Action of the Week Archive

On January 7, President Trump announced in a memorandum titled “Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States” that the U.S. would be withdrawing from 66 international organizations. He says these actions are taken to carry out Executive Order 14,199, “Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations.” 

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

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

Fourteen U.S states [see below] recognized that dramatic harm to public health will occur with the U.S. withdrawal from WHO and joined together to form the Governors Public Health Alliance, “a new coalition of governors designed to protect the health of people across the U.S.” This alliance must be expanded to address biodiversity and climate, since a failure to ensure protection in these areas will certainly undermine public health protection. To this end, governors need to join with the global community in supporting critical efforts to ensure a united U.S. and worldwide commitment to protecting ecosystems and mitigating climate threats, both essential to life. 

States active in the Governors Public Health Alliance: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington [plus, Guam].

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

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

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

The target for this Action is the U.S. Congress, U.S. State Governors, and U.S. State Lieutenant Governors [Executive].

Thank you for your active participation! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing. 

Letter to Congress:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Letter to the Governors and Lieutenant Governors of the following states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to the Governors and Lieutenant Governors of the remaining states, who have not joined the Governors Public Health Alliance: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate your consideration of this request. Thank you.

Help stop legislation in Florida (SB 290/HB 433) that will disempower members of the public from speaking out against the potential hazards of pesticide and fertilizer products!

Beyond Pesticides is a national, grassroots organization that represents community-based organizations and people nationwide seeking to eliminate the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers while promoting alternative pest management strategies.

The Senate Rules Committee is convening a hearing at 9 am ET on January 27, 2026, to move forward with SB 290 without leaving room for broader debate on the controversial language in this bill.

The bill will subject people to defamation lawsuits and discussion of the hazards of pesticide residues on food.

If this legislation were to pass, it would strike a blow for consumer safety, scientific integrity, and free speech. As we all know, there is broad disagreement among regulators and scientists about the adverse effects of pesticides and the inadequacy of the regulatory review process to fully assess harm. For example, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified Roundup/glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen (see Daily News here); in contrast, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has maintained the position that it is not. (See Daily News here.) This poses just one example of how this bill will open the door to frivolous litigation. 

There is extensive scientific literature on EPA's deficiencies in evaluating for endocrine disruption, mixtures and synergistic effects, impacts on vulnerable populations, multigenerational effects, and disproportionate risk. Industry allies regularly cite the EPA regulatory process as the gold standard among national regulatory bodies while simultaneously disparaging or disregarding the independent scientific literature process. The contradictions have been made even clearer with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026. (See Daily News here.)

The problem at hand is the inclusion of Section 48 in a modified version of the bill as of January 15, 2026 (and Section 47 of HB 433 as of January 17, 2026), changing the definition of "agricultural food product" to also include "any agricultural practices used in the production of such products." Public health and environmental advocates harken back to attempts in other states, like Colorado in 1991, to change libel law to punish free speech for those concerned about vegetable production.

This effort is indirectly related to German-owned Bayer-Monsanto and other petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers' intensifying efforts following last year's introduction of bills in twelve states. We mobilized last year, and we were able to defeat bills in ten states. A broad coalition, including Beyond Pesticides and over fifty organizations, coalitions, businesses, and leaders, continues to call on Congress not to include Section 453 language in any piece of federal legislation in the upcoming fiscal year. As of January 26, 2026, bills have been introduced in six states while decision-makers in D.C. follow the industry's playbook in federal legislative packages as well as in front of the Supreme Court. 

The focus of Sections 48 and 47 are to protect corporations, not Floridians, at a time when health care and grocery costs are skyrocketing while people continue to get sick. Talk about the dangerous precedent of shooting the messenger, rather than the message itself!

>> Please ask your state Senator to OPPOSE Section 48 of SB 290 and Representative to OPPOSE Section 47 of HB 433 by clicking here.

Thank you!

The Targets for this Action are Senators and Representatives in the state legislature of Florida.

Thank you for your active participation and engagement! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing.

