold critical data—as they’ve done in the past—this bill would still protect them. Immunity rewards companies for hiding the ball.

**This legislation eliminates accountability—even when companies break the rules. It would override state protections, block juries from hearing the facts, and tie the hands of farmers and families when harm is caused. Illnesses linked to these pesticides include cancer, Parkinson’s disease, infertility, and developmental harm to children. If this becomes law, even when companies act unreasonably or deceptively, foreign chemical companies couldn’t be held responsible.

**It gives total immunity to Chinese military-controlled pesticide giants. ChemChina—a state-owned company the Pentagon identifies as a Chinese military entity—owns Syngenta, which sells paraquat and hundreds of other EPA-regulated pesticides in the U.S., some of them banned in China. If this bill passes, American families could be barred from suing a Chinese military-controlled company for harm caused by its dangerous products. Why would Congress protect China instead of American farmers and families?

**It protects companies that destroy farmers’ crops—even when they lied to get EPA approval. If this bill passes, nothing will stop a foreign chemical from pushing a new product they know is likely to drift or damage nearby fields. It could downplay the risks to the EPA, get a label approved, and leave neighboring farmers with scorched crops, lost yields, and no legal recourse. Even when livelihoods are wiped out, immunity means farmers would be stuck with the costs—not the companies who caused the damage.

That is the danger here: once pesticide companies know they cannot be held accountable, cutting corners and lying to regulators will become the business strategy. And it is U.S. farmers and families who will pay the price.

Section 507 of the bill removes funding for eliminating hazards associated with PFAS (aka “forever chemicals”).

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, please insist that sections 453 and 507 in the House Appropriations Bill not be included in the Senate bill.

Thank you!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 23, 2025) The pesticide manufacturer Syngenta has settled several lawsuits in federal courts in Pennsylvania and Illinois in recent months and is seeking a global settlement with over 6,000 litigants in order to avoid nationwide trials linking their weed killer paraquat to Parkinson’s Disease, according to reporting by The New Lede and The Guardian, respectively. Internal Syngenta documents released by these news outlets in a report dubbed The Paraquat Papers indicate that the company was aware of scientific evidence linking paraquat to Parkinson’s and attempted to quash research efforts to disclose the evidence.  

These lawsuits were filed on behalf of former farmers and agricultural workers who went on to be diagnosed with neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s Disease, after using paraquat-based herbicide products for long periods of time. This litigation comes at a time when pesticide manufacturers across the board are facing increased scrutiny and subsequent financial repercussions. Simultaneously, their allies in Congress are revamping their efforts to shield chemical manufacturers from “failure to warn” lawsuits and establish federal preemption of local state governments’ ability to regulate pesticides more stringently than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Many of the paraquat lawsuits in federal courts, known as multidistrict litigation (MDL), are being overseen by a federal court in Illinois as of June 2025, while several other federal and state cases are proceeding separately, according to The Guardian. The law firm Miller and Zois, LLC, which maintains the website Lawsuit Information Center, reports the filing of a new lawsuit in Delaware on June 25, 2025, against Syngenta and Chevron for prolonged paraquat exposure linked to Parkinson’s.

Connection to Bayer Litigation, Failure-to-Warn Claims

The public’s ability to sue chemical companies for their “failure to warn” has enshrined in the legal system the ability to hold corporations accountable for the harm that their products cause under weak regulatory standards that they lobbied to create. Bayer has lost almost all of the lawsuits filed against it for compensatory and punitive damages associated with the plaintiffs’ charge that its products caused them harm. The U.S. Supreme Court twice rebuffed the company’s plea to have its appeal heard, as reported by Beyond Pesticides and news outlets. Its legal strategy, pursued through the entire court system, has failed to fend off ongoing litigation for harm associated with its glyphosate-based products (Roundup). As Bayer’s website has touted in a five-point strategy to mitigate the company’s financial “risks” from future litigation, “A favorable ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the federal preemption question could largely end the Roundup litigation.”

The main question here is whether state-based “failure-to-warn” claims are preempted by federal law since EPA concluded glyphosate does not cause cancer and approved the Roundup™ label without a warning. Bayer is vigorously pursuing a judicial decision or the adoption of legislation at the federal or state level that preempts, or takes away, plaintiffs’ right to sue the company when they are harmed by the company’s products. For the third time in recent memory, Bayer submitted yet another petition for SCOTUS on April 4, 2025, to “limit legal claims” on Roundup weed killer linkages to cancer, according to reporting by Reuters. The pesticide manufacturer has signaled optimism that the nation’s highest court will move in a different direction, given that there is now a Federal Court Circuit split with the latest decision in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Schaffner v. Monsanto. As reported in Progressive Farmer in early May, twelve national agricultural groups filed an amicus brief in support of Bayer’s petition. These groups represent the interests of industrial agriculture, including American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Cherry Marketing Institute, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, International Fresh Produce Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council of America, National Sorghum Producers, North American Blueberry Council and Western Growers. Legal issues continue to mount for the pesticide manufacturer as the Western District of Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a $611 million judgment against Bayer, as reported by Missouri Independent on May 28.

There were several other significant developments in 2024, including the Oregon Court of Appeals decision on July 10, ruling that FIFRA does not preempt pesticide exposure victims’ claims in state court against pesticide manufacturers, based on reporting from The New Lede. An Appellate court overturned a 2022 local court ruling and remanded the case (for a retrial) in part because the judge had failed to consider the expert witness testimony of Chuck Benbrook, PhD, a scientist specializing in agricultural economics with over 40 peer-reviewed articles, reports, and book chapters on pesticide regulation and risk assessment. (See Daily News here.)  

Bayer is not giving up on the current U.S. Supreme Court in seeking to overturn current law, as established by previous court decisions, including Bates v Dow (2005). However, that strategy is not succeeding, at least not yet. The string of Bayer losses includes adjudication decision on February 5, 2024, when the decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came down in favor of the plaintiff in Carson v. Monsanto on Bayer’s claim that FIFRA preempts a “failure-to-warn” claim. (See Daily News here for further analysis.)

Bayer has doubled down on the safety of its weed killer, even though investors are sounding the alarm, and as the company announced that it could pull Roundup from the U.S. market due to ongoing legal risks. With this, Bayer has taken its campaign to the states to strip away people’s (including farmers’) ability to hold corporations accountable through a common law duty to provide warning about the hazards associated with their pesticide products. Most recently, SCOTUS asked the Solicitor General’s office (U.S. Justice Department) “for its views on whether the justices should take up the appeal,” according to Reuters coverage. There are more than 67,000 pending cases in state and federal courts alleging Bayer failed to warn customers of Roundup products’ link to various cancers, including failure to warn through their advertising materials. In May 2025, the Missouri Independent reported that a federal court of appeals (Western District of Missouri Court of Appeals) upheld the decision of a 2023 case in Cole County, Missouri, awarding a $611 million judgment to three cancer victims.

For an in-depth history and related developments for Bayer-Monsanto litigation, see this tracker developed by the Lawsuit Information Center. 

Call to Action

The U.S. House of Representatives is taking up legislation, already passed by the Interior and Environment Subcommittee on July 15 and by the House Appropriations Committee on July 22, that provides total pesticide company immunity from “failure to warn” lawsuits filed by farmers and consumers who faced hazards, but were not warned. Beyond Pesticides and groups nationwide have called for Section 453 of the Appropriations Bill to be removed. The legislation also blocks states from requiring label warning language with information on product harm beyond EPA-approved language.

See Beyond Pesticides’ action, which asks all members of the U.S. House of Representatives to remove Sections 453 and 507 from the final bill and uphold the basic right to sue for companies’ failure to warn. 

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

Source: The New Lede and The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, July 22, 2025) A study published in May by Nature Reviews Endocrinology warns that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs)—substances that lead to disruption of the endocrine system in an organism—are driving a rapid rise in female reproductive disorders. While EDCs encompass many different forms of chemicals, such as plastic additives, cigarette smoke, and paracetamol, pesticides are among the most common EDCs. The review pays special attention to pesticide classes such as per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and organochlorines to evaluate how they derail ovarian development, puberty timing, and hormonal balance across the entire female lifespan. Many pesticides are fluorinated, and therefore classified as PFAS. 

Background 

Pesticides represent one of the largest sources of EDC exposure. Many persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are resistant to degradation and are capable of bioaccumulating in the food chain, which leads to these harmful chemicals being found in human adipose tissue. The study notes that these chemicals have also been detected in human blood, breast milk, follicular fluid, and other biological samples, explaining their prevalent presence in the human body. The review emphasizes that humans are exposed to a mixture of EDCs across their lifespan, yet current U.S. regulatory strategies do not fully account for combined lifetime exposure effects, especially during developmentally sensitive periods. 

Methodology  

To perform this literature review, the study’s team synthesizes epidemiological studies, animal experiments, and mechanistic investigations to map how EDCs interfere with multiple stages of female reproduction, from fetal development in the womb, to regulating puberty during young adulthood, and premature menopause in adulthood. The review pays special attention to organochlorine pesticides and PFAS-based herbicides that mimic or block sex hormones or alter neuroendocrine brain circuits controlling puberty timing. 

How Women Encounter Pesticide EDCs Throughout Life 

Exposure to EDC pesticides begins in utero, when chemicals such as PFAS and phthalates are able to cross the placenta and interfere with the development of the fetus. This exposure continues throughout one’s lifetime with EDCs being found in breast milk, “contaminated food and water, inhalation of polluted air, dermal absorption from personal care products and household items,” as the study mentions. In adulthood, pesticide exposure is often occupational, especially for women farmworkers. Lifelong exposure contributes to the cumulative toxic burden that disrupts reproductive health over time. 

Lifelong Biological Impact of Pesticides EDCs 

In the study, researchers document trends of earlier breast development, infertility, surging polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) prevalence (up to 20 percent in some regions), and menopause arriving as much as four years sooner in women exposed to EDCs. The study also notes that exposure to EDCs can affect women throughout different stages of their life. The following infographic explains the impact of EDCs and PFAS on the reproductive health of women during different Life Stages:  

Image Created By Beyond Pesticides

Taken together, these findings underscore how pesticide-driven endocrine disruption is not limited to one life stage, but instead poses a cumulative, lifelong threat to women’s reproductive health 

Key Findings and Statistics from the Study 

• Women with the highest combined exposure to pesticides and phthalates experience menopause 1.9–3.8 years sooner, indicating EDCs lead to shorter reproductive lifespans. 

• EDCs are found in many biological fluids, such as breast milk, follicular fluid, and urine, indicating widespread contamination and prevalence of EDCs through multiple exposure routes. 

• Girls are entering breast development, beginning puberty, and attaining menarche earlier. The study notes earlier puberty is linked to an “increased risk of polycystic ovarian syndrome, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus and hormone-dependent cancers in female individuals.” 

• EDCs are linked to rising prevalence of PCOS 

Call to Action  

This study adds to the growing body of evidence that makes clear EDCs must be regulated for public safety. Regulatory frameworks must move towards the adoption of approaches that account for cumulative effects, which are critical in real-world exposure scenarios, especially when tracking pesticide exposure throughout one’s lifetime. 

Additionally, PFAS chemicals must be explicitly included in the conversation about EDCs. While PFAS are currently regulated in a different class of chemicals than EDCs, they share many of the same harmful hormone-interfering properties, according to the study. In fact, the review specifically flags PFAS chemicals as “endocrine-active chemicals in urgent need of re-classification.”  

A meaningful solution to reducing lifelong exposure to endocrine-disrupting pesticides lies in the transition to organic land management practices. Organic farming and turf management prohibit the use of many EDCs and PFAS, which are among the key disruptors identified in the review as harmful to reproductive health. This shift also prevents long-term contamination of soil and water, reducing bioaccumulation of these toxicants in the food chain, and helping consumers and farmers exposed to these toxic chemicals daily.  

Helpful Information 

For more information on what endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are and how they impact public health, see Beyond Pesticides’ informational brochure on EDCs. To explore research linking pesticide exposure to reproductive health issues such as infertility, early puberty, and PCOS, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Reproductive Health Database. 

For recent coverage on EDC-related advocacy and the push to ban harmful petrochemical pesticides like the weed killer paraquat, read the November 12, 2024, Daily News article. You can also learn more by reviewing the sessions from the 2024 National Forum Series. 

To stay engaged and help advance pesticide reform, visit our women’s health-focused Action of the Week, or support this work directly here.  

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

Source: Parent, AS., Damdimopoulou, P., Johansson, H.K.L. et al. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and female reproductive health: a growing concern. Nat Rev Endocrinol (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-025-01131-x 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 21, 2025) Beyond Pesticides is asking every member of the U.S. Representatives to voice their opposition in advance of a vote as early as Tuesday, July 22 on a provision before the House Appropriations Committee—in the Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill—that shields pesticide companies from lawsuits by those harmed from pesticide product use and limits states’ authority to regulate pesticides. This is a fight to protect farmers’ and consumers’ right to sue pesticide manufacturers for misbranding products and their failure to warn product users. The language before the Committee is in Section 453 of the bill passed last week by the subcommittee on a straight party-line vote, with Republicans supporting the bill language. Beyond Pesticides is also asking Congress members to remove section 507, which prohibits EPA action on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), including fluorinated pesticides. 

Update from July 21, 2025, at 4 PM: ⏰ Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME-1) moved forward with amendments to strike sections 453 and 507 of the FY26 Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill, which is a provision that provides immunity for pesticide manufacturers from farmer and consumer lawsuits seeking compensation from product harm.

Update from July 23, 2025, at 10 AM: The FY26 Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill passed out of the Appropriations Committee with sections 453 and 507 included, via a voice vote. The Action has been updated to reflect a general call to the entire U.S. House of Representatives to oppose this language—stay tuned for updates!

Creates immunity from lawsuits on chemical companies’ failure to warn about their products’ hazards.
Pushed by Bayer/Monsanto and the chemical industry, the bill provides total pesticide immunity from lawsuits that challenge chemical manufacturers who withhold information on the harm that their products can cause. Chemical companies have successfully lobbied for a weak federal pesticide law and then try 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. Meanwhile, under current law, juries have found that Bayer/Monsanto, in the case of glyphosate (Roundup), 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, under the legislation before the Appropriations Committee, 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. This language would in the future prohibit cases like those filed by victims of glyphosate (Roundup), who have won large jury verdicts and compensation. The provision would also prevent states from requiring label warnings and standards more stringent than the federal government. [The bill language is found here. Search on Section 453.]

Prohibits EPA from restricting PFAS. 
In addition, the bill removes funding for eliminating hazards associated with PFAS chemicals. Section 507 of the bill says, “None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the draft risk assessment titled ‘Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS)’ published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register on January 15, 2025 (90 Fed. Reg. 3859).”

Act now: Full Committee Markup—when the committee can make changes to the bill, including removing provisions of the bill—could happen as early as Tuesday, July 22). 

Beyond Pesticides is asking the public to: Ask their member of the U.S. House of Representatives for help in stopping this dangerous legislation by urging them to contact members of the committee. Ask that the language in Sections 453 and 507 be removed from the bill. *If your elected representative is on the Appropriations Committee, the letter you submit will automatically adjust the language by recognizing their Committee membership.

The underlying problem with Section 453 is the vesting of all power in EPA over the label, without exception—prohibiting language (which includes packaging) that is “inconsistent with or in any respect different from the conclusion” that EPA derives from its health assessments. While not explicit, the language will release companies from liability for their “failure to warn,” allowing them to point to a law that prevents them from seeking label disclosures that go beyond EPA findings. Additionally, it would preclude states like California from requiring a cancer warning, which it currently does.  

Strangely, under this language, EPA itself could not update its label—even when the manufacturer requests a change on a more restrictive label. “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. Meanwhile, the courts have historically held that a company can always ask EPA to update the label to reflect risks (like non-Hodgkin lymphoma with Roundup).  If the agency chose to act, this statutory language would prevent label changes without a long process—if at all. Therefore, responsibility for misbranding would fall to EPA, which would shield chemical companies from paying out damage claims—a goal of the pesticides industry since its failed attempts at Supreme Court review to reverse jury verdicts in the Bayer/Monsanto cases and earlier in Dow v. Bates, a case where farmers sued the company for crop damage associated with the use of their product. 

Although future interpretations of the language are unclear, the law is clear now, so opening the door to new interpretations with new language threatens the rights of victims. The language also 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. 

Ask your member of the U.S. House of Representatives for help in stopping this dangerous legislation by urging them to contact members of the Appropriations Committee. Ask that the language in Sections 453 and 507 be removed from the bill. *If your elected representative is on the Appropriations Committee, the letter you submit will automatically adjust the language by recognizing their Committee membership.

Letter to Congress
Please voice your opposition in advance of a vote as early as Tuesday, July 22 to a provision before the House Appropriations Committee in the Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill—which strips farmers and consumers of the right to sue 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. This is a basic right of people who have been harmed in the marketplace and has played a critical role in establishing accountability when people suffer adverse effects from pesticide exposure. This federal legislation would grant pesticide companies sweeping legal immunity—not only for the weed killer Roundup (glyphosate), but for over 16,000 pesticide products regulated by the EPA. In addition, please seek to remove section 507, which prohibits EPA action on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), including fluorinated pesticides. 

Here are the facts: 

**This isn’t about one product—it’s about the future of 16,000 chemicals. 
From household weed killers to restricted-use agricultural pesticides, this legislation would apply across the board. It gives companies a free pass, even when they conceal risks or fail to warn about dangers—as long as their label was once approved by EPA. 

**The EPA doesn’t independently test these products — it relies on their manufacturers. 
Federal law allows pesticide manufacturers to submit their own safety studies. The EPA does not conduct its own testing and relies heavily on industry submitted studies. And when companies manipulate or withhold critical data—as they’ve done in the past—this bill would still protect them. Immunity rewards companies for hiding the ball. 

**This legislation eliminates accountability—even when companies break the rules. 
It would override state protections, block juries from hearing the facts, and tie the hands of farmers and families when harm is caused. Illnesses linked to these pesticides include cancer, Parkinson’s disease, infertility, and developmental harm to children. If this becomes law, even when companies act unreasonably or deceptively, foreign chemical companies couldn’t be held responsible. 

**It gives total immunity to Chinese military-controlled pesticide giants. 
ChemChina—a state-owned company the Pentagon identifies as a Chinese military entity—owns Syngenta, which sells paraquat and hundreds of other EPA regulated pesticides in the U.S., some of them banned in China. If this bill passes, American families could be barred from suing a Chinese military-controlled company for harm caused by its dangerous products. Why would Congress protect China instead of American farmers and families? 

**It protects companies that destroy farmers’ crops—even when they lied to get EPA approval. 
If this bill passes, nothing will stop a foreign chemical company from pushing a new product they know is likely to drift or damage nearby fields. It could downplay the risks to the EPA, get a label approved, and leave neighboring farmers with scorched crops, lost yields, and no legal recourse. Even when livelihoods are wiped out, immunity means farmers would be stuck with the costs—not the companies who caused the damage. 

That’s the danger here: once pesticide companies know they can’t be held accountable, cutting corners and lying to regulators will become the business strategy. And it’s US farmers and families who will pay the price. 

In addition, Section 507 of the bill removes funding for eliminating hazards associated with PFAS (aka “forever chemicals”).

Please help to remove sections 453 and 507 from the appropriations bill.

Thank you.

__________________

Please see the members of the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee listed below with phone numbers if you would also like to call! Members of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee are marked with an asterisk [*]; Rep. Tom Cole and Rep. Rosa DeLauro are ex-officio members.

For more information, please see Beyond Pesticides’ Failure-to-Warn and Pesticide Immunity Bills resource hub!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 18, 2025) A study in Royal Society Open Science 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. “Wild pollinator declines are increasingly linked to pesticide exposure, yet it is unclear how intraspecific differences contribute to observed variation in sensitivity, and the role gut microbes play in the sensitivity of wild bees is largely unexplored,” the authors explain. “Here, we investigate site-level differences in survival and microbiome structure of a wild bumble bee exposed to multiple pesticides, both individually and in combination.”

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. Between the three sites, the survival differences “emphasize the importance of considering population of origin when studying pesticide toxicity of wild bees” and highlight how pesticide sensitivity not only varies between species but within individuals of the same species with site-specific impacts. (See previous Daily News Literature Review Analyzes Pesticide Sensitivity in Bee Species on a Molecular Level for further analysis.)

“Bumble bees and other wild bees are vital pollinators of crop plants and wildflowers in North America, often outperforming managed species like honey bees,” the authors note. (See studies here and here.) They continue: “Due to their agricultural and ecological importance, bumble bee population declines have gained global attention, which have been linked to a combination of human-induced stressors. Key among these is the widespread use of insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides.” (See studies here, here, and here.)

Pesticide residues are ubiquitous in natural settings, including urban, suburban, and conservation areas. “Moreover, pesticides are rarely observed in isolation and are often detected as combinations of different chemical classes (i.e., insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides) in a complex chemical cocktail,” the researchers say. “Understanding synergistic effects of pesticides on bee health is therefore an active area of study.”

To perform the study, bees were collected from the three sites in northern Nevada and assigned to one of five groups. These groups include experimental sucrose solution diets with the different treatments: herbicide (glyphosate), insecticide (imidacloprid), fungicide (tebuconazole), combination, and control. “These chemicals were selected because they had the highest estimated use for each chemical class (insecticide, herbicide, fungicide) in our region (Washoe County, Nevada),” the authors note. The concentrations also reflect field-realistic exposure for the area.

Bees were monitored for survival throughout the experiment until day 20 or until they died, at which point they were weighed, measured for body size, and dissected to extract DNA from their guts for bacterial abundance evaluations. An evaluation of the gut microbiome provides insights into the indirect effects that chemicals can have on bee health in addition to the direct physiological harm.

As the study states: “The bumble bee gut harbours a simple community of microbial symbionts that aid in digestion, growth, protection against parasites and pathogens, and detoxification. Gut microbes also aid in resilience to pesticides by facilitating expression of cytochrome p450 enzymes involved in detoxification, so disruptions to the microbial community can have consequences for bee survival.” (See studies here, here, here, and here.)

The study results reveal variations in body size at the different sites. “Bees from the alpine site were an average of 8.2% larger than bees from the shoreline site, and an average of 11.2% larger than bees from the suburban site,” the researchers say. “Shoreline bees were only an average of 3.0% larger than our suburban bees.”

This sizing correlates with trends in survival. The average alpine bee survived to day 12.1, the shoreline bee to day 8.1, and the suburban bee to day 7.0. The authors also note: “Here, we also saw evidence of treatment effects. Bees assigned a diet containing the combination of all three chemicals showed marginally shorter survival time than control bees, but this was the only treatment that had an overall impact on survival. However, we did observe a site-by-treatment interaction with the fungicide, herbicide and all chemical treatments.”

The larger bees, mostly noted at the alpine site, also show the presence of more gut bacteria. “We observed site-level differences in community composition and we also observed difference in gut community composition depending on if bees survived longer over the course of the experiment,” the researchers write. They continue: “We found a change in the gut community in bees that survived longer, which is consistent with other studies demonstrating a change in gut bacterial communities over time. We also observed site-level differences in gut community structure wherein our suburban site differed from the other two sites, and post hoc analysis showed this site had fewer gut bacteria. Bees from this site also had the poorest overall survival.”

Previous Beyond Pesticides 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.

In summary, the study authors write: “We found that, regardless of the site, bees showed a marginal reduction in survival when given our chemical combination treatment. Yet, site of origin played a strong role in determining a bee’s survival. We found evidence for a site-by-treatment interaction influencing the day a bee died across all pesticide treatments, except the insecticide group. The microbiome did not differ when bees were exposed to the pesticide treatment, within or across sites. Instead, gut microbiome differences were associated with the presence of conopid parasitoids and body size, both of which varied by site. These findings suggest that site-specific factors influence pesticide sensitivity and should be considered in ecotoxicological studies of wild bees.”

This study demonstrates that bee responses, even within the same species, to pesticides and their mixtures can vary greatly and are dependent on various factors. In testing field-realistic concentrations of common pesticides, the researchers show how intraspecific and site-specific mortality can occur, while also highlighting that “it is essential to note that these chemicals can have serious sub-lethal effects such as impacts to immune response, metabolism, reproduction, cognition, and more.” (See research here and here.)

The authors also comment that “pesticide sensitivity assessments must account for these variables to fully capture population-level patterns. Expanding research to include wild bees will allow for a deeper understanding of ecological complexities and help inform more effective conservation strategies.” Current pesticide risk assessments that analyze effects on bees primarily focus on a limited subset of species and do not provide comprehensive protection of all wild bees. (See Daily News Study of Pesticide Risk in Wild Bee Species Highlights EPA Risk Assessment Inadequacies and Field Study of Bumble Bees Finds Exposure to Chemical Mixtures, High Hazard, Flawed Regulation for more about these regulatory deficiencies.)

“Although there have been efforts to examine pesticide sensitivity in wild species, the degree to which population-level differences influence sensitivity to pesticides is not often considered,” the researchers postulate. They continue: “This is crucial because stressors that influence bee abundance vary across landscapes, and pesticide tolerance interacts with these stressors like parasite load, nutritional status and even temperature. In addition, wild bumblebees can exhibit variation in abundance of gut microbes across landscapes, likely due to variation in these stressors and floral resources. If we want to identify generalizable patterns regarding which populations of wild bees (or their microbiomes) are most vulnerable to disruption by agricultural chemicals, a deeper understanding of factors driving sensitivity across landscapes is thus essential.”

Beyond Pesticides has long documented the failure of risk assessments and regulatory processes that do not properly protect health and the environment. With these deficiencies, the only solution is a systems-based, holistic transition to organic land management that removes the threats of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. This protects pollinators, such as bumblebees, from harmful chemicals, as well as enhances biodiversity and mitigates the crises of climate change and associated public health implications.

>> As temperatures break records, Congress must act to urgently transition away from petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use in land management, and support an across the board shift to the organic regenerative solution.

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

Source:

Tatarko, A. et al. (2025) A wild bumble bee shows intraspecific differences in sensitivity to multiple pesticides, Royal Society Open Science. Available at: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.250281.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 17, 2025) The widespread use of pesticides year-after-year, decade-after-decade, has been found to lead to unintended consequences not only for public health but also for broader ecosystem stability and biodiversity. These impacts include potential nontarget harm through adverse developmental and reproductive effects on the vinegar fly, Drosophila melanogaster, the subject of a peer-reviewed study in Royal Society Open Science. The authors, who studied the organochlorine fungicide chlorothalonil, conclude, “Chlorothalonil exposure decreases larval survival, extends developmental duration and reduces fecundity.”

“Even at the lowest tested concentration, chlorothalonil exposure resulted in reduced body weight, ovariole count and egg production compared with non-exposed individuals,” the researchers find. This study builds upon years of scientific research findings and critiques of existing federal pesticide law, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) failure to fully assess the adverse impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem stability during the pesticide registration review process.

Methodology and Background

The goal of this study is to evaluate the health impacts on a nontarget insect species (Drosophila melanogaster) from chronic exposure to chlorothalonil. This specific fungicide was chosen for various reasons, including its wide use across cereals, vegetables, and fruits; evidence linked to adverse health effects on vertebrate and invertebrate species; and the fungicide’s “frequent detection in soil and water bodies near agricultural areas.”

The researchers simulated chronic exposure to reflect residue levels otherwise found on produce available in the market. The experimental design to evaluate adverse developmental and reproductive health impacts includes assays for larval survival, body weight, ovariole count, egg production (fecundity), iron content (ferrozine assay serving as a proxy for male fertility), and feeding. The control group of fruit flies was provided a diet without the fungicide, while the experimental group had the fungicide product (Surefire Chlortan 720 SC) dissolved in water and mixed into the standard diet.

The authors of this study include researchers at Australia-based Macquarie University and France-based PURPAN Engineering School. There are no competing interests declared by the authors. The only funding source for this study is linked to one of the author’s Master of Research scholarships through the International Macquarie University Research Excellence Scholarship (iMQRES MRES).

Results & Analysis

The authors identify numerous adverse health effects that chlorothalonil imposes on fruit fly developmental and reproductive health, including:

• Significant decline in larval survival as chlorothalonil concentration increases;
• Egg production dropped by 37 percent over the course of the study at the lowest tested dose (5mg/kg) and dropped by over 50% at a dosage of 120 mg/kg;
• Fewer ovarioles (egg-holding structures in the fruit fly body) were developed in exposed female fruit flies;
• Body weight was significantly reduced in exposed female fruit flies, with a positive correlation found between lower body weight and reproductive health;
• Iron content significantly dropped in exposed male fruit flies, with possible implications for male fertility; and
• No significant changes in food intake at the larval stages, suggesting that some reproductive and developmental effects are not directly attributed to reduced feeding.

“These findings emphasize the potential risks chlorothalonil poses to Drosophila and, more widely, insect populations, even at low doses, and underscore the importance of assessing non-target effects in broader ecological contexts, particularly for chemicals widely used in agriculture,” the authors write in the Discussion section of the study.

“We expected the effect to increase far more gradually with higher amounts. But we found that even a very small amount can have a strong negative effect,” Associate Professor Fleur Ponton, PhD, the supervising author of the study, told SciTechDaily.

Previous Research & Advocacy

Despite a growing body of scientific literature, complex ecosystem-wide effects of synthetic pesticides are not considered by EPA. To determine legal pesticide use patterns intended to protect ecosystems (the complex web of organisms in nature), EPA requires a set of tests to measure both acute and chronic effects. An ecological risk assessment (ERA) considers the lethal concentration at which 50% of a population of a given species will die (LC50), and the chronic impacts associated with environmental exposure. However, the ERA process has failed to account for sublethal and persistent exposures, as documented in the scientific literature.

A study published in Conservation Letters in 2024 exposes critical shortcomings in EPA’s ecological risk assessment process for modeling the risks that pesticides pose to bees and other pollinators. After reviewing 252 assays from 49 studies, the authors determined EPA’s reliance on honey bee data from lab studies focused on LD50 does not accurately capture the threats that pesticides pose in the real world to thousands of other bee species with diverse life histories, genetic compositions, and sensitivities to pesticides. Additionally, for both dietary and topical exposures to neonicotinoid insecticides, multiple non-Apis (wild) bee genera like Bombus, Megachile, Melipona, Nannotrigona, and Partamona exhibit significantly higher sensitivities and lower LD50 values compared to Apis (honey bees), in some cases up to six orders of magnitude more sensitive. Looking within just the Apis genus, LD50 values for the same neonicotinoid varied by up to seven orders of magnitude, likely due to factors like genetic diversity, temperature differences, nutrition levels, and other environmental parameters that were not adequately accounted for by the ERA process. The ECOTOX database—an EPA-hosted, publicly available resource with information on adverse effects of single chemical stressors to certain aquatic and terrestrial species—is overwhelmingly populated (79.4%) by acute lethality data from studies lasting just one to five days on the western honey bee. Compounding this issue of incomplete scientific data, the authors identify that chronic, longer-term studies on diverse bee species and real-world conditions are lacking. (See here for Daily News.)

On the issue of registering new active ingredients, EPA registered a new active ingredient in 2020 (Inpyrfluxam) without performing a thorough review of its impacts on biodiversity, as well as threatened and endangered species. After being sued by the Center for Biological Diversity for failure to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), EPA committed to completing draft effects determinations by Fall 2022, but fell short with an incomplete assessment, given the failure to appropriately measure chronic toxicity or test for endocrine disruption. (See here for the Daily News.)

Call to Action

The structural issues in EPA’s ecological risk assessments are not a new phenomenon; Beyond Pesticides has continuously pointed out their deficiencies in evaluating numerous active ingredients and chemicals, including atrazine, fludioxonil, neonicotinoids, carbaryl and methomyl, indaziflam, pyrethroids, paraquat, glyphosate, and wood preservatives.

You can take action today by sending a message to EPA that, in order to meet its obligations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and ESA, it must facilitate a transition to organic practices; you can also tell Congress to ensure that EPA meets its statutory obligations.

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

Source: Royal Society Open Science

(Beyond Pesticides, July 16, 2025) A 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.

To assess pesticide residues within ten of the deceased butterflies, the researchers use liquid and gas chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS) and find “a total of 15 pesticides and associated metabolites in the butterflies, including 8 insecticides (plus 1 associated metabolite), 2 herbicides (plus 2 associated metabolites), and 2 fungicides.”

The study “present[s] evidence that the mortality incident at the Pacific Grove Monarch overwintering site was likely caused by nontarget pesticide poisoning,” the authors state. “These findings demonstrate pesticide contamination in monarch butterflies, including within urban areas, and highlight the risks pesticides, especially insecticides, pose to monarch populations.”

Background

Monarch butterflies are an important pollinator species and encounter pesticides through multiple exposure routes while performing ecosystem services. Eggs, larvae, and adults of the species may directly contact pesticides. Monarchs can also experience dietary exposure when feeding on contaminated host plants or flowers. “Pesticides have been detected in milkweed plants across agricultural, urban, and open areas in California, and throughout other regions of North America, highlighting exposure risks for monarch larvae,” the researchers note. Contaminated soil and water also present a risk. (See research here, here, and here.)

Many studies (see here, here, here, and here) show that pesticide use in private gardens, on turfgrass, and for mosquito and vector control also presents a risk to butterflies. The use of pesticides near overwintering sites, such as the one in the current study, presents a heightened risk to the species as well.

The authors share: “Monarchs aggregated at roosting locations along migratory corridors or overwintering groves may be particularly vulnerable to pesticide exposure events, as a single application could potentially impact hundreds or thousands of individuals. Because these clustering events occur during especially sensitive phases of the migratory cycle, pesticide exposure during these stages could have significant consequences for subsequent generations. Furthermore, monarchs return to the same overwintering locations annually, relying on specific microclimatic conditions for survival, making relocation to avoid pesticide exposure unfeasible.”

Study Methodology and Results

The current study is authored by staff of The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History. Approximately 200 monarch butterflies were discovered dead and dying near the large overwintering site, where “[m]any of the moribund butterflies were exhibiting signs of pesticide poisoning.”

The Pacific Grove Monarch Sanctuary is one of approximately 400 overwintering sites along the California coast where monarchs have been documented as visiting for over 100 years. “The site regularly supports up to tens of thousands of butterflies each fall and winter during their reproductive diapause [dormancy],” the researchers say. As an example, in November of 2023 alone, The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation observed approximately 6,600 butterflies overwintering at the site.

As the study describes: “Some of the butterflies were scattered across a turf lawn, while others were grouped in multiple piles parallel to a structural perimeter. Many of the butterflies were already dead, while others were twitching, a symptom commonly observed in response to neurotoxic pesticide poisoning. The dead butterflies’ wings were flipped forward and their abdomens curled, suggesting similar involuntary movements prior to death… Staff and volunteers continued to observe small numbers of butterflies displaying these symptoms on the lawn over the next two weeks.”