Letter to Florida House: [Updated on January 26, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to oppose inclusion of Section 47 in HB 433, that attacks the right of concerned consumers to speak out about peer-reviewed, independent science on the adverse health effects of pesticides. As a member of the Senate Rules Committee, you have the opportunity to take a stand to ensure that this bill is not passed with language that is an attack on free speech.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to free speech on food safety and First Amendment rights more broadly. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

If these bills were to pass, it would strike a blow for consumer safety, scientific integrity, and free speech. As we all know, there is broad disagreement among regulators and scientists about the adverse effects of pesticides and the inadequacy of the regulatory review process to assess harm. For example, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified Roundup/glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen; in contrast, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has maintained the position that it is not. This poses just one example of how this bill will open the door to frivolous litigation. Talk about the dangerous precedent of shooting the messenger, rather than the message itself!

The focus of Section 47 is to protect corporations, not Floridians, at a time when health care and grocery costs are skyrocketing while people continue to get sick.

Please oppose Section 47 of HB 433 and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are able to hold chemical companies accountable for the potential harms their products cause.

Thank you!

Letter to Florida Senate: [Updated on January 26, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to oppose inclusion of Section 48 in SB 290, that attacks the right of concerned consumers to speak out about peer-reviewed, independent science on the adverse health effects of pesticides.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to free speech on food safety and First Amendment rights more broadly. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

If these bills were to pass, it would strike a blow for consumer safety, scientific integrity, and free speech. As we all know, there is broad disagreement among regulators and scientists about the adverse effects of pesticides and the inadequacy of the regulatory review process to assess harm. For example, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified Roundup/glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen; in contrast, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has maintained the position that it is not. This poses just one example of how this bill will open the door to frivolous litigation. Talk about the dangerous precedent of shooting the messenger, rather than the message itself!

The focus of Section 48 is to protect corporations, not Floridians, at a time when health care and grocery costs are skyrocketing while people continue to get sick.

Please oppose Section 48 of SB 290 and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are able to hold chemical companies accountable for the potential harms their products cause.

Thank you!

Letter to Florida Senate Rules Committee: [Updated on January 26, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to oppose inclusion of Section 48 in SB 290, that attacks the right of concerned consumers to speak out about peer-reviewed, independent science on the adverse health effects of pesticides. As a member of the Senate Rules Committee, you have the opportunity to take a stand to ensure that this bill is not passed with language that is an attack on free speech.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to free speech on food safety and First Amendment rights more broadly. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

If these bills were to pass, it would strike a blow for consumer safety, scientific integrity, and free speech. As we all know, there is broad disagreement among regulators and scientists about the adverse effects of pesticides and the inadequacy of the regulatory review process to assess harm. For example, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified Roundup/glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen; in contrast, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has maintained the position that it is not. This poses just one example of how this bill will open the door to frivolous litigation. Talk about the dangerous precedent of shooting the messenger, rather than the message itself!

The focus of Section 48 is to protect corporations, not Floridians, at a time when health care and grocery costs are skyrocketing while people continue to get sick.

Please oppose Section 48 of SB 290 and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are able to hold chemical companies accountable for the potential harms their products cause.

Thank you!

Help stop legislation in Kansas (HB 2476) that will shield pesticide manufacturers that fail to warn people about the potential hazards of their products!

HB 2476 was introduced on Tuesday, January 20, 2026, and the bill is up for a vote in the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, with a hearing scheduled held on Wednesday, January 21, 2026. The next hearing could be held as early as Tuesday, January 27, 2026, at 3:30 pm Central Time Zone (CT). While it is important to contact elected officials to speak out, you can also submit testimony to the Committee by emailing, in PDF format only, to the following address ([email protected]) 24 hours before a scheduled hearing, with this form also filled out and submitted as a PDF. Update—The Kansas House voted in favor [81-36-8] of HB 2476, as amended, on Thursday, January 29, 2026. Stay tuned for updates in the Senate!

>> Please ask your state Representative to OPPOSE HB 2476 by clicking here.

Now is the time to inform state legislators that it is unacceptable to deny people who have not been fully warned of the hazards of pesticides the right to hold accountable the manufacturers that have harmed them. If these bills were to pass, it would strike a blow for consumer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026. (See Daily News here.)

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at the National Agriculture Law Center, and H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate—please see Mr. Dansby's reflections on the significance of the Bates decision in a 2005 Pesticides and You article.

• Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. “Almost every pesticide injury lawsuit filed in the past ten years has included a claim that the pesticide manufacturer failed to warn the plaintiff of the health risks associated with using their product and that such failure caused the plaintiff's injury,” says Ms. Rollins.
  