This discovery led to the researchers analyzing “pesticide residues in several deceased individuals to assess pesticide exposure and determine whether it may have contributed to the mortality event.” The analyses show residues of 15 pesticides and associated metabolites, with the three neurotoxic pyrethroid insecticides (bifenthrin, cypermethrin, and permethrin) at the highest concentrations across samples. Residues of bifenthrin and cypermethrin are noted in every sample, while permethrin is present in all but two of the samples.

For the three pyrethroid insecticides identified, there is only a published LC50 value for bifenthrin relating specifically to monarchs. In comparing the reported LC50 to the study results, four out of the ten butterflies contained bifenthrin concentrations exceeding this value. For permethrin and cypermethrin, the only comparison that can be made is to other butterfly species. This, however, does not paint an accurate picture of how these chemicals can impact monarchs, as variations in sensitivity between species can be quite drastic.

For permethrin, an LD50 range is established for other adult nymphalid butterflies. The authors state, “In our study, six of the sampled butterflies had concentrations falling within or exceeding this range.” For cypermethrin, there is only an LC50 available for the butterfly pest species of Pieris brassicae, with the study data “indicating that six of the ten monarchs we sampled were exposed to a potentially lethal dose.”

Also of note is that LD50 values represent the dose required to kill 50% of a test population, while some individuals can experience debilitating symptoms, and still die, from lower doses. One study finds that “monarch larvae exposed to bifenthrin at less than half of its lethal dose exhibited severe poisoning symptoms, including bleeding and spasming.” In the current study, eight of the ten monarchs show bifenthrin levels at which such symptoms could occur.

As the researchers point out, there are additional issues in assessing risks to species since “available toxicity values are based on exposure to a single active ingredient, whereas all the sampled monarchs contained residues of multiple pesticides.” Exposure to multiple pesticides can result in additive or synergistic effects, which then enhance toxicity, as has been demonstrated in many studies of pollinator species.

The researchers further note: “The toxicological effects of multiple pyrethroids are likely additive due to their shared mode of action. Interactions between different modes of action groups can lead to synergistic effects, where the combined toxicological effect exceeds the sum of the individual effects. Therefore, it is possible that combined exposure to various pesticides could have enhanced pyrethroids’ toxicities in the sampled monarchs.” (See research here, here, and here.)

History of Monarchs and Pesticides

Adverse impacts to monarch butterflies have been documented since the 1980s, with studies finding populations across North America declining by approximately 80% in the east and 95% in the west. (See studies here and here.) These drastic results have led the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to propose listing the monarch as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The most recent proposal, posted for public comment on December 12, 2024, and covered in the Daily News, also included adding designated critical habitats for the species that would span approximately 4,395 acres throughout overwintering sites in coastal California. The comment period, in which Beyond Pesticides submitted comments, closed on March 12, 2025.

As Beyond Pesticides continues to report, the biodiversity crisis is one of multiple crises that are compounding one another. While human actions are contributing to an ongoing Holocene or sixth mass extinction, the globe is also facing crises in human disease and climate change. Declining monarch populations are symptomatic of the ongoing insect apocalypse, which threatens worldwide ecology and agriculture—and exemplifies the regulatory process that fails to protect biodiversity. (See Daily News here.) 

Preserving biodiversity is imperative for all life and starts by considering all the factors that contribute to the crisis in the first place. Pesticide use is a major cause of declining biodiversity, which is manifested in extinctions, endangered species, and species vulnerable to environmental disturbances—including climate change, habitat fragmentation, and toxic chemicals. As emphasized in the public comments, Beyond Pesticides urges the protection of monarch butterflies as critically necessary—rooted in science and given the foundational role that pollinators play in the ecosystem and the knowledge that their extinction would have cascading negative impacts.

Several studies also show the contamination from pesticides on milkweed plants, which monarch caterpillars rely on as their only food source. (See studies here, here, and here as well as related Daily News coverage here, here, and here.)

The mass mortality event in Pacific Grove is not the first to occur. A 2020 Daily News article reports on a “Monarch Massacre” where hundreds of monarch butterflies were found dead after the Vector Control Department of Cass County, North Dakota, aerially sprayed the county for mosquito control. This case also links the use of synthetic pyrethroids to the deaths of monarchs.

Organic Solution

The more recent mass mortality incident in California adds to the wide body of science that highlights the ongoing risks pesticides pose to monarchs and other pollinator species. The alternative to toxic chemicals that do not threaten health and biodiversity? Organic land management.

The elimination of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers is the only solution moving forward that can protect species, like the monarch butterfly, from population effects. Mitigation measures have consistently and repeatedly failed. In adopting organic practices, the harmful effects seen with chemical-intensive, conventional methods are prevented, and the health of the environment, including all organisms it supports, is prioritized.

Learn more about the benefits of organic here and here, as well as in the Daily News Biodiversity Threatened by Pesticide Drift, Study Finds; Organic Agriculture Cited as a Holistic Solution and Pesticides and You article, Thinking Holistically When Making Land Management Decisions.

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

Source:

Cibotti, S. et al. (2025) Pyrethroid insecticides implicated in mass mortality of monarch butterflies at an overwintering site in California, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/etc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/etojnl/vgaf163/8177160.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 15, 2025) A study published in Environmental Science and Technology finds that there are 47 current-use pesticides—products with active ingredients that are currently registered with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) —detected in samples of indoor dust, drinking water, and urine from households in Indiana. This study builds on existing scientific literature documenting the public health threat of nonoccupational, indoor pesticide exposure. (See previous Daily News here, here, and here.) The study is a reminder that pesticides move into the indoor environment through the air, and on clothing, making exposure more widespread than the assumptions used in regulatory reviews.

Background and Methodology

“In this study, we collected matched samples of indoor dust, drinking water, and urine from 81 households in Indiana, United States, and analyzed these samples for 82 CUPs [current use pesticides], including 48 insecticides, 25 herbicides, and 9 fungicides,” say the authors. They continue: “Of these, 47 CUPs were identified across samples of indoor dust, drinking water, and urine with median total CUP (∑CUP) concentrations of 18 300 ng/g, 101 ng/L, and 2.93 ng/mL, respectively.” The herbicides (13) detected include 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), Alachlor, Atrazine, CIAT (Desethyl-atrazine), Diuron, Metolachlor, Metolachlor OA (Oxanilic acid), OIAT (2-Hydroxy-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine), OIET (2-Hydroxyatrazine), Prometon, Simazine, Acetochlor, and Acetochlor OA; the insecticides (20) include neonicotinoids (Acetamiprid, Clothianidin, Dinotefuran, Imidacloprid, Thiacloprid, Thiamethoxam, NDMA [N-desmethyl-acetamiprid], and 6-CNA [6-Chloronicotinic acid]), organophosphates (Diazinon, Ethoprophos, Malathion, IMPY [2-isopropyl-4-methyl-6-hydroxypyrimidine], PNP [p-nitrophenol], and TCPγ [3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol]), pyrethroids (3-PBA [3-Phenoxybenzoic acid], 4-F-3-BA [4-Fluoro-3-phenoxybenzoic acid], and Fenpropathrin), and phenylpyrazoles (Fipronil, Fipronil sulfone, and Desulfinyl fipronil); and the fungicides (9) detected include azoles (Myclobutanil, Propiconazole, Tebuconazole, and Metconazole), strobilurins (Azoxystrobin and Pyraclostrobin), amides (Boscalid and Metalaxyl), and the benzimidazole Carbendazim.

The participants were recruited through the Person-to-Person (P2P) Health Interview study cohort at Indiana University, which was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. The dust, drinking water, and urine samples were all collected on the same day for each study participant, with 3 samples per participant amounting to 243 total samples. Samples were gathered between August and December of 2020 and stored at negative 20 degrees Celsius before instrumental analysis. (For more information, see “Instrumental Analysis” subsection on page “B”.)

The authors are researchers based at Emory University, as well as Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Precision Measurement and Early Warning Technology for Urban Environmental Health Risks and College of Chemistry and Environmental Engineering at Shenzhen University (China). The authors declared that there is “no competing financial interest” in conducting this study. In the acknowledgements, “[t]he authors thank Indiana University, the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, the Shenzhen Science and Technology Program (KQTD20240729102048052), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (22206071), the Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Precision Measurement and Early Warning Technology for Urban Environmental Health Risks (ZDSYS20220606100604008), and High Level of Special Funds (G03050K001) for funding this project.”

Results

“Our results show that indoor dust is a significant exposure pathway for most insecticides and fungicides, while herbicides are mainly consumed through drinking water,” say the authors. “In addition, the toxicity equivalent factor model, incorporated with data retrieved from the ToxCast database, indicated that imidacloprid poses the greatest health risk based on its high exposure levels and toxicity.”

The authors also cite some additional findings of note:

• Thirty-seven CUPs were detected in indoor dust samples;
  • Neonicotinoids and their “breakdown products” were the most abundant group of insecticides found in indoor dust, “contributing more than 70% to the total insecticide concentrations”;
  • “Overall, the median total [neonicotinoid] concentration in indoor dust was 4,100 ng/g [nanograms], approximately 3 orders of magnitude higher than that reported in urban settings;
  • “The most abundant herbicide detected in indoor dust was 2,4-dichorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), which constituted more than 85% of the total herbicide concentrations.” Considering that 2,4-D has a short half-life of one and a half days, the authors believe that this “may indicate a recent application in the vicinity of the sampling area”; and
  • “Azole, strobilurin and amide fungicides were found in all indoor dust samples.”
• Thirty-three CUPs were detected in drinking water samples;
  • “[Organophosphates ] were more frequently detected compared to [neonicotinoids] and found at higher concentrations”;
  • “Sixteen herbicides were found in drinking water samples. Herbicides were the predominant group of CUPs in drinking water samples and contributed 55% to the ∑CUP concentrations”;
  • Atrazine and its breakdown products made up “over 50% of the total herbicide concentrations” accounted for in this study; and
  • Seven fungicides were detected in water samples, with Tebuconazole the only one to be detected in over half of the samples, while the other detected compounds were detected in less than 44% of the samples.
• Nineteen CUPs were detected in urine samples;
  • The most abundant concentrations of pesticides (in decreasing order) in urine came from insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides;
  • The top five highest concentrations of pesticides in urine samples included imidacloprid, dinotefuran, 2,4-D, Metolachlor OA, and 3-PBA;
  • “Herbicides were detected in 93% of urine samples”; and
  • “Individual fungicides were detected in less than 50% of the samples.”

Additional noteworthy points raised by study authors include:

• Insecticides contributed 80% to average CUP concentrations in indoor dust, herbicides made up 55% (“the most abundant group”) of total samples for drinking water, and insecticides also made up the vast majority of concentrations in urine samples (82%);
• The average CUP concentrations in private water wells “were significantly lower” than municipal government-managed water sources, which “may be related to the local municipal water infrastructure”; and
• “The EDIs [estimated daily intake] of individual CUPs were below the tolerable daily intake thresholds established by the U.S. EPA,” which is the risk assessment-based approach for calculating cumulative health risk, despite the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Previous Daily News

Other peer-reviewed studies document 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.)

The toxicity and pervasiveness of certain pesticides in this study, including the herbicide 2,4-D, have been documented in various reports and studies, as covered in previous Daily News. A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives in 2024 was one of the first to indicate a link between exposure to the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate to the impairment of behavioral performance (i.e., attention/inhibitory control, memory/learning, language, visuospatial processing, and social perception). (See Daily News here.) 2,4-D has also been found in all pregnant participants of a biomonitoring study published in Agrochemicals in 2024 in the Midwest region of the United States (Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio). “Cases were selected as participants in which any of the following occurred: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, spontaneous preterm birth, gestational diabetes, stillbirth, or fetal demise < 20 weeks,” according to the researchers. (See Daily News here.)

Similarly, safe drinking water has been a key concern in terms of pesticide residues emerging in groundwater samples, water well samples, and other areas that signal their pervasiveness and potential threat to human health. Approximately four in ten private wells in the state of Wisconsin contain toxic pesticides and pesticide metabolites, according to findings released earlier this year from a 2023 survey, entitled Wisconsin Agricultural Chemicals in Wisconsin Groundwater, conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) in partnership with U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). (See Daily News here.) A report published by University of Connecticut researchers found that 46% of Connecticut waterway samples are contaminated with levels of the neonicotinoid insecticide, imidacloprid—one of the most widely used insecticides in the United States on lawn and golf courses. (See Daily News here.) Studies on imidacloprid have linked the active ingredient to reproductive effects and a potential leacher, a possible contributor to various cancers, kidney/liver damage, and a likely contributor to endocrine disruption and birth and developmental effects. Imidacloprid has been proven toxic to fish and aquatic organisms, as well as bees.

Call to Action

Communities across the nation remain committed to moving beyond chemical dependence to address the issue of pesticide drift into our homes, where our loved ones may be inadvertently exposed to toxic pesticide residues that undermine immune systems and potentially contribute to deadly and chronic diseases. You can take action today (see here) by telling EPA to meet its obligations under federal pesticide and wildlife laws to facilitate a transition to organic practices.

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

Source: Environmental Science and Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, July 14, 2025) With the rise in early onset cancer rates and mortality for breast, pancreatic, and gastric cancers, a wide and growing body of science linking pesticides to cancer, and associations between childhood cancer and pesticides, Beyond Pesticides is urging nationwide efforts to eliminate the use of cancer causing pesticides.

Peter Hopewood, MD, FACS, writing in a bulletin in the American College of Surgeons says, “The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been in the healthcare spotlight since 2019, but the reality is that heart disease and cancer killed more people than COVID-19 in 2020 . . . and were our nation’s leading causes of death for decades before that. Among Americans younger than 85 years of age, cancer remains the leading cause of death.” Dr. Hopewood is convinced that “cancer has been an ongoing pandemic since life expectancy increased during the 20th century.”  

In 1985, Imperial Chemical Industries and the American Cancer Society declared October “Breast Cancer Awareness Month” as part of a campaign to promote mammograms for the early detection of breast cancer. Unfortunately, most of us are all too aware of breast cancer. Detection and treatment of cancers do not solve the problem. A preventive approach is needed, not just awareness. Barbara Brenner, activist and executive director of Breast Cancer Action (BCA) in San Francisco, asks, “There is a value to awareness, but awareness of what, and to what end?” 

Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Disease Database tracks the independent peer- reviewed literature on cancer and other adverse health effects.  One recent study finds that the cancer risk posed by pesticides rivals that of smoking. A recent article in The New Lede documents case studies of cancer diagnoses linked to chemical-intensive agriculture. Current national cancer rates, according to the American Cancer Society, show that two million new cancer cases are projected to occur during 2025 in the U.S. Additional research predicts 618,120 cancer deaths this year as well, highlighting a crisis of great concern. 

Farmers, farmworkers, and their families face disproportionate risks from toxic pesticide exposure. Other socioeconomic factors contribute to disparities in the ability to receive treatment. A frightening indication for the future comes from findings that cancer is striking at an earlier age, causing some to warn of an epidemic of early-onset cancer.  

Beyond the huge personal toll that cancer demands of patients and their families, including survivors, there are enormous financial costs. The personal financial burdens of paying for cancer treatment and hidden costs, including travel, lodging, and loss of income, add to the stress of the disease on both patients and their families. On a larger scale, the National Cancer Institute finds, “National costs for cancer care were estimated to be $190.2 billion in 2015. Assuming constant future costs, we project costs to be $208.9 billion in 2020 (2020 U.S. dollars), an increase of 10 percent that is only due to the aging and growth of the U.S. population. These cost estimates include cancer-attributable costs for medical services and oral prescription drugs.” In addition, according to the Cancer Atlas, “The economic burden of lost productivity due to premature mortality from cancer is greater than cancer treatment and represents most of the total economic burden of cancer.” 

In spite of the huge burden placed on Americans individually and collectively, U.S. policy allows cancer-causing pesticide use even though it is not needed to grow food and manage land. EPA regulates pesticides under the 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), to which Congress added a major revision with the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996—which repealed the Delaney Clause, which required the banning of chemical additives in food that cause cancer in humans or animals—if a substance was carcinogenic, no level of it would be allowed to be added to processed food. There was no acceptable threshold below w
With the availability of safer alternatives to toxic chemicals in agriculture, parks, homes, and gardens, the allowance of carcinogens and other substances with documented harm to health and the environment is unreasonable. Organic methods are proven to provide numerous health benefits, as well as more nutritious food, that can both protect and enhance biodiversity and mitigate the effects of climate change.  

Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to: Tell EPA and Congress to eliminate cancer-causing pesticides that contribute to the ongoing cancer pandemic. 

Letter to Congress Peter Hopewood, MD, FACS, convinced that “cancer has been an ongoing pandemic since life expectancy increased during the 20th century,” writes in a bulletin in the American College of Surgeons, “The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been in the healthcare spotlight since 2019, but the reality is that heart disease and cancer killed more people than COVID-19 in 2020 . . . and were our nation’s leading causes of death for decades before that. Among Americans younger than 85 years of age, cancer remains the leading cause of death.” 

In 1985, October was declared “Breast Cancer Awareness Month” as part of a campaign to promote mammograms for the early detection of breast cancer. Unfortunately, most of us are all too aware of breast cancer. Detection and treatment of cancers do not solve the problem. We need prevention, not just awareness. 

A large body of science links increased cancer risks with exposure to agricultural chemicals, including petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. One recent study finds that the cancer risk posed by pesticides rivals that of smoking. The American Cancer Society projects two million new cancer cases during 2025 in the U.S. Additional research predicts 618,120 cancer deaths this year as well, highlighting a crisis of great concern.

Farmers, farmworkers, and their families face disproportionate risks from toxic pesticide exposure. Socioeconomic factors contribute to disparities in the ability to receive treatment. A frightening indication for the future comes from findings that cancer is striking at an earlier age, causing some to warn of an epidemic of early-onset cancer. 

Beyond the huge personal toll that cancer demands of patients and their families, including survivors, there are enormous financial costs. The personal financial burdens of paying for cancer treatment and hidden costs—including travel, lodging, and loss of income—add to the stress on both patients and families. On a larger scale, the National Cancer Institute finds, “National costs for cancer care were estimated to be $190.2 billion in 2015. Assuming constant future costs, we project costs to be $208.9 billion in 2020 (2020 U.S. dollars), an increase of 10 percent that is only due to the aging and growth of the U.S. population. These cost estimates include cancer-attributable costs for medical services and oral prescription drugs.” In addition, according to the Cancer Atlas, “The economic burden of lost productivity due to premature mortality from cancer is greater than cancer treatment and represents most of the total economic burden of cancer.”

Despite the huge burden placed on Americans individually and collectively, the use of cancer-causing pesticides is allowed even though it is not needed to grow food and manage land. EPA regulates pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which allows pesticides to be used only in the absence of unreasonable adverse effects. Although the Food Quality Protection Act repealed the Delaney Clause, which required the banning of chemical additives in food that cause cancer, replacing it with a risk assessment protocol that allows for uncertainty, ignores preexisting health conditions and vulnerabilities, fails to evaluate chemical mixtures and synergistic effects, and establishes levels of “acceptable” harm, the availability of safer alternatives to toxic chemicals in agriculture, parks, homes, and gardens, makes the continued allowance of carcinogens and other substances with documented harm to health and the environment unreasonable.  

Organic methods are proven to provide numerous benefits that can prevent cancer, protect and enhance biodiversity, and mitigate the effects of climate change. Please support legislation that eliminates cancer-causing pesticides and promotes organic agriculture and land management.

Thank you.

For additional context and background, please see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database [PIDD] resource on cancer, available below! ⬇️

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2025) Pesticides and antibiotics are linked inextricably in the looming crisis of human and ecosystem health. Both started out as quasi-miraculous solutions to age-old human problems, yet it has been clear that the failures of each present severe challenges—and that they are synergistic because they trigger the same kinds of defensive mechanisms in their targets: insects, fungi, and weeds on the one hand, and microbes on the other. A review of contamination of waterways in India with pesticides and antibiotics, published in Environmental and Geochemical Health, recounts the many threats that arise when these chemicals mix and how their presence in water makes the problems much worse.   

Globally, about five million people died in 2019 from infections with antibiotic-resistant microbes. By 2050, according to a World Bank estimate, antibiotic resistance could add $1 trillion to global health care costs and subtract $3.4 trillion from annual global gross domestic product. 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.

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.

India’s experience with pesticides began with the Green Revolution, which spread globally from the mid-1940s to the mid-1980s. DDT and benzene hexachloride (BHC) were introduced in 1948 in India. The first BHC factory was built in 1952, and India subsequently became a major manufacturer of pesticides. It was not until 1971 that a national pesticide regulation was established. The country’s pesticide evolution has since undergone phase transitions similar to those in the United States and Europe—from DDT to organochlorines, organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, and more recently, neonicotinoids. From the 2000s onward, Indian pesticide production has burgeoned, and the country is currently the fourth-largest producer of agrochemicals.

Antibiotic resistance is a classic case of natural selection: Not every organism will be killed by a toxicant, and the survivors reproduce to create a population of resistant individuals. This has been a recognized problem for at least two centuries, but microbial resistance is accelerating as the world becomes more and more saturated with chemicals that trigger natural selection. Pesticides have profound effects on microbes, including in the human gut, and often function as antibiotic,s whether intentionally or not.

Microbes have numerous ways of evading pesticides’ antibiotic properties—efflux pumps, horizontal gene transfer, biofilm formation—and bacteria possessing all these skills are especially good at multi-drug resistance. Efflux pumps allow bacteria to eject foreign and toxic material from their cells.

Horizontal gene transfer and genetic mutations allow bacteria to alter cellular defenses, often through the transmission of plasmids, which are packets of resistance genes and their helper DNA elements. These genes can change membrane permeability, dismantle antibiotics, or change the target of an antibiotic or pesticide. Biofilms protect a wide variety of microorganisms from antibiotics, cleaning agents, and even abrasion. According to the Indian review, biofilms occur frequently in agricultural runoff, sewage systems, and their receiving waters. Bacteria living inside a biofilm can be a thousand times more resistant to antibiotics than those living freely, the authors write, and biofilms often harbor persister cells, which remain dormant when exposed to antibiotics and afterwards revive to regenerate the biofilm. They also make horizontal gene transfer more likely.

These defense mechanisms increase as the selective pressure, whether from pesticides or antibiotics, increases, and in areas where both pesticides and antibiotics are present, the rate at which resistance evolves speeds up. Specific pesticides have been associated with resistance to specific antibiotics. According to the Indian review, glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba help bacteria develop resistance to tetracycline and ampicillin. (See Glyphosate Induces Antibiotic Resistance in Deadly Hospital-Acquired Infection.) Chlorpyrifos increases multidrug-resistant plasmid transfers. The fungicide azoxystrobin causes Pseudomonas aeruginosa to bolster its efflux pump capacity. (See Daily News and Pesticides and You.)

The Indian review analyzes the evidence of antibiotic resistance and pesticides in Indian aquatic ecosystems. According to the authors, numerous aquatic environments in India show signs of being antibiotic resistance nurseries, from the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in the north to the Thamirabarani in the southern Tamil Nadu state. These areas receive heavy amounts of agricultural runoff. Seawater along the coasts harbors Vibrio bacteria—pathogens of cholera and gastroenteritis—that are antibiotic-resistant. India is also a leader in pharmaceutical manufacturing, which contributes significant effluent to surface waters; wastewater treatment facilities receiving such effluent are known antibiotic resistance hotspots. Groundwater in India is likewise polluted; researchers have also found resistant E. coli strains in Assam and Uttar Pradesh in groundwater contaminated with agricultural products.

Aquaculture is emerging as a serious incubator of pesticide-antibiotic induced resistance. A study of finfish aquaculture in Bangladesh found extensive use of many antibiotics and pesticides.

India uses relatively few pesticides, with an application rate of 0.4 kg per hectare, compared to China, which uses 1.83 kg per hectare. It actually manufactures and exports more than it uses internally, according to the review. But, between the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and pesticide and their use internally, much of the country is contaminated. India has gradually increased pesticide regulation, banning the organochlorine compound endosulfan in 2011, which reduced the scourge of pesticide-related suicides significantly. It passed the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in 2014, and there have been some attempts to incorporate alternative pest management practices, but these are inconsistent and spotty.

Ultimately, there is no avoiding the end-state of pesticide use, which is an increasingly toxic environment populated by those organisms that can survive it, which are uncontrollable by current methods.

As the review authors put it, “The time for half-measures and bureaucratic reluctance is passed; India needs to take immediate action to defend its water resources and public health from this unpredictable yet growing problem.”

As Beyond Pesticides wrote in a Commentary last year, “[W]e 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…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.” (See Agricultural Uses of Antibiotics Escalate Bacterial Resistance.)

Beyond Pesticides’ position is that the twin problems of pesticides’ multifarious toxicities and antibiotics’ inevitable uselessness are not categorically distinct, but rather two aspects of the same mistaken assumption—that we can dominate nature by brute force. They can be reversed by switching to organic and regenerative agriculture. Resistance to both pesticides and antibiotics is inevitable, and thinking otherwise is magical thinking.

To take action: Tell EPA to cancel all uses of a pesticide when resistance is discovered or predicted to occur. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA protects public health from deadly antifungal and antibiotic resistance.

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

Sources:

Pesticide‑driven antimicrobial resistance in water bodies: insights on environmental concerns, health implications, and mitigation strategies
Sonkar et al
Environmental and Geochemical Health 2025
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10653-025-02600-y

Local applications but global implications: Can pesticides drive microorganisms to develop antimicrobial resistance?
Ramakrishnan et al
Science of the Total Environment 2018
https://www.academia.edu/85694036/Local_applications_but_global_implications_Can_pesticides_drive_microorganisms_to_develop_antimicrobial_resistance

Commentary: We Can and Must Stop Antibiotic Pesticide Use in the Interest of Public Health Worldwide
Beyond Pesticides, January 8, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/01/commentary-we-can-and-must-stop-antibiotic-pesticide-use/

Amounts of Pesticides Reaching Target Pests: Environmental Impacts and Ethics
David Pimentel
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1995
https://r.jordan.im/download/environmentalism/pimentel1995.pdf

Mechanism for Escalating Antibiotic Resistance in Agriculture Detailed in Study, as Crisis Grows
Beyond Pesticides, January 2, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/01/mechanism-for-escalating-antibiotic-resistance-in-agriculture-detailed-in-study-as-crisis-grows/

Study Finds Synergistic Convergence of Global Warming, Pesticide Toxicity, and Antibiotic Resistance
Beyond Pesticides, May 1, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/05/study-finds-synergistic-convergence-of-global-warming-pesticide-toxicity-and-antibiotic-resistance/

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2025) A study in People and Nature, with the goal of better understanding the social acceptability of introduced species management (ISM), often labeled “invasive species,” in the U.S., “conducted an online experiment with vignettes describing hypothetical but realistic ISM scenarios, varying targeted taxon (insect or plant), control method (mechanical, chemical and biological), risk severity (low and high) and type of non-target risk (to humans or native species).” This study highlights the debate on defining “invasive” species, as well as the low levels of acceptability by the general public for chemical controls such as pesticides.

In addition, as pesticide hazards increase, the authors note that the responses show acceptance for only mechanical controls that incorporate manual removal of species, such as through pulling, cutting, clipping, or mowing. “Surprisingly, there was no significant difference in how respondents ranked risks to people and risks to native species,” the researchers report. This shows the values placed on both human health and biodiversity and “highlight[s] the need for evidence-guided ISM, which includes evidence of harmful impacts of introduced species, as well as risks and benefits of management activities, as one potential way to increase the social acceptability of non-native species management.”

In supporting the organic movement as an alternative to chemical-intensive land management, the study notes that: “Concerns about non-target risks of chemicals are widespread as evidence of detrimental effects on species, food webs and human health continues to accumulate. Modern pesticides now widely used in ISM are promoted as more selective and less toxic than older versions, but this may be misguided.” (See research here, here, here, and here.)

The authors continue by saying: “[E]ven with repeated efforts, chemicals are often insufficient for managing widespread introduced species. Our respondents show a general aversion to these treatments, a continued trend of social discomfort towards this method which first coalesced in U.S. environmentalism of the 1960s following the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. The withdrawal of many products no longer deemed safe for humans or the environment and documentation of widespread negative impacts to wildlife and human health may explain our respondent’s aversion towards chemical treatments.” (See studies here and here.)

As Beyond Pesticides advocates, current risk assessments do not adequately capture the harm to all organisms and the environment. There is a wide body of scientific literature connecting the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, typically used in the management of many “invasive” species, to detrimental effects on human health, biodiversity, and the environment. The failure to fully consider these adverse effects in the registration process, advocates say, violates the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). (See more on regulatory deficiencies here and here.)

In previous Beyond Pesticides coverage, the topic of what constitutes “invasive” species is discussed. As shared on the Ecological Management of Problem Vegetation (“Invasive Weeds”) page, the landscape in the U.S. and around the world has vastly changed over the last few decades. The replacement of diverse ecosystems with monocultures and development projects has been accompanied by disturbances that create new habitats. As people have moved around, they have carried with them — sometimes unwittingly, sometimes purposefully — plants and animals from their former homes. When the habitat suits the new plant or animal, it happily makes itself at home.

When these new inhabitants interfere with what humans want to do, the unwanted species are identified as “pests” or “weeds.” There are some weeds that seem to be especially difficult to manage—particularly those that have become established in “natural” or managed ecosystems. Are these species “invasive” or are they opportunists taking advantage of disturbed ecosystems? This is the ever-evolving debate over “invasive” versus introduced species and emphasizes how important definitions are.

Many scientists have different opinions on this matter. While stressing the importance of preventing the introduction of unwanted species, David Pimentel, PhD, argued at one point that alien weeds pose serious problems for agricultural and natural ecosystems, although most of his work pointed to the true agricultural costs of pesticides from secondary pests and lost ecosystem services. Virginia Daley and Fritzi Cohen argued that humans have always assisted the spread of plants wherever they have moved, and that the current concern about “invasive plants” is an excuse to mount chemical warfare campaigns. (See more Beyond Pesticides coverage on “invasives” here, here, here, and here.) Despite the framing of the definition of “invasives,” toxic chemicals are not an answer, but in fact, pose greater threats than the problems they are meant to solve.

The current study in People and Nature describes the definition of introduced species by stating: “Human-assisted biological invasions occur when species are transported (accidentally or purposefully) from their current range to a new environment where they are not native. This process unfolds in stages and species need to overcome multiple environmental and ecological filters. Most of the non-native species that arrive in a new environment actually fail to establish, and of those that initially establish and grow, many fail to naturalize, that is, create self-sustaining, reproducing populations. Of those that naturalize, some thrive and expand their range from initial introduction areas, and they may become abundant in local ecosystems. Those non-native species that naturalize and become harmful by affecting native species, ecosystems, human well-being or the economy are considered ‘invasive,’ but the distinction between introduced and ‘invasive’ species has become blurred and scientists disagree on terminology.”

The researchers note that perceptions of “invasive” species, and of the language used to characterize non-native species, can greatly vary in both the scientific community and by the general public. “Part of the complexity that makes biological invasions a wicked problem is the enormous variation in introduced taxa (from microbes, to insects, to plants, to birds, to fish, to mammals, etc.) and their ecological niches (decomposers, herbivores, parasites, diseases, predators, etc.), causing a wide variation of potential and realized impacts,” the authors say. They continue, “Impacts can vary according to how different stakeholders are affected and through time, reflecting a mix of scientific evidence and value judgements and creating intense disagreements about which non-native species should be managed and how.” (See studies here, here, here, and here.)

The intent of ISM is to avert or reduce harmful impacts of non-native species, usually by preventing introductions in the first place, but when utilized after a species is well established “reflects a belief that the non-native species is causing harm, and that risks associated with management are smaller compared to risks of not managing.” This approach is problematic, as the authors point out that “for the vast majority of non-native species we have extremely limited or no published evidence for their ecological impacts. Even for well-studied species, documented impacts can range from negative, to neutral, to beneficial.” (See scientific literature here, here, here, here, and here.)

To better understand public opinion and acceptability of ISM, the researchers conduct an experiment with 24 “realistic but hypothetical ISM scenarios varying targeted taxon (insect or plant), control method (mechanical, chemical and biological), risk severity (low and high) and non-target risk (to human well-being or native species)” involving non-native plants and insects. The experimental scripts include written descriptions in short, plain language regarding invasion scenarios and proposed management actions to measure how acceptable courses of action are perceived to be.

The scenarios incorporate responses on a “7-point bipolar Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ through ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ with an additional option of ‘I do not know’” to assess acceptability. As a result, the authors note: “Comparing within non-target impacts, acceptability was always significantly lower for biological and chemical relative to mechanical control, regardless of taxon targeted. Acceptability is only separated for biological and chemical controls in comparison to mechanical control across non-target impacts. When biocontrol targeted plants and involved risks to human well-being, acceptability was significantly lower than mechanical control of either plants or insects with risks to native species.”

These results highlight a preference for mechanical controls of introduced and non-native species. In summary, the researchers say: “Our findings suggest that many current ISM practices have limited acceptability by the U.S. public, even when risk levels are low… [W]e found that concerns of management potentially harming native species were equally strong as impacts affecting human well-being. Our results point to a greater societal concern for the fate of native species than generally acknowledged and may be consistent with evidence showing a shift from utilitarian value orientation to more ecocentric or mutualistic views of nature and wildlife in the U.S. affecting attitudes regarding management of non-native species.”

Aside from the vast amount of research highlighting the negative effects of chemical control methods, Beyond Pesticides has also covered scientific evidence on biological control. Studies (see here, here, and here) demonstrate that biological control has successfully managed non-native fire ants and the tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and can be considered a less-toxic option. Mechanical control, however, remains the safest alternative and is proven effective in managing species considered “invasive” or unwanted.

In particular, goats can be used as a mechanical method to organically manage land. As stated in previous Daily News articles, goat grazing has been demonstrated to be an effective tool because the herd eats unwanted vegetation and then cycles nutrients back into the soil, thus fertilizing. Goats get a drink and deliver water to dry sites one pint at a time, thus irrigating, and also aerating, mulching, and tilling soils with their hooves. (See additional coverage on goats here, here, here, here, and here.)

To learn more about organic land management and non-toxic lawns and landscapes, see here and here. The holistic, systems-based approach of organic offers both health and environmental benefits while managing non-native species in a way that promotes ecosystem health and mitigates myriad adverse effects that are documented with chemical-intensive methods. Sign up to receive Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered right to your inbox to stay informed and engaged.