  
• "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world," says Mr. Dansby. The Supreme Court in Bates "emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items," including pesticides.

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are intensifying efforts following last year's introduction of bills in twelve states. We mobilized last year, and we were able to defeat bills in ten states. A broad coalition, including Beyond Pesticides and over fifty organizations, coalitions, businesses, and leaders, continues to call on Congress not to include Section 453 language in any piece of federal legislation in the upcoming fiscal year.

As of January 23, 2026, bills have been introduced in six states while decision-makers in D.C. follow the industry's playbook in federal legislative packages as well as in front of the Supreme Court. 

The focus of these bills is to protect corporations, not Kansans, at a time when health care and grocery costs are skyrocketing while people continue to get sick. 

>> Please ask your state Representative to OPPOSE HB 2476 by clicking here.

Thank you!

Beyond Pesticides is a national, grassroots organization that represents community-based organizations and people nationwide seeking to eliminate the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers while promoting alternative pest management strategies.   

The Targets for this Action are Representatives in the state legislature of Kansas.

Thank you for your active participation and engagement! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing.

↪️ For more information, please see the Failure-to-Warn and Pesticide Immunity Bills resource hub, as well as our Myths & Facts and the 2025 state Kansas resource page.

Letter to Kansas House: [Updated on January 21, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to oppose HB 2476, a bill that will shield pesticide manufacturers from being held accountable by people who have been harmed by their products.

The chemical companies have argued unsuccessfully all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that they should not be required to warn consumers about the dangers of their products. So now they are asking the Kansas legislature to do what they have not been able to do in the courts— undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for the harm their products can cause, effects like cancer.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to consumer and farmer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at National Agriculture Law Center. Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world,” says H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate.

For more information, please see the following document. (https://bp-dc.org/failure-to-warn-myths-and-facts-sheet)

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are expanding their all-out push from last year. The focus of these bills is to protect chemical corporations, not Kansans.

Please oppose HB 2476 and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are compensated.

Thank you!

Letter to Kansas House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee: [Updated on January 21, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to oppose HB 2476, a bill that will shield pesticide manufacturers from being held accountable by people who have been harmed by their products. As a member of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, you have the opportunity to take a stand to ensure that this bill is not passed with language that will shield pesticide manufacturers from being held accountable by people who have been harmed by their products.

The chemical companies have argued unsuccessfully all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that they should not be required to warn consumers about the dangers of their products. So now they are asking the Kansas legislature to do what they have not been able to do in the courts— undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for the harm their products can cause, effects like cancer.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to consumer and farmer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at National Agriculture Law Center. Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world,” says H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate.

For more information, please see the following document. (https://bp-dc.org/failure-to-warn-myths-and-facts-sheet)

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are expanding their all-out push from last year. The focus of these bills is to protect chemical corporations, not Kansans.

Please vote no on moving HB 2476 out of committee and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are compensated.

Thank you!

Letter to Kansas Senate: [Updated on January 21, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to contact your colleagues in the House to oppose HB 2476, a bill that will shield pesticide manufacturers from being held accountable by people who have been harmed by their products.

The chemical companies have argued unsuccessfully all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that they should not be required to warn consumers about the dangers of their products. So now they are asking the Kansas legislature to do what they have not been able to do in the courts— undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for the harm their products can cause, effects like cancer.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to consumer and farmer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at National Agriculture Law Center. Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world,” says H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate.

For more information, please see the following document. (https://bp-dc.org/failure-to-warn-myths-and-facts-sheet)

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are expanding their all-out push from last year. The focus of these bills is to protect chemical corporations, not Kansans.

Please vote no on moving HB 2476 out of committee and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are compensated.

Thank you!

A growing body of evidence demonstrates the environmental, health, climate, and economic benefits of organic agriculture as we exceed planetary boundaries. With the weakening of pesticide regulation, the organic alternative has become increasingly important. However, the organic growth needed to reverse the looming health and environmental crises will not be achieved without a societal investment in organic transition.

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

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

The Opportunities in Organic Act will: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please use the link below to ask your U.S. Representative to contact Liz Jacobson ([email protected] | 202-225-2861) in Representative Panetta's office and your Senators to contact Evelyn Vivar ([email protected] | 202-224-4242) in Senator Welch's office to sign on as co-sponsors of the Opportunities in Organic Act. For current sponsors, use the link below to thank them for their critical leadership. 