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

Source:

Simmons, W. et al. (2025) Common approaches to introduced species management face widespread acceptance problems in the United States, People and Nature. Available at: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/am-pdf/10.1002/pan3.70053.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2025) Policymakers in Tanzania are calling for increased investments in organic agriculture for the 2025/26 fiscal year budget, demonstrating the increase in political will to advance new systems of farming and land management after decades of relying on Green Revolution-style, or chemical-intensive, policies. On June 20, various ministers representing the national government presented speeches to Parliament on the national government’s plan and budget recommendations, as well as highlighting the previous fiscal year’s trends and use of funds.  

Political and popular support for organic agricultural systems has gained momentum across the globe. Worldwide, organic farming practices quadrupled from 2000 to 2018, with over 180 countries supporting a global transition to organic agriculture. Newly published global survey data by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements – Organics International (IFOAM) reveal global organic agriculture to be at an all-time high, with 71.5 million hectares of farmland in production as of 2020. (See Daily News here). Farmer and agricultural cooperatives around the world, from Brazil to Madagascar and Togo, leverage organic systems to develop competitive business models in regional, national, and international markets. (See Daily News here.) The European Union, with the goal of 25 percent of all European farmland certified organic by 2030, just released a new nearly 5 million euro initiative (OrganicClimateNet) to support farmers and supply chains in reaching this goal. (See Daily News here.)

According to reporting in the Tanzania-based outlet The Citizen, “Special Seats MP [Member of Parliament] Asha Juma (Chama Cha Mapinduzi, the ruling political party in the nation) called for more sustainable farming methods, advocating for a gradual transition away from chemical imports toward organic agriculture: ‘Let’s protect our land and adopt organic farming.’” MP Juma continues, “If we reduce reliance on imported chemicals and shift to organic practices, we will safeguard the environment and enhance long-term soil fertility.”

“Tanzania’s budget spending will increase by about 12% next fiscal year to roughly 56.5 trillion Tanzanian shillings ($22 billion), driven by efforts to complete flagship infrastructure projects, Finance Minister Mwigulu Nchemba said on Thursday [June 12,]” based on reporting by Reuters. In addition to recognizing the importance of the country’s National Ecological Organic Agriculture Strategy (NEOS) (2023-2030), MP Juma’s enthusiasm to double down on organic stems from Minister Mchemba’s rosy outlook on the growth of the national agricultural sector from 2.7 percent of GDP in 2022 to 4 percent in 2024 and crop production increasing from 17.1 million tons to over 22.8 million tons in that same period.

Tanzania, like many nations, is at a crossroads in the direction it may choose in leading sustainable forms of land management and agriculture that move beyond the chemical-intensive status quo. The development of national strategies and goals for organic agriculture is a step in the right direction that advocates in the United States have been calling for elected officials to embrace. However, goals for organic transition remain elusive under the national political leadership.

National Ecological Organic Agriculture Strategy

NEOS, published in September 2023, builds on regional goals to expand organic farming via the African Union’s Decision on Organic Farming (2010) and Ecological Organic Agriculture Initiative (EOAI) in Eastern Africa.

The stated core values of NEOAS are ninefold and “anchored around sustainable ecological organic agricultural practices.” The policy seeks to:

1. Enhance biodiversity in view of nature conservation and sustainable development.
2. Promote farming systems that incorporate indigenous knowledge.
3. Promote environmental conservation.
4. Embrace fairness and justice to the ecosystem.
5. Improve and secure farmers’ market access and livelihoods.
6. Promote safe, nutritious, and healthy food.
7. Protect nature and water sources.
8. Reduce climate impacts from farming and improve resilience to climate change.
9. Enhance and protect indigenous and improved EOA [ecological organic agriculture] seeds/breeds.

Moreover, the Strategy lays out 12 objectives to be carried out by 2030:

1. Enhance capacity of institutions for research, training, and extension systems in developing and disseminating appropriate EOA technologies and practices.
2. Promote availability and accessibility of EOA inputs and appropriate farm machineries (tools, equipment, and implements)
3. Strengthen Information and Communication Technology (ICT) system to access and disseminate appropriate EOA information.
4. Strengthening networking, capacity in EOA sub-sector organizations and institutional coordination framework.
5. Ensure compliance of standards and certification of EOA products at an affordable cost.
6. Facilitate development of EOA value chains.
7. Strengthen environmental conservation using Ecosystem-based Adaptation and Nature-based Solutions.
8. Mainstream cross-cutting issues in EOA sub-sector.
9. Facilitate acquisition and accessibility of financial resources for EOA investment.
10. Facilitate development and use of irrigation infrastructure in EOA production systems.
11. Enhance availability, accessibility, and utilization of land for EOA
12. Increase the business and trade volumes of EOA products in the national, regiona,l and international markets.

The rationale for developing this guiding strategy, as outlined in the founding document, centers around advancing food sovereignty in an ecologically sustainable manner, lifting communities out of poverty, and encouraging stronger competition in national and international markets. Minister of Agriculture Hussein Mohamed Bashe, in his presentation to Parliament, shared that the government continues to implement NEOAS through several interventions, including organizing farmer field schools, formulating guidelines and standards for certification, and determining access to national and international markets through various farmer organizations in the organic sector, including Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement, which is referenced in NEOAS as a leading nonprofit group in this arena.

Another farmer-led organization contributing to the growth of organic in Tanzania, named Kilimo Kwanza (Swahili for Agriculture First), has highlighted the rise of organic production in Tanzania, as well as other African nations such as Kenya and Uganda, in “transforming their agricultural landscapes and positioning themselves as significant exporters of organic products.” In the context of Tanzania, the author notes, “Since the introduction of NEOAS, Tanzania’s agricultural budget dedicated to organic farming has increased fivefold.” The author continues: “This substantial investment has facilitated the growth of the organic sector, enabling farmers to adopt sustainable practices that avoid synthetic chemicals and embrace agroecological methods. The results have been significant, with Tanzania now recognized for its high-quality organic produce, including fruits, vegetables, and spices, in high demand in international markets​​.”

Scientific Record of Pesticide and Chemical Harms in Tanzania

There are decades of peer-reviewed scientific literature, including in-depth research at scientific institutions within Tanzania, highlighting the human health and ecological risks of pesticide and chemical agents. In 1991, a study published in World Health Organization Bulletin and funded in part by the World Health Organization (WHO) in partnership with National Institute for Medical Research found the pyrethroid insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin “was associated with abnormal skin sensations on the face and, less frequently, with nose and throat irritation, sneezing, and coughing” among indoor spraying of the pesticide and associated exposure to inhabitants in those households. It is important to note that this study did not address long-term adverse effects associated with the pyrethroid, as documented in the scientific literature, including endocrine-disrupting potential and neurotoxicity in humans, as well as toxicity to bees, fish, and aquatic organisms.

A study in 2017, published in Environmental Research, tested mothers’ breast milk and associated health metrics of their infants and levels of organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in maternal breast milk. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides and metabolites tested include dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and its metabolites, dieldrin and PCBs. Two DDT metabolites, “p,p′-DDE and p,p′-DDT, were detected in 100% and 75% of the breast milk samples, respectively,” according to the abstract. “Dieldrin was detected in 66% of the samples.” The authors determined that “[t]he estimated daily intake (ng/kg body weight/day) of ∑DDTs, dieldrin and nondioxin-like PCBs (∑6PCBs) exceeded the provisional tolerable daily intake (PTDI) in two, six and forty-eight of the nursing infants, respectively, suggesting potential health risks.” Head circumference of infants consuming this breast milk were also found to have head circumference “negatively associated” with one DDT metabolite in “female infants, suggesting that OC exposure during pregnancy may influence fetal growth.”

Research on chronic health and disease has also been discussed in the scientific literature. While a recent literature review published in Scientific African found “scarce information on the association between pesticide exposures and chronic diseases in Tanzania” and no published study exploring this specific linkage as of 2022, there are various linkages between pesticide exposure and chronic illnesses in other parts of the globe listed in Table 3 of the study. The authors, which include academics based at Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology in Tanzania and Nutrition and Dietetics Kenyatta University in Kenya, indicate that the rise of non-communicable (NCD) diseases is a serious national public health problem “currently account[ing] for 33% of all death[s]” with “[a]bout 35,000 people…developing cancer yearly in Tanzania and the rate…expected to increase by 50% by 2030.” NCDs have disproportionately impacted young people and women. See previous Daily News, With Global Disease Rates Rising, Do Pesticides Take Some of the Blame? Science Says, “Yes.”, for additional analysis.

A 2022 literature review published in Chemosphere, and conducted by Tanzania Industrial Research and Development Organization (generally regarded as a pro-industry perspective, per their mandate), identified studies signaling pesticide residues that fall under the legal threshold for safety concerns (per WHO, Environmental Protection Agency, and UN Food & Agriculture Organization limits), however there are noted exceptions. In a recent Daily News, U.S. Policy Allows Cancer-Causing Pesticide Use Even Though It Is Not Needed to Grow Food and Manage Land, Beyond Pesticides breaks down the failure of relying on risk-based regulatory models for protecting human health and the environment. See here also for the failure of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program in misleading the public on pesticide residues and the risks they impose on long-term health trends among consumers of U.S. produce and food products. The study does concede the thorny issue that various pesticides (DDT, endosulfan, and hexachlorocyclohexane [HCH]) have been detected in vegetation, food, and biota samples. It is important to note that approximately two-thirds of acute pesticide poisonings are under-reported and occupational poisonings are least common in women as opposed to men in Tanzania, according to a 2014 research report published in NeuroToxicology conducted by Tropical Pesticides Research Institute (Tanzania), Muhimbli University of Health and Allied Sciences (Tanzania), and School of Public Health & Family Medicine (South Africa).

Building on this point of pesticide residues in food consumed by the public, a 2018 study also published in Chemosphere and conducted by researchers at University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, found most pesticide residues in their study—which included aldrin, dieldrin, chlorpyrifos, fenitrothion, pirimiphos-methyl, DDT, endosulfan, and HCHs—are in excess of maximum residue limits (MRLs) among chicken kidney, liver and muscle samples from poultry farms in various agricultural-intensive regions of Tanzania. Researchers point to these findings as indications of “risks and concerns for livestock and public health.” Organochlorine pesticides and their metabolites (DDT, DDE, DDD, HCHs, dieldrin, heptachlor, chlordane, endrin and hexachlorobenzene [HCB]) have been detected in rainwater on the Kibaha Coast region of the nation, as identified in a 2015 Chemosphere study conducted by researchers at German institutions and University of Dar es Salaam in their respective chemical and environmental health departments. “The highest concentrations were found in samples collected in the vicinity of the contaminated site and the concentrations at other points showed a general even distribution suggesting repeated volatilization and deposition mechanisms,” note the authors. They continue: “The strong positive correlations in the concentrations of the compounds indicated a common source.”

See previous Daily News here and here to learn more about nature-based solutions to move beyond synthetic agrochemicals for ecosystem management in the Lake Victoria region, as well as the synergistic impacts that pesticide run-off imposes on infectious human diseases like snail fever (schistosomiasis).

Call to Action

It is imperative to move beyond reliance on toxic petrochemical-based practices and toward an organic future. This requires calling on regulatory agencies like EPA to meet its statutory obligations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). See here to take action today!

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

Source: The Citizen

(Beyond Pesticides, July 8, 2025) A commentary published in Science of The Total Environment showcases the occupational and environmental exposure pathways of fossil-fuel-based pesticide and fertilizer products that children across the globe face, particularly in rural areas of low- and middle-income countries.

The authors underscore “the urgent need for multi-level systemic change, resilient health systems, and active stakeholder engagement,” which includes “support for safer and more sustainable agricultural practices.” This includes specific asks for governments “to offer technical assistance to producers and encourage organic and agroecological practices to ensure both environmental justice and food security.”

Organic food systems, and criteria for land management systems more broadly, are critical to addressing the triple crises of biodiversity loss, public health collapse, and climate emergency.

Organic law, as defined in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1991, is designed as a participatory process with accountability and transparency integral to the statutory language. The law creates the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), comprised of farmers, consumers, and conservation organizations, a scientific expert, an organic certifier, and a retailer with the statutory authority to adopt binding recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. Simultaneously, the public is invited to submit comments to NOSB every six months.

Review of the Commentary

This commentary revolves around the story of Zeca, a child living in rural Brazil with worsening asthma as a result of occupational and environmental exposure to pesticides. According to the article: “Despite this consistent scientific evidence, children’s pesticide exposure in LMIC [Low- and Middle-Income Countries] rural areas remains largely neglected in occupational health and maternal-child health agendas. It continues to be underrecognized, understudied, and underfunded—both in research and clinical practice. This invisibility delays essential policy responses, and undermines risk assessments, effective interventions, healthcare, and surveillance. In short, it remains the “elephant in the room — a global public health crisis we are collectively ignoring.”

The authors explore the concept of Chemical Colonialism, or “the continued export of pesticides banned in high-income countries to LMICs, where regulation, surveillance, and enforcement are often absent or insufficient ().” The authors continue: “Paradoxically, many of these poorer countries subsidize their own contamination. In 2017 alone, Brazil provided nearly 10 billion reais (approximately USD 3 billion dollars) in tax incentives for pesticide industries, based on the premise that pesticides are vital for national development and agricultural modernization ( ). Thus, the profits of wealthier nations are built on the toxic burden placed upon the children of poorer countries.” Beyond Pesticides has reported extensively on this dynamic previously in the Daily News here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The issue of child labor exemplifies disproportionate adverse effects on a vulnerable population group, as noted in this commentary. “Globally, millions of children — some as young as 5y[ears old] — are engaged in unsafe labor. About 160 million children aged 5-17y[ears old] were engaged in child labor in 2020, with nearly half working under hazardous conditions, mainly in agriculture,” according to the authors. They continue: “Among the youngest group (ages 5–11), approximately 75 % work in agricultural settings, where pesticide exposure is a routine risk (). This is the harsh reality faced by Zeca in his childhood.”

“[Environmental injustices] are evidence of our bioethical failure, and part of a broader global pattern in which the most affected populations in LMICs — children, women, Indigenous people, and smallholder farmers — are those with the least institutional protection or voice,” according to the authors. The authors cite policymakers’ concerns over food security or public health pertaining to the spread of mosquito-borne diseases, such as malaria, as barriers to passing more robust reforms.

Given this historical impasse, the authors propose a series of policy recommendations focused on mitigation measures that fall short of transformative change, including calls for better labeling, better access to pesticide data to inform risk assessment, and taxing pesticides more stringently to inform surveillance and prevention. At the same time, the authors recognize the value of organic and agroecological farming, given that these systems move beyond the status quo of extractivism and chemical dependency. Another set of important recommendations proposed by the authors includes the representation of rural communities in decision-making processes, as well as consideration of pesticide harms in “clinical assessments,” Advocates point to the need to consider cumulative risks and synergistic effects before registering new pesticide active ingredients or whole formulations of products, including adjuvants, inert ingredients, and/or synergists.

This commentary was co-written by an international cohort of academics from a range of institutions in Global South and Global North nations, including University of Sao Paulo (Brazil), University of Queensland Child Health Research Centre (Australia), Universiti Teknologi Mara Department of Environmental Health (Malaysia), National University of Costa Rica, Universidad de Chile, Institutio Nacional de Salud Publica (Mexico), as well as UC Berkley Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, and University of Michigan School of Public Health (United States).

Previous Research and Developments

The threat of pesticide exposure is both immediate and existential for frontline communities, as was made clear last November when South Africa declared a national emergency after at least 23 children died and nearly 900 people fell ill from pesticide poisonings (including organophosphate insecticide terbufos and carbamate insecticide aldicarb). (See Daily News here.)

There is increasing evidence linking mothers’, children’s, and adolescent health in rural communities to generational effects, both in the United States and abroad. In Brazil, a 2023 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) tracked 15 years of data; the findings identified a 10 percent increase in soybean cultivation area is associated with an additional 0.40 deaths out of 10,000 due to ALL for children 5 years of age and lower and an additional 0.21 deaths of children 10 years of age and lower per 10,000 population. The study finds “a strong and persistent relationship between the arrival of high-intensity agriculture in [the Cerrado] region and adverse human health outcomes,” even after controlling for confounding factors. (See Daily News here.)

Similarly, in Mexico, a 2025 study compared two communities located less than a quarter of a mile from agricultural fields with one control community located more than a mile away. The study shows that children in the field-adjacent towns are clearly exposed to pesticides and are experiencing cellular distress, including elevated levels of biomarkers linked to oxidative stress, as a result. (See Daily News here.)

This pattern is also found in various peer-reviewed studies in U.S.-based cohorts. In analyzing data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Pesticide National Synthesis Project in combination with diagnoses through the Nebraska Cancer Registry, authors of a 2025 study published in GeoHealth found associations between 32 agrichemicals and pediatric cancer in the state. The authors found statistically significant positive associations between pesticide usage rates and children with cancer, specifically brain and central nervous system (CNS) cancers, and leukemia. (See Daily News here.)

In a separate study published this year in PNAS, University of Oregon researchers found that the rollout of genetically engineered corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years.” The researchers “focus[ed] on the over 10 million births that occurred between 1990 and 2013 in rural U.S. counties or involved mothers residing in rural counties” across the nation. (See Daily News here.)

Pesticide harms can impose long-term health risks beginning with maternal health and extending onward to prenatal, postnatal, and adolescent adverse effects. A 2025 study published in Journal of Hazardous Materials reports for the first time an association between gestational anemia (GA), pesticide exposure, and the potentially protective effects of gut microbes. While the report is still undergoing peer review, it establishes important connections eminently worthy of deeper investigation and suggests that the balance of gut microbes may be a highly effective way to reduce or prevent GA. (See Daily News here.)

Generational exposure raises serious concerns for reproductive health, as evidenced in a 2025 report published in American Journal of Epidemiology. Researchers identified the influence of prenatal pesticide exposure among Latina adolescents, leading to the influence of menstrual symptoms, such as heavy bleeding, indicating to their knowledge that “this is the first study to examine the association between prenatal pesticide exposure and menstrual outcomes in adolescents of any demographic group.” (See Daily News here.) This finding is supported by various research associating higher levels of certain pesticide metabolites with early onset of puberty (see Daily News here) and developmental neurobehavioral disorders, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (see Daily News here).

Call to Action

Reflecting on Juneteenth and Pollinator Week, advocates are reminded of the inextricable link between environmental justice and the necessity to eliminate pesticide exposure by targeting root causes. There is also an immediate need to ensure that food security is met while also encouraging the growth of local food systems that are invested in moving beyond the status quo of chemical-intensive, industrial agriculture.

In that spirit, you can take action today by informing your U.S. Representative and Senators to make the Local Food for Schools (LFS) Cooperative Agreement Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) Cooperative Agreement Program permanent through the Farm Bill. (See the Action of the Week here.)

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

Sources: Science of The Total Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, July 7, 2025) At the end of the Independence Day weekend and after the Congressional passage of reconciliation bill (H.R. 1) on July 3, ongoing legislative proposals challenge the underlying principles of the  Declaration of Independence—raising serious environmental and public health concerns and issues of democratic governance by local and state governments to ensure protections.

A new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll finds that three-quarters of Americans say democracy is under serious threat. The Declaration not only presented the case of the colonists for independence from Britain, it also created a framework for defining democracy, beginning with the statement, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and it continues “necessary for the public good.”

• Above all, the Declaration’s statement of the equal rights of all citizens supports the need for environmental justice. 
• Among the grievances listed are the King’s restriction of the power of local (colonial) authorities to pass laws, “the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” This is an important issue today, as we see attacks on local ordinances to restrict pesticides that endanger public health.  
• The colonists also protested against the King’s obstruction of justice, which is evident today as industry attempts to prevent those injured by pesticides from receiving compensation. 
• Beyond the Declaration, the Bill of Rights protects citizens’ right to debate the scientific findings on adverse effects of products. 

In the spirit of Independence Day, Beyond Pesticides urged Congress to affirm the foundation of democracy by taking steps that protect the lives of constituents by: 

1. Reinstating environmental justice as a goal of federal programs;
2. Affirming the rights of state and local governments to protect residents from the effects of pesticides;
3. Ensuring that people have the right to be heard in court and recover damages when injured by pesticides;
4. Protecting the right to debate scientific findings regarding the effects of pesticides and other toxic products; and
5. Supporting organic agriculture and landcare as an alternative to unnecessary use of toxic pesticides.

On Independence Day, Beyond Pesticides called on the public to Tell Congress to protect democracy by resisting the domination of the pesticide industry and promoting organic alternatives that protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 3-4, 2025) On this Independence Day, Beyond Pesticides calls for holistic solutions that, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, move the nation to ensure “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The founders of the United States were aware of the existential threat of corruption to democratic institutions. Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, warned in Federalist No. 68 of The Federalist Papers that the presidency could be overtaken by a despotic figure without adequate safeguards. James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, in Federalist No. 10 speaks to the danger that factions—defined as a group of people or entities “… who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”—impose on the general public, if not checked by safeguards in the country’s political system.

The foundational principles in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have been challenged under the current administration and in the U.S. Congress. Communities are facing a fourfold attack on these principles and the centuries-old promise of the nation:

1. The illegal rollback of federal and state laws, as well as funding programs allocated by Congress, amounts to violations of the Constitution on multiple grounds and an abuse of environmental justice principles;
2. The preemption of state and local authority that threatens local democratic decision-making continues to be weighed out in Congress, including through the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, previously the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act;
3. The continuous attacks on the right of cancer patients to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable through failure-to-warn claims, which amounts to infringement on the democratic right to access the judicial branch of the government and to hold bad actor corporations accountable in the courts; and
4. The undermining of First Amendment rights to have a public debate on independent scientific findings on the adverse effects of consumer products.

Altogether, “moneyed” interests, such as the fossil fuel sector, pesticide and fertilizer manufacturers, industrial agriculture, and their political allies, continue to weaponize the three branches of government and undermine the distribution of powers between local, state, and federal governments (principle of federalism). Environmental advocates maintain that economic interests must not harm the public good, but should prioritize investments and regulations to protect and regenerate clean water, air, soil, and ecosystems through organic systems.

Attacks on Environmental Justice

Beyond Pesticides was founded in 1981 in the spirit of environmental and agricultural justice. The organization’s founders walked through agricultural areas in Florida, Texas, and California in the late 1970s, speaking with farmworkers about their sicknesses and miscarriage rates, and the lack of training, protective equipment, clean drinking water, and sanitation in the fields. They witnessed the profound failure of the marketplace and the regulatory system to protect the lives and well-being of farmworkers and their families—including the lives of young children who, on a typical day, lived with poisoned air, water, and food on the edges of treated fields. 

In this spirit, Beyond Pesticides works with communities across the country to transition their neighborhoods—specifically public parks, green spaces, and playing fields—to organically-managed, pesticide-free spaces. We have worked with roughly 26 states across dozens of cities and towns across the country over the course of the Parks for a Sustainable Future Program. (See here for a map highlighting our impact.) Amid attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and environmental justice funding, we believe that it is a critical concern to ensure that public spaces are toxic-free, considering the disproportionate risks that parents and children—particularly in BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities—face daily. See here to learn more about the Sustainable Parks program.

Beyond Pesticides has called out the illegal federal funding cuts and urged Congress to restore funds for various programs that disproportionately impact the working class, fenceline, frontline, and communities of color nationwide. Impacted programs that aim to protect essential workers in the food and agriculture sector include the Biological Center for Research on Children’s Health project and the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR) Program. See here to take action.

The Bioecological Center for Research on Children’s Health project, funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was designed to identify, understand and address the cumulative impacts of exposures to environmental toxicants (pesticides, heavy metals, particulate matter) and nonchemical psychosocial stressors (poverty, food insecurity, trauma, discrimination, etc.)  on the health, development, and growth of farmworker children. Working in collaboration with the Florida State University (FSU) health clinic in Immokalee, the project would have examined threats, implemented strategies to improve health outcomes for farmworker children, and collaboratively established a Center in Immokalee, Florida to continue the research, outreach, and services to the community.  

The SENSOR program, funded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), monitors pesticide-related incidents of injuries, illnesses, and deaths at the state level, tracking worker pesticide exposure incidents. By providing technical support to state health agencies to train medical professionals on how to diagnose and treat pesticide poisonings, SENSOR strengthens the network of health experts who can help advise farmworkers, pesticide applicators, parents, and others to prevent harm from pesticides, often with disproportionate adverse effects in people of color communities.

These are two of the countless initiatives, research centers, and other federal programs that are in jeopardy due to the current administration’s wrecking-ball approach to operating regulatory systems meant to protect, not undermine, public well-being.

Pesticide Preemption

As Congress amends and comes to a consensus on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, hundreds of organizations representing the interests of farmers, rural communities, farmworkers, conservationists, environmentalists, and public interest continue to oppose preemption language in the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (not yet re-introduced in the 119^th Congress) or EATS Act (re-introduced as the Food Security and Farm Protection Act on April 8). As of today’s publication, it is expected that industry-backed amendments will be included in upcoming legislation, including provisions on federal preemption of state and local environmental and public health laws, and a prohibition on failure-to-warn cases against chemical manufacturers whose products cause harm.   

Pesticide manufacturers, including Bayer-Monsanto, have been ramping up their federal lobbying efforts after failing to pass state legislation in nine of the twelve states to immunize them from failure-to-warn litigation. See section below for further information on failure-to-warn claims and related legislation.

Language establishing chemical company immunity from “failure-to-warn” litigation and local and state authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than the EPA was included in the 2024 Republican Farm Bill draft, as well as failed attempts to include it in the House Interior Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2025, escalating the fight over federal preemption of state and local standards and protective authority of the courts. The Senate GOP framework includes preemption of state and local governance of pesticides, food systems, and production, and public health in Title X, Horticulture title: “Restates and reaffirms [EPA’s] obligation with respect to the federal and state regulatory process.” Moreover, Title XII, Miscellaneous states: “Protects the ability of livestock producers to raise and sell products into interstate commerce without interference from other states.” More specifically, this language would have a two-fold impact:

• Prohibit the right to sue for failure to warn when harmed by pesticides. In Section 10204 of the House Farm Bill, language shields (gives immunity to) the producers and users of toxic pesticides from liability lawsuits associated with the harm that their products cause. The provision will block lawsuits like those successfully advanced against Bayer/Monsanto for adverse health effects, like cancer, associated with exposure to their products and companies’ failure to warn about these effects on EPA-approved product labels.
• Prohibit the rights of states and local governments to restrict pesticides and protect public health and the environment. In Sections 10204 and 10205, language would prevent local and state governments from passing pesticide ordinances or concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) regulations that conflict with (aka are more stringent than) federal regulations and policy.

In a win for local control in the context of CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operations) preemption, the Supreme Court on June 30 denied the Iowa Pork Producers Association’s petition to throw out California’s Proposition 12. “The challenge stem[med] from a previous Supreme Court ruling on the case, which determined California’s law does not violate the Commerce Clause,” according to reporting by Progressive Farmer.

See Daily News here and here, respectively, for further analysis on the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity and Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act.  

Failure-to-Warn

An industry-led campaign to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their “failure to warn” about the hazards of their pesticide products has failed to move forward in nine state legislatures with significant GOP majorities (Iowa, Missouri, Idaho, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, Wyoming, Montana, and Oklahoma). The bills were successful in North Dakota and Georgia, with Bayer CEO Bill Anderson threatening to withdraw pesticide products from states that do not pass this legislation (see here for Reuters reporting), imposing undue pressure on local and state governments to govern themselves based on their constituents’ values and wishes, rather than those of a private corporation.

North Carolina remains the last state with active pesticide immunity legislation, with successful efforts to remove the provision from the North Carolina Farm Act in the state House; unfortunately for North Carolinians, the state Senate did not concur, and so it will move forward in a closed-door conference committee consisting of House and Senate members. The General Assembly is currently on summer recess; however, they will return in the fall, and Beyond Pesticides will continue to track as more information arises.

Currently, pesticide labels under federal and state law generally do not warn of potential chronic effects, such as cancer, reproductive effects, infertility, birth defects, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, cardiovascular damage, and more (see Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database), but warn of acute effects, such as rashes, headaches, stinging eyes, and more.

After years of large jury awards, preemptive settlements, and lost appeals in cases involving exposure to the weedkiller glyphosate, Bayer/Monsanto is trying to stop the company’s financial hemorrhaging with a state-by-state strategy to deny victims access to the courts. To accomplish this, Bayer has founded, along with agribusiness groups including state Farm Bureaus and chemical-intensive commodity crop associations, a coalition to stop “failure-to-warn” lawsuits with state legislation. Bayer’s coalition, Modern Ag Alliance, says it is fighting what it describes as “scientifically unsound lawsuits” on the weedkiller glyphosate. The alliance says, “If we don’t act, the future of glyphosate and other valuable crop protection tools and critical innovations may be at stake.” As has been reported widely, Bayer/Monsanto has lost numerous multimillion-dollar lawsuits because of its “failure to warn” of its product’s hazards to those who have been harmed. The company’s defeats include a U.S. Supreme Court denial (denial of certiorari) to hear their appeal in 2022.

With this, Bayer has taken its campaign to the states to strip away people’s (including farmers’) ability to hold corporations accountable through a common law duty to warn claims associated with pesticide products. Most recently, SCOTUS asked the Solicitor General’s office (U.S. Justice Department) “for its views on whether the justices should take up the appeal,” based on Reuters coverage. There are more than 67,000 pending cases in state and federal courts alleging Bayer failed to warn customers of Roundup products’ linkage to various cancers, including failure to warn through their advertising materials. In May 2025, Missouri Independent reported that a federal court of appeals (Western District of Missouri Court of Appeals) upheld the decision of a 2023 case in Cole County, Missouri, awarding a $611 million judgment to three cancer victims.

See here for some of the latest developments on failure-to-warn and pesticide immunity legislation in a recent Daily News.

First Amendment under Threat

When legislative and executive branches of government forego their responsibilities to serve the public interest, the significance of an independent judiciary becomes all the more important to protecting democratic traditions, most notably the First Amendment of the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech.

Polyloom, a major artificial turf manufacturer and self-describes as “one of the largest designers, producers, recyclers, manufacturers and installers of artificial turf in the United States”, filed both a complaint and an application for a Temporary Restraining Order, preliminary injunction, and monetary damages ahead of a webinar scheduled for June 23, 2025, entitled “The Trouble with Turf.” The targets of this webinar include Grassroots, the webinar sponsor, and all the individuals slated to speak in it who were sued in their individual capacities, including Jay Feldman, the executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

The counter-lawsuit, filed under the Civil Rights Law of New York by all the people and entities named in Polyloom’s action, charges the corporation of having engaged in an illegal SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit “for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, punishing, or maliciously inhibiting the free exercise of speech, petition or association rights.” The suit seeks $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages, as well as all costs and attorneys’ fees. 

“Our lawsuit is an important attempt to hold Polyloom accountable for false accusations on scientific questions of safety and the potential of synthetic turf to present a hazard to health and the environment,” Mr. Feldman stated. “Beyond Pesticides advances organic land management as an alternative to synthetic turf, and the discussion of this alternative should not be stifled by Polyloom or other corporations that have a vested economic interest in downplaying or misleading on the hazards associated with their products.”

The brazen approach that private interests take comes at a time when the public is looking for alternatives to agricultural and land management systems that contribute to biodiversity collapse, public health deterioration, and the climate crisis. See Daily News, Synthetic Turf Company Sues to Silence Environ. and Health Groups on Hazards/Alternatives; Pushback, for further context.

Call to Action

The Constitution of the United States begins with a simple, yet profound, preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It is imperative that the constitutional authority that binds this nation together is protected and preserved, not only to ensure liberty and justice for all, but also to continuously improve upon the lofty ideals included in that document that millions of Americans have long sought after, including women and gender-expansive folks, Black, Brown, and Indigenous peoples of color, naturalized citizens and those aspiring to become so, among other historically disadvantaged communities and peoples.

During these unprecedented times, Beyond Pesticides urges sending a message even to those who refuse to listen. As we strive to adopt the changes essential for a livable future, we must create a record that is based on science, even when the science and the facts are dismissed by those in power.

To this end, the failure of action to address the existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises by those in Congress and the administration empowers lower levels of government and some corporations to step into the void left by those whose actions or inaction threaten life. See here to sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Update in your inbox. You can also become a local Parks Program Advocate here.

As the nation celebrates the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll finds that three-quarters of Americans say democracy is under serious threat. The Declaration not only presented the case of the colonists for independence from Britain; it also stated a framework for defining democracy, beginning with the statement, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

📣 Tell Congress to protect democracy by resisting the domination of the pesticide industry and promoting organic alternatives that protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

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

Sources: Federalist 10, Federalist 68, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Food Security and Farm Protection Act, Progressive Farmer, Reuters, Missouri Independent

(Beyond Pesticides, July 2, 2025) An article in The New Lede, entitled Seeking answers to a cancer crisis in Iowa, researchers question if agriculture is to blame, documents case studies of cancer diagnoses linked to chemical-intensive agriculture. Current national cancer rates, according to the American Cancer Society, show that two million new cancer cases are projected to occur during 2025 in the U.S. Additional research predicts 618,120 cancer deaths this year as well, highlighting a crisis of great concern.

A wide body of science links increased cancer risks with exposure to agricultural chemicals, including petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Previous coverage from Beyond Pesticides showcases the disproportionate health risks to farmworkers and their families, as well as those living near agricultural fields, associated with exposure to harmful toxicants. Recent research ties pesticide use to cancer diagnoses among farmer populations through a literature review of clinical trials, as well as epidemiologic, case-control, and experimental studies, from not only the U.S. but Brazil, India, France, Egypt, Columbia, Ecuador, Mexico, Italy, and Spain. (See Daily News here.)

Additional risks for children, as reported in a study in GeoHealth, are noted in Nebraska as exposure to agricultural mixtures show statistically significant positive associations with pediatric cancer, specifically brain and central nervous system (CNS) cancers and leukemia. Scientific literature has also analyzed the mechanisms in which pesticides can impact cancer development. A study in Environmental Sciences Europe finds that the weed killer glyphosate persists in bones before reentering the bloodstream. The mechanisms in which glyphosate interacts with important cells for development, called hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), and breaks and rearranges DNA offer a possible explanation for the heightened risk of cancer, specifically blood cancers like non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), myeloma, and leukemia.