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

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

The target for this Action is the U.S. Congress. 

Thank you for your active participation! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing. 

Letter to U.S. Representatives requesting that they become cosponsors: 

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

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

The Opportunities in Organic Act would: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

Letter to U.S. Senators requesting that they become cosponsors: 

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

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

The Opportunities in Organic Act would: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

Letter to U.S. House and U.S. Senate co-sponsors from 2023:

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

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

Thank you for cosponsoring the Opportunities in Organic Act in 2023—please continue to serve as a cosponsor of the legislation upon its reintroduction! 

Contact Liz Jacobson ([email protected] |202-225-2861) in Representative Panetta’s office and Evelyn Vivar ([email protected] | 202-224-4242) in Senator Welch’s office. 

Letter to the sponsors (2023/2026) 

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

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

Thank you for sponsoring the Opportunities in Organic Act! 

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

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

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

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

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

• Disproportionate exposures to harmful pesticides: biomarkers for 12 dangerous pesticides, tracked over the past 20 years, were found in the blood and urine of Mexican-American and Black people at average levels up to five times those in white people.  

• Weaker protections for agricultural workers: although 10,000–20,000, largely Latinx, farmworkers are sickened annually from pesticide exposure, such workers are not covered by the same regulatory pesticide protections provided to the general public.  

• Unequal risks: people of color comprise 38% of the aggregate population of California, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, and Louisiana, but that 38% represents 63% of those living nearby to 31 pesticide manufacturing facilities that are in violation of environmental laws (such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act). 

• Poor enforcement: based on available data for a recent five-year period, approximately 1% of agricultural operations that use pesticides had any annual inspections for violations of worker protections—despite violations found at nearly half of inspected facilities; further, enforcement actions proceeded against only 19% of the violators. 

• Toxic housing: 80% of low-income housing sites in New York State, for example, regularly apply pesticides indoors; a home air quality monitoring study found that 30% of pregnant African American and Dominican women in New York City had at least eight pesticides in their bodies, and 83% had at least one pesticide in umbilical cord samples. 

• Export of harm: pesticides banned in the U.S. are nevertheless allowed to be produced here and exported; the study notes that organophosphate and carbamate pesticides banned domestically were sold to 42 countries between 2015 and 2019, and 78% of importing countries report more than 30% of their workforce members are poisoned by pesticides annually. 

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

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

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

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

The target for this Action is the U.S. Congress. 

Thank you for your active participation! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing.

Letter to Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:

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

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

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

Please be vigilant against a provision in proposed legislation denying people the right to sue chemical companies for nondisclosure of product hazards. While it has been reported that bill language shielding chemical manufacturers has been dropped from the FY2026 funding bill moving through Congress, you know that the legislative process is unpredictable in the current Congress. This summer, a provision passed by the House Appropriations Committee that would have denied farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, gardeners, and consumers generally the right to sue companies that do not disclose on their product labels and in marketing information potential hazards associated with their products’ use.

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

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

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

Thank you.

Help stop legislation in Iowa (SF 394) that will shield pesticide manufacturers that fail to warn people about the potential hazards of their products!

Beyond Pesticides is a national, grassroots organization that represents community-based organizations and people nationwide seeking to eliminate the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers while promoting alternative pest management strategies.   

The legislative session will likely move fast once the legislative session begins on Monday, January 12! 

Now is the time to inform state legislators that it is unacceptable to deny people who have not been fully warned of the hazards of pesticides the right to hold accountable the manufacturers that have harmed them. If these bills were to pass, it would strike a blow for consumer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026. (See Daily News here.)

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at the National Agriculture Law Center, and H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate—please see Mr. Dansby's reflections on the significance of the Bates decision in a 2005 Pesticides and You article.

• Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. “Almost every pesticide injury lawsuit filed in the past ten years has included a claim that the pesticide manufacturer failed to warn the plaintiff of the health risks associated with using their product and that such failure caused the plaintiff's injury,” says Ms. Rollins.
   
• "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world," says Mr. Dansby. The Supreme Court in Bates "emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items," including pesticides.

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are intensifying efforts following last year's introduction of bills in twelve states. We mobilized last year, and we were able to defeat bills in ten states. A broad coalition, including Beyond Pesticides and over fifty organizations, coalitions, businesses, and leaders, continues to call on Congress not to include Section 453 language in any piece of federal legislation in the upcoming fiscal year.