The New Lede article captures the experiences of individuals in Iowa on “the rising rates of cancer plaguing the state,” with a call for an investigation of “potential environmental causes for what some call a cancer ‘crisis.’” Through both personal stories of cancer patients with no other known risk factors aside from agricultural exposure, as well as comments from community members a listening session held in Indianola, Iowa, the article highlights not only the pervasiveness of cancer but the heightened risks of living in heavily farmed areas. At the listening session, “[T]he moderator asked attendees to raise their hands if they had experienced cancer personally or through someone close to them. Everyone raised a hand.”

A study published last year in Frontiers in Cancer Control and Society supports the Iowa experience with a finding that agricultural pesticide use “has a significant impact on…all cancers, bladder cancer, colon cancer, leukemia, lung cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer…and these associations are more evident in regions with heavy agricultural productivity.” For all cancers, the highest number of cases per year correlates strongly with the highest pesticide usage, with the Midwest—Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Nebraska—seeing more than 150,000 additional cases annually.

As a farm state, Iowa represents an area in which heightened exposure to agricultural chemicals occurs with subsequent health and environmental effects. “With nearly 87,000 farms, the state ranks first not only for corn production but also for pork and egg production, and is within the top five states for growing soybeans and raising cattle,” The New Lede article shares. They continue, “Of Iowa’s 35.7 million acres of total land, roughly 31 million is devoted to farming.” 

The article also raises concern about specific pesticides, including glyphosate, and PFAS (including fluorinated pesticides), for which there is a long history linked to a wide range of diseases. It states: “PFAS are pervasive globally, and one emerging concern has been PFAS contamination of sewage sludge spread on farm fields as fertilizer. Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warned of elevated cancer risks related to such contaminated farm fertilizer.” (See additional Daily News coverage of PFAS here.)

Another article in The New Lede ties glyphosate to cancer, referencing a study entitled “Carcinogenic effects of long-term exposure from prenatal life to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides in Sprague–Dawley rats.” In describing the research, the article finds:

“A new long-term animal study of the widely used weed killer glyphosate find fresh evidence that the herbicide, introduced by Monsanto in the 1970s, causes multiple types of cancer, and may do so at doses considered safe by regulators.

The results of the two-year study, which were published June 10 in the journal Environmental Health, add to an ongoing global debate over the safety of the pesticide, which is commonly used by farmers to kill weeds in fields and pastures. The chemical is also used widely to manage weeds on golf courses, in parks and playgrounds, and in forestry management.

 ‘Our study provides solid and independent scientific evidence of the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides,’ said Daniele Mandrioli, director of the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the Ramazzini Institute in Italy. Mandrioli is the principal investigator for the study.”

This study is the latest to contribute to the mounting evidence of glyphosate’s negative health effects, which Beyond Pesticides and many other organizations consider a poster child for the broken regulatory system that allows toxic pesticides to harm health and the environment.

In the Daily News, U.S. Policy Allows Cancer-Causing Pesticide Use Even Though It Is Not Needed to Grow Food and Manage Land, the history and current status of the regulation of food safety in the U.S. is discussed, showcasing the system as a rickety structure built over a century with unpredictable and often contradictory additions, extensions, remodels, and tear-downs. Beyond Pesticides advocates for a regulatory process that requires the incorporation of the vast body of scientific evidence that pesticides do far more harm than good, and that organic regenerative agriculture is the surest path to human and ecological health.

EPA regulates pesticides under the 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), to which Congress mandated a major revision with the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996—which repealed the Delaney Clause with the codification of risk assessment protocol that allows for uncertainty, ignores preexisting health conditions and vulnerabilities, fails to evaluate chemical mixtures and synergistic effects, and establishes levels of acceptable harm. The Delaney Clause required the banning of chemical additives in food that cause cancer in humans or animals: If a substance was carcinogenic, no level of it would be tolerated in processed food. There was no acceptable threshold below which safety could be assumed. (See more on regulatory deficiencies here and here.)

There is strong evidence that pesticides lead to cancer via upstream mechanisms such as immune inhibition, hormonal derangement, and inflammation that are also common to other health disorders. Health advocates argue that a new approach must address the reality that these mechanisms predispose physiological systems to become disordered, and that averting these dangers would provide a multitude of positive outcomes across the disease spectrum.

With the availability of safer alternatives to toxic chemicals, whether in agriculture, parks, homes, or gardens, the allowance of substances with documented harm to health and the environment is unreasonable. Organic methods are proven to provide numerous health benefits, as well as more nutritious food, that can both protect and enhance biodiversity and mitigate the effects of climate change.

To learn more about organic land management and the benefits, see here and here. Take action to advance the organic movement and contribute your voice to the holistic, systems-based solution that protects the health of all.

>> Tell EPA that to meet its obligations under FIFRA and ESA, it must facilitate a transition to organic practices. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA meets its statutory obligations.

>> Tell Congress to restore funding that protects the health of farmers, farmworkers, and their families.

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

Source:

Gillam, C. (2025) Seeking answers to a cancer crisis in Iowa, researchers question if agriculture is to blame, The New Lede. Available at: https://www.thenewlede.org/2025/06/seeking-answers-to-a-cancer-crisis-in-iowa-researchers-question-if-agriculture-is-to-blame/.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2025) Published in Water Research, a study highlights the various routes for pesticide contamination, with the results identifying the presence of over 80 substances in streams without adjacent agricultural land use. “Our findings underscore the necessity of further investigating the non-agricultural entry pathways of pesticides and biocides to effectively mitigate their impacts on streams in non-agricultural catchments,” the authors state. They continue, “These streams often serve as critical refuge habitats and sources of recolonization, making their protection essential for biodiversity conservation.”

In analyzing nonagricultural streams, the researchers find pesticide contamination that, while lower than levels found in streams directly next to agricultural land, can occur through various routes and threatens biodiversity in essential ecosystems. As the authors describe: “Although pesticide concentrations were lower than in agricultural streams, the potential toxicity of pesticides was associated with a significant reduction in sensitive insect populations, as indicated by the SPEAR_pesticides index. Notably, 40% of the studied streams did not achieve a good status according to the pesticide specific SPEAR_pesticides indicator.”

The SPEAR_pesticides indicator is used “to identify pesticide effects on the aquatic invertebrate community. It measures the abundance of pesticide-sensitive species (“species at risk”) in relation to the abundance of all taxa,” the study explains. The calculated value then correlates with “five quality classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad) following the ecological status classes laid out under the WFD [European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive].”

The study focuses on examining “13 streams located predominantly in protected areas with no agricultural land use in their catchments,” which leads to the hypothesis that, “Given the absence of direct pesticide input via runoff, any detected pesticide contamination is likely attributable to atmospheric deposition.” These areas were chosen due to the role of protected areas in contributing to biodiversity conservation.

Researchers continue: “Streams within protected areas may enhance freshwater biodiversity by providing suitable habitats and serving as sources for recolonizing species. Undisturbed stream stretches play a pivotal role in the recovery of pesticide-impacted downstream areas.” (See studies here and here.)

Previous research finds that pesticide contamination of natural areas is ubiquitous, even in areas considered remote and pristine, such as the Alpine glaciers, U.S. national parks, high-altitude tropical cloud forests, and the Maya Mountain Protected Areas. (See studies here, here, here, and here.) “Remarkably, not only legacy persistent organic pollutants (POPs) were found, such as organochlorine pesticides, which are known to be prone to atmospheric transport, but also current-use pesticides like organophosphates, chlorothalonil, terbuthylazine, pendimethalin, and glyphosate,” the authors state.

They continue: “In recent years, several studies monitoring pesticides in ambient air have shown the presence of a wide range of pesticides in ambient air, in total >100 different substances with detection frequencies reaching up to 100% of samples. Sampling sites included remote sites, such as national parks, forests, and even polar sites, indicating medium- and long-range transboundary transport.”

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

The researchers reference an additional study, which identifies a potential transboundary transport of pesticides involving the Tijuana River watershed, as two pesticides (methidathion and mevinphos), both banned in the U.S. but not in Mexico, are detected in rivers within U.S. boundaries. “The presence of pesticides in the atmosphere and their long-distance travel can lead to exposure of local and adjacent biodiversity and communities, as well as damage to non-target crops,” the authors state. (See more on pesticide drift and water contamination here and here.)

In the current Water Research study, the researchers aim to “(i) characterize the toxicity profiles of these streams, (ii) identify whether the source of detected pesticides could be linked to atmospheric transport from surrounding agricultural activities, (iii) investigate the role of substance properties in influencing pesticide concentrations through their propensity for atmospheric transport, and (iv) assess the ecological relevance of pesticide levels by analyzing their impact on the macro-invertebrate community composition in the streams.”

The 13 streams included, located in Germany and in the national pesticide monitoring program of small lowland streams (known as “Kleingewässer-Monitoring”) as well as the FLOW project, were selected because they do not have any expected pesticide input by runoff or leaching. “Of the 13 streams, eight sites were monitored in only one of the three years, four in two years, and one in all three years,” the researchers note. They continue: “The sites span five federal states in Germany. Except for two, all monitoring sites are located within protected areas, including biosphere reserves, landscape conservation areas, nature parks, and NATURA 2000 sites.”

In discussing the methodology, the authors say, “Water sampling was conducted from April to July/August in 2018, 2019, and 2021 during the main pesticide application period, while benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled after the main pesticide application period in June.” Following sampling, analyses of pesticide toxicity to invertebrates is assessed and recorded using toxic units (TU), which are “calculated from the individual measured pesticide concentrations divided by the respective LC50 [concentration that is lethal to 50% of a group] in acute standard laboratory test systems.”

The results show that potential pesticide toxicity, represented as maximum toxic units (TU_max), is “associated with a significant reduction in sensitive insect populations, as indicated by the SPEAR_pesticides index,” the researchers report. They continue: “The correlation of SPEAR_pesticides with TU_max shows a significant decrease in SPEAR_pesticides with increasing potential toxicity. This indicates that macroinvertebrate communities may be affected by pesticide toxicity in the investigated streams.” (See recent Daily News entitled Study Adds to Wide Body of Science Highlighting Benefits of Organic for Insect Biodiversity that highlights research from Germany on the insect apocalypse.)

In further explaining the results, the authors note that these values are: “driven by insecticides and biocides not approved for agricultural use or phased out during the study period, such as fipronil and neonicotinoid insecticides. They likely originated from veterinary products, residues from past agricultural use, illegal use, or impurities in approved pesticides.” Both fipronil and neonicotinoids are widely used in land management in the U.S., with a wide body of science linking these chemicals to health and environmental impacts.

Overall, 118 substances were analyzed, 81 of which are detected at least once in the streams. 69 samples reveal concentrations above their respective limit of quantification (LOQ) and the regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC) is “exceeded 14 times in 10 samples in 9 different streams by fipronil, imidacloprid, clothianidin, and cypermethrin.” As a note, all threshold exceedances are caused by insecticides. The researchers state that, “[O]bserved threshold exceedances can be mainly attributed to the structural problem of the current regulatory approach where authorizations are granted for several years without reevaluation in the case of new scientific evidence.” (See more on regulatory deficiencies here.)

The above insecticides “exhibited by far the highest potential toxicity towards invertebrates, followed by fungicides,” the authors say. Many of these chemicals, however, are not approved for use in the EU. As an explanation, the researchers relay: “Imidacloprid, clothianidin, and fipronil have high persistence in soil (half-lives ranging from 142 to 545 d), and they have been detected in soil several years after the last application, therefore an input into streams from past use can be expected. Other possible explanations include illegal application practices and impurities in approved pesticides. However, input from uses other than agriculture is also possible because pyrethroids, imidacloprid and fipronil were all approved as biocides, and imidacloprid and fipronil were also approved as veterinary products during the study period.” Fipronil residues are also linked to rinsate from bathing dogs, which can lead to contamination in nearby waterways. (See previous coverage on pesticides and pets here and here.)

As the authors summarize, this study “indicates that pathways other than atmospheric transport from agricultural application may be more relevant for pesticide exposure in non-agricultural streams.” Additional studies support this, such as a French study that finds acute toxicity in crustaceans from pesticides in mountain lakes most likely originated from livestock treated with veterinary drugs.

The study results lead the researchers to summarize that their work “highlights the need to scrutinize pesticide entry pathways other than those related to crop spraying to mitigate pesticide risks in streams in non-agricultural catchments.” The indirect contamination that is not addressed through regulatory processes threatens crucial habitats and overall biodiversity, further emphasizing the need to reevaluate the role of pesticides in agriculture.

Prior research supports the current study findings and documents the role of pesticide transport through the atmosphere. One study finds that “pesticide deposition in snow at U.S. National Parks correlated best with cropland area within 75 to 300 km, depending on pesticide half-life.” This showcases how there is no universal radius of influence that can be defined, as different pesticides and their properties can determine the degree of their impacts to nontarget areas.

Additional studies provide “evidence that pesticides contribute significantly to the ongoing biodiversity crisis,” the researchers say. “For example, a German national monitoring study on pesticide exposure and effects in agricultural streams recently identified pesticides as the dominant stressor for vulnerable insects. Comparable results were found in Australia, Europe, North America, and South America.” In California, research finds that “the decline of several amphibian species in the Sierra Mountains within the last decades of the 20th century was strongly associated with upwind pesticide use in the intensely agricultural Central Valley, with cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides showing the strongest association.” This class of pesticides can include organophosphates and carbamates.

The direct and indirect effects of pesticides, from both agricultural and nonagricultural methods, threaten all life. These findings support the need for alternative practices that protect biodiversity, public health, and the environment and mitigate the harmful effects of chemical-intensive land management. Organic agriculture offers a holistic solution that removes these threats, as well as goes a step further to not only protect but enhance biodiversity, while also providing increased nutritional quality and other benefits. (See more on health and environmental benefits here and here.)

Lend your voice to the organic movement by taking action. >> Tell your Congressional Representative and Senators to cosponsor bills supporting organic agriculture. Additionally, become a Parks Advocate to encourage your community to transition to organic. The Parks for a Sustainable Future program provides in-depth training to assist community land managers in transitioning two public green spaces to organic landscape management, while aiming to provide the knowledge and skills necessary to eventually transition all public areas in a locality to these safer practices. For more information, please email our team at [email protected].

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

Source:

Schweiger, L. et al. (2025) Pesticide contamination is associated with invertebrate community change in non-agricultural streams, Water Research. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135425008115.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 30, 2025) Temperatures are hot—and getting hotter. Climate change is one of multiple crises that are compounding one another. Environmental disasters, including fires, floods, and severe weather events, are brought on or exacerbated by widespread reliance on disruptive chemicals, which played a role in a delayed start to the southern California rainy season, hurricane-force winds, and low humidity levels—all elevated by climate change. While climate change may be most apparent—record heat in much of the U.S. this month, 128°F in Death Valley last year, and extreme heat globally, last year’s earliest Category 5 hurricane on record, another volatile wildfire season, etc.—as crises are escalating in human disease and biodiversity collapse. 

Extreme heat is the deadliest weather disaster—killing hundreds of thousands of people every year. Heat makes the health effects of pesticides and other pollutants more serious. Climate change is intensifying the impacts of habitat destruction and toxic chemicals on biodiversity. As the problems grow,  false claims of climate change mitigation require scrutiny. In this context, as an example, regenerative agriculture fails to require the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers—major contributors to the climate crisis—while certified organic agriculture does.

As organic is increasingly understood to be a climate solution, OrganicClimateNet last year launched an aggressive effort to build the base of organic farmers in the European Union (EU). As the climate crisis grows exponentially, the United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP28) adopted an agreement with nearly 200 countries committing to the “end of the oil age.” See UN Climate Crisis Conference Calls for Phaseout of Fossil Fuels, which Are Used to Produce Pesticides and Fertilizers.

• Organic agriculture can mitigate climate change. Agriculture is a major contributor to climate change. In a recent article in Science, Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agriculture and forestry account for as much as 25% of human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The contribution of animal agriculture has been estimated at 14.5% to 87% or more of total GHG emissions. These estimates include emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ammonia. The carbon dioxide contribution largely comes from converting land from natural forest to pasture or cropland. 

“Regenerative” agriculture is widely considered to be a solution for reducing or even reversing these impacts. Unfortunately, a movement by promoters of chemical-intensive agriculture has fooled some environmentalists into supporting toxic “regenerative” agriculture. While recognizing practices that sequester carbon in the soil—practices that are central to organic agriculture—the so-called “regenerative agriculture” promoted by these groups ignores the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients as well as for the heat and energy driving chemical reactions. It is important to see through this deception.  

• Organic practices preserve natural lands and biodiversity. Natural forests are more effective than tree plantations in sequestering carbon. Preserving natural land increases biodiversity, which also reduces dependence on petroleum-based pesticides. Organic farms are required to “comprehensively conserve biodiversity by maintaining or improving all natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife, as required by § 205.200 of the regulations and per the § 205.2 definition of Natural resources of the operation.”
    
• Organic agriculture benefits human health. By avoiding the use of antibiotics and toxic pesticides, organic agriculture protects farmworkers and consumers. In addition, studies have found organically grown plant foods and milk to be nutritionally superior to those produced by chemical-intensive agriculture.  
   
• The National Organic Program provides for clarity and enforceability, while providing processes that are open and transparent to growers, consumers, and the public at large. As an established program, it also has its own funding mechanism. Any definition of “regenerative” must—at a minimum—meet organic standards.  

Agriculture can be harnessed in the fight against climate change, biodiversity collapse, and health problems, with the elimination of practices that have created the problems. As aptly stated by CEO Emeritus Jeff Moyer of the Rodale Institute, “We believe that in order to be regenerative, you have to start by being organic. It’s a little disingenuous to say you can regenerate soil health and sequester carbon and still use nitrogen fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. What you’re really saying is equivalent to saying ‘I want to be healthy as a person, but I still want to smoke cigarettes.'”  

The climate crisis and the devastating decline in biodiversity are escalating because of uncontrolled and unnecessary reliance on toxic chemicals. These threats to life require a meaningful, holistic strategy to end our fossil fuel dependence and use of materials that release harmful levels of noxious gases (including greenhouse gases).   

Agriculture must—across the board and on an expedited five-year schedule—shift to organic practices. Organic practices both sequester carbon and eliminate petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Importantly, the data show that organic agriculture now operates without sacrificing productivity or profitability. While the vested economic interests in the petroleum and chemical industry cling to the status quo, there are good jobs and money to be made in a green economy.  

Beyond Pesticides advocates for a national plan to shift to 100% organic farming. Organic land management is more effective at reducing emissions and sequestering carbon in the soil. There is already a national program for certifying farms that meet organic standards. Organic operations must “comprehensively conserve biodiversity by maintaining or improving all natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife.”

Undefined “regenerative” agriculture falls short by ignoring the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health and ecosystem services caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients and for the heat and energy-driving chemical reactions.  Preserving natural land increases biodiversity, reduces dependence on petroleum-based pesticides, and is more effective in sequestering carbon. Biodiversity buffers against damage from climate change by allowing systems to evolve with changing conditions. Preserving natural lands and transitioning farms to organic production should be the cornerstones to combating climate change. 

📣 Beyond Pesticides has sent the following message to its network: As temperatures break records, Congress must act to urgently transition away from petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use in land management, and support an across-the-board shift to the organic regenerative solution. 

Letter to U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative:

As Congress considers elements of the next Farm Bill, climate change is an extremely urgent crisis to address. And while climate change may be most apparent—record heat in much of the U.S. this month, 128°F in Death Valley last year, and extreme heat globally, last year’s earliest Category 5 hurricane on record, another volatile wildfire season, etc.—we are also facing crises in human disease and biodiversity collapse.

Heat makes the health effects of pesticides more serious. Climate change is intensifying the impacts of habitat destruction and toxic chemicals on biodiversity.

We cannot afford to let anyone capitalize on marketing schemes making false claims of climate change mitigation. Regenerative agriculture must be organic. 

Organic agriculture can mitigate climate change. Agriculture is a major contributor to climate change. Research shows that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. According to the International Panel of Climate Change, agriculture and forestry account for as much as 25% of human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

“Regenerative” agriculture is widely considered to be a solution for reducing or even reversing these impacts. Unfortunately, a movement by promoters of chemical-intensive agriculture has fooled some environmentalists into supporting toxic “regenerative” agriculture. While recognizing practices that sequester carbon in the soil—practices that are central to organic agriculture—the so-called “regenerative agriculture” promoted by these groups ignores the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients as well as for the heat and energy driving chemical reactions. It is important to see through this deception. 

Organic farms are required to “comprehensively conserve biodiversity by maintaining or improving all natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife.” 

Organic agriculture benefits human health. By avoiding the use of antibiotics and toxic pesticides, organic agriculture protects farmworkers and consumers. In addition, studies have found organically grown plant foods and milk to be nutritionally superior to those produced by chemical-intensive agriculture. 

The National Organic Program provides for clarity and enforceability, while providing processes that are open and transparent to growers, consumers, and the public at large. As an established program, it also has its own funding mechanism. Any definition of “regenerative” must—at a minimum—meet organic standards. 

The climate crisis and the devastating decline in biodiversity are escalating because of uncontrolled and unnecessary reliance on toxic chemicals. These threats to life require a meaningful, holistic strategy to end our fossil fuel dependence and use of materials that release harmful levels of noxious gases (including greenhouse gases).  

We need a national plan to shift to 100% organic farming in the coming five years. Please support this shift in the Farm Bill and reject language that undermines, or preempts, local and state authority to enact more stringent land management policies that protect health and the environment.  

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2025) An article in The New York Times (NYT), entitled “A Killer Within Easy Reach,” highlights the use of the weed killer paraquat, a widely used herbicide in the U.S. and many other parts of the world despite being banned in over 70 countries, as the cause of numerous suicides. The article references the tiny nation of Suriname, located on the northeastern coast of South America, as they have “one of the highest suicide rates in the world,” with the majority of those deaths involving paraquat. Globally, paraquat is prevalently used in self-harm incidents. The chemical, when absorbed into the body, among other deadly effects, causes pulmonary fibrosis, making lung tissue brittle and causing respiratory failure.

While this pesticide is intended and generally used for weed control, it is also highly lethal to humans in small amounts and is often easily accessible in many households. As the NYT article states, “Pesticides are among the leading means of suicide in agricultural areas of developing nations, implicated in more than 100,000 deaths annually.” Citing examples from around the world, the article states, “Sri Lanka’s crop yields had surged after the introduction of modern fertilizers and pesticides in the 1960s, but… the suicide rate had increased fivefold as well.” This connection was further emphasized when the Sri Lankan government outlawed paraquat; the suicide rate fell by more than 70 percent. The article also highlights South Korea, “where restrictions and then a ban on paraquat cut suicide mortality in half.”

Beyond Pesticides has noted a University of South Australia study, which cites the frequency of deliberate pesticide ingestion. Of the 34,902 patients (age 11 and up) with possible or known self-poisonings from nine hospitals in rural Sri Lanka, the highest fatalities occur with paraquat ingestion, representing 41.8% of the deaths. The accessibility of toxic chemicals, such as paraquat, within households and communities exponentially increases the threat they pose to human health.

The use of pesticides in self-poisoning, particularly in developing nations, warrants more than just household security measures. It requires the removal of highly toxic pesticides from the market, as noted in a previous Daily News article. By encouraging a transition to safer organic practices and implementing restrictions on imports containing toxic pesticides, developed countries like the U.S. can assist in reducing suicide rates.

“A worldwide ban on the use of highly hazardous pesticides is likely to prevent tens of thousands of deaths every year,” says Professor of Epidemiology David Gunnell, PhD, of the University of Bristol, UK, to the Daily Star. This is echoed in the NYT article, as the author says researchers and philanthropists are “arguing that restricting access to the most lethal pesticides could be one of the simplest, most cost-effective ways to save lives.”

It is also noted in the article that paraquat is one of the deadliest pesticides still on the market and is used for suicide by many residents in Suriname due to being a cheap, widely available weed control product. In turning to this chemical as a means of committing suicide, it is “quickly absorbed by the body and has no antidote,” the article says. “Even a small dose causes multi-organ failure, though death may take hours or days.”

A wide body of science showcases paraquat’s effects on human health and the environment. From cancer to reproductive dysfunction and neurotoxicity to toxic effects in aquatic organisms, this herbicide causes deleterious impacts. In particular, paraquat is linked to Parkinson’s Disease. As covered in the Daily News (see here and here), Syngenta, one of the main producers of manufacturing paraquat-based and other pesticide products linked to neurodegenerative outcomes, was forced to settle over 5,000 pending lawsuits claiming paraquat caused their Parkinson’s Disease. (See additional Daily News coverage on paraquat here.)

Recent scientific literature on this herbicide states that: “Paraquat (PQ) poisoning is a life-threatening condition with a high-mortality rate. As it lacks a specific antidote, treatment is mainly supportive, focusing on reducing oxidative damage and organ dysfunction.” The researchers continue, saying: “PQ toxicity causes oxidative stress, resulting in rapid progression to multiorgan failure… This oxidative stress leads to extensive tissue damage, including lipid peroxidation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and activation of nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB). These processes contribute to pulmonary fibrosis, nephrotoxicity [kidney damage], hepatotoxicity [liver damage], and acute toxin-induced pancreatitis.”

Another study in Frontiers in Public Health shows the prevalence of pesticide poisoning in China, specifically in Quzhou city, Zhejiang Province, where 2,368 cases were reported from 2015 to 2022. The researchers report: “A total of 280 patients died, for a case fatality of 11.82%. Among the patients, 1,281 were male and 1,087 were female; the fatality was significantly greater in males (13.35%) than in females (10.03%)… Among those in the non-occupational pesticide poisoning group, 213 patients died from suicide, with the highest fatality of 15.07%.” Paraquat was found to have the highest number of fatalities resulting from acute effects.

The study findings also show that: “Overall, the fatality of herbicides (15.21%) was higher than that of insecticides (12.34%). This result was consistent with other studies, which indicated that certain herbicides have higher lethality. Among them, paraquat had a particularly significant fatality rate of 31.82%. This fact highlights the necessity for stricter regulation of the use of paraquat.”

Additional research, published early this year in PLOS Global Public Health, concludes that limiting access to highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) is successful in preventing suicides. As such, the authors say this should “provide strong evidence to governments and public health officials that are considering implementing bans on HHPs in order to reduce suicides.”

Beyond Pesticides, however, urges that amid many regulatory deficiencies, taking this matter a step further is critical. The answer to not only eliminating the role of pesticides in suicides, but to all negative health and environmental effects from these chemicals lies in a holistic, systems-based solution. As opposed to perpetuating the pesticide treadmill, transitioning to organic land management practices, both in agriculture as well as in homes, gardens, and public parks, offers a safer alternative.

The World Health Organization (WHO) finds that more than 720,000 people die due to suicide each year, with even more suicide attempts. Of these suicides, 73% occur in low- and middle-income countries, which are already at a disproportionate risk for pesticide exposure. Eliminating the use of petrochemical pesticides plays an essential role in decreasing the rates of suicide, as supported by the science.

With that in mind, buying organic and taking action in your community can contribute to a system that respects the natural environment and human health. Learn more about the benefits of organic here and here. Stay up to date on the latest science and policy news regarding pesticides with the Daily News Blog and sign up here to receive Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered straight to your inbox!    

Mental health matters. If you or someone you know is in an emergency, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255), 988 Lifeline, or 911 immediately.

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

Sources:

Alcorn, T. (2025) A Killer Within Easy Reach, The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/10/health/paraquat-pesticides-suicide-suriname.html.

Barma, A. et al. (2025) Fatal paraquat poisoning: a case report and literature review on rapid deterioration and therapeutic challenges, Annals of Medicine & Surgery. Available at: https://journals.lww.com/annals-of-medicine-and-surgery/fulltext/2025/04000/fatal_paraquat_poisoning__a_case_report_and.82.aspx.

Rubbo, B. et al. (2025) Preventing suicide by restricting access to Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs): A systematic review of international evidence since 2017, PLOS Global Public Health. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgph.0003785.

Zheng, X. et al. (2025) Epidemiological analysis of 2,368 pesticide poisoning patients in Quzhou City, China, Frontiers in Public Health. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1587271/full.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 26, 2025) A review article in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment highlights how the pesticides used in global crop production pose risks to ecosystems and human health through multiple pathways. As the authors note, “Once applied to crops, pesticides are transported through surface and groundwater flows, atmospheric dispersion and wildlife migration.” Residues in food products, such as fruits and vegetables, as well as bioaccumulation within animals that are consumed as food, also threaten consumers around the world, particularly those relying on international trade.

The researchers note: “In this Review, we summarize the pathways through which synthetic pesticides transcend boundaries, focusing on the impacts of their use in food production… First, we explain how environmental flows contribute to transporting pesticides to regions far from their original source. Next, we examine the role of international food trade in causing transboundary exposure and impact of pesticide use.” As a result, the study calls for prioritizing biodiversity and human health through sustainable methods while maintaining yield to support the growing population.

The use of pesticides in chemical-intensive agriculture has exponentially increased since their first synthesis in the late 1930s. “Globally, pesticides were applied on agricultural land at an average rate of 2.4 kg per hectare (kg ha-1) in 2022, nearly double the rate in 1990,” the authors explain. “About 40% of countries exceeded the global average rate in 2022, with pesticide use volumes in low-income countries growing more than 150% between 2008 and 2018.”

As the researchers point out, and has been documented in scientific literature for decades, “human exposure to pesticides, either occupational or environmental (via air, drinking water and food), can lead to cancers, neurological disorders, respiratory disorders and endocrine disruptions.” (See studies here, here, here, and here, as well as Beyond Pesticides’ extensive coverage of these health effects in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.)

They continue: “Pollinator exposure to pesticides can impair their detoxification mechanisms and immune responses, increasing their vulnerability to other environmental stresses. Pesticide use has also been associated to the decline of bird population, stream invertebrates, and abundance and diversity of soil fauna. Subsequent decreases in biodiversity negatively impact the ecosystem functions necessary for sustaining crop production.” (See more on pesticides’ effect on ecosystems here and here.)

Pesticides impact not only local populations and ecosystems but can have implications in surrounding areas, as well as across international boundaries. “After being released to the environment, pesticides undergo various biotic and abiotic processes at rates dependent on their physicochemical properties and environmental conditions,” the study says. “Of the pesticide mass applied globally, approximately 82% is degraded to daughter molecules, some of which potentially retain toxicity to non-target organisms.” (See studies here and here.)

The authors further explain, noting: “The undegraded pesticides and their transformation products move through and accumulate in soil, groundwater, surface waters and atmosphere via various transport pathways. Such pathways include wind drifts, infiltration into soils and leaching to groundwater, surface run-offs and soil erosion, and can transcend boundaries.”

One study identifies a potential transboundary transport of pesticides involving the Tijuana River watershed, as two pesticides (methidathion and mevinphos), both banned in the U.S. but not in Mexico, were detected in rivers within the U.S. boundaries. “The presence of pesticides in the atmosphere and their long-distance travel can lead to exposure of local and adjacent biodiversity and communities, as well as damage to non-target crops,” the researchers state. (See studies here and here.)

Beyond Pesticides recently shared in the Daily News that, for the first time, 15 currently used pesticides (CUPs) and four metabolites (breakdown or transformation products—TP) were found in the marine atmosphere over the Atlantic Ocean. Three legacy (banned) pesticides were also discovered. According to the study, published in Environmental Pollution, researchers found empirical evidence for pesticide drift over remarkably long distances to remote environments.

“Drifting pesticide droplets often deposit into surface waters, leading to biodiversity and communities far from application points being exposed to pesticides through contaminated water,” the researchers share. “For example, atmospheric exchange of chemicals (including pesticides) in Lake Michigan, in the Great Lakes region in the USA, is one order of magnitude greater than that of chemicals transported directly into the lake from its tributaries.” (See studies here and here.)

Pesticide drift threatens human health near and far from the point of application. Another study shows how “high numbers of pesticide residues are found in indoor dust in Europe and Argentina, even in areas far from agricultural fields, highlighting the importance of atmospheric drift as a transport pathway.” Impacts on nearby crops is also important, as “dicamba pre-emergence applications on herbicide-tolerant crops causes an average damage of 4% (up to 8%) to off-target soybean fields in the USA,” the study authors say.

Additionally, bioaccumulation and biomagnification can occur with cascading impacts on organisms. Studies highlight the particular prevalence of this in aquatic ecosystems, as pesticides can easily move through multiple trophic levels, such as from plankton to fish and predators.

“Wildlife migration is another pathway for long-range transboundary pesticide transport,” the researchers point out. They continue, “Contaminated wildlife that migrate seasonally or periodically across habitats far from agricultural fields, with some having habitats spanning across multiple countries and regions, can cause exposure of predators and humans in distal regions through hunting or consumption.”

Pesticide residues also remain on crops that are consumed by both humans and livestock, which further threatens consumers through dietary intake. “With international food trade, these pesticide residues can be transported across national boundaries, exposing consumers in importing countries to pesticides,” the study says.

The horticultural products that most frequently contain pesticide residues include fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes. “About 62–76% of sampled horticultural products produced in the USA, China and the EU [European Union] bear one or more synthetic pesticide residue,” the authors share. (See research here, here, here, and here.)

They continue, saying: “In Western countries, citrus fruit, berries, pulses and leafy vegetables are generally among the most pesticide-tainted foods, with 85% of harvested produce containing pesticide residues… Conventionally grown foods generally exhibit a fourfold higher prevalence of pesticide residues than organic produce.”

As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, adopting a fully organic diet can reduce pesticide levels in urine within just two weeks “by an average of 98.6%” and facilitate faster DNA damage repair relative to a diet of food grown with chemical-intensive practices, according to findings from a randomized clinical trial published in Nutrire. 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 additional coverage on the benefits of an organic diet here.)

One of the main issues that the study highlights is the inconsistency of maximum residue level (MRL) compliance across the globe. “Furthermore, chronic exposure to residues below MRL levels can lead to health problems such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma, obesity or reproductive disorders,” the researchers state.

They continue: “The presence of pesticide residues raises substantial food safety concerns, not only for local consumers but also for those in importing countries. Countries with stringent pesticide regulations, such as the EU, might experience low rates of MRL violations in domestically produced foods, but imported foods often exhibit much higher violation rates.”

The alternative, that prevents these health and environmental risks, lies in organic land management. As the authors summarize, “Pesticide pollution can be resolved through large-scale adoption of agroecological and biodiversity-driven management solutions, which can simultaneously support yields and ecosystem services.”

A transition to organic agriculture eliminates the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers while prioritizing soil health, protecting and enhancing biodiversity, safeguarding public health, and mitigating climate change.

Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic here and here. Take action to support the advancement of organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies, and get your community involved through the Parks for a Sustainable Future program.

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

Source:

Tang, F. et al. (2025) Transboundary impacts of pesticide use in food production, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-025-00673-y.