As of January 23, 2026, bills have been introduced in six states while decision-makers in D.C. follow the industry's playbook in federal legislative packages as well as in front of the Supreme Court. 

The focus of these bills is to protect corporations, not Iowans, at a time when health care and grocery costs are skyrocketing while people continue to get sick. 

>> Please ask your state Representative to OPPOSE SF 394 by clicking here.

Thank you!

The Targets for this Action are state Senators and Representatives in the state legislature of Iowa.

Thank you for your active participation and engagement! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing.

↪️ For more information, please see our Myths & Facts and 2025 state Iowa resource page, as well as the Failure-to-Warn and Pesticide Immunity Bills resource hub.

Letter to Iowa House: [Updated on January 13, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to oppose SF 394, a bill that will shield pesticide manufacturers from being held accountable by people who have been harmed by their products.

The chemical companies have argued unsuccessfully all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that they should not be required to warn consumers about the dangers of their products. So now they are asking the Iowa legislature to do what they have not been able to do in the courts—undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for the harm their products can cause, effects like cancer.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to consumer and farmer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at National Agriculture Law Center. Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world,” says H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate.

For more information, please see the following document. (https://bp-dc.org/failure-to-warn-myths-and-facts-sheet)

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are expanding their all-out push from last year. The focus of these bills is to protect chemical corporations, not Iowans.

Please oppose SF 394 and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are able to hold chemical companies accountable for the potential harms their products cause.

Thank you!

Letter to Iowa Senate: [Updated on January 13, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to contact your colleagues in the House to oppose SF 394, a bill that will shield pesticide manufacturers from being held accountable by people who have been harmed by their products.

The chemical companies have argued unsuccessfully all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that they should not be required to warn consumers about the dangers of their products. So now they are asking the Iowa legislature to do what they have not been able to do in the courts—undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for the harm their products can cause, effects like cancer.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to consumer and farmer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at National Agriculture Law Center. Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world,” says H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate.

For more information, please see the following document (https://bp-dc.org/failure-to-warn-myths-and-facts-sheet).

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are expanding their all-out push from last year. The focus of these bills is to protect chemical corporations, not Iowans.

Please ask your House colleagues to oppose SF 394 and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are able to hold chemical companies accountable for the potential harms their products cause.

Thank you!

Help stop legislation in Tennessee (HB 809) that will shield pesticide manufacturers that fail to warn people about the potential hazards of their products!

Beyond Pesticides is a national, grassroots organization that represents community-based organizations and people nationwide seeking to eliminate the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers while promoting alternative pest management strategies.   

HB 809 passed out of the Agricultural and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee on March 12, 2025 - with further action deferred until 2026. The bill is up for a vote in the House Judiciary Committee as the start of the 2026 session begins on Tuesday, January 13, 2026.

Now is the time to inform state legislators that it is unacceptable to deny people who have not been fully warned of the hazards of pesticides the right to hold accountable the manufacturers that have harmed them. If these bills were to pass, it would strike a blow for consumer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026. (See Daily News here.)

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at the National Agriculture Law Center, and H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate—please see Mr. Dansby's reflections on the significance of the Bates decision in a 2005 Pesticides and You article.

• Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. “Almost every pesticide injury lawsuit filed in the past ten years has included a claim that the pesticide manufacturer failed to warn the plaintiff of the health risks associated with using their product and that such failure caused the plaintiff's injury,” says Ms. Rollins.
  
  
• "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world," says Mr. Dansby. The Supreme Court in Bates "emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items," including pesticides.

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are intensifying efforts following last year's introduction of bills in twelve states. We mobilized last year, and we were able to defeat bills in ten states. A broad coalition, including Beyond Pesticides and over fifty organizations, coalitions, businesses, and leaders, continues to call on Congress not to include Section 453 language in any piece of federal legislation in the upcoming fiscal year.

As of January 23, 2026, bills have been introduced in six states while decision-makers in D.C. follow the industry's playbook in federal legislative packages as well as in front of the Supreme Court.

The focus of these bills is to protect corporations, not Tennesseans, at a time when health care and grocery costs are skyrocketing while people continue to get sick. 

>> Please ask your state Representative to OPPOSE HB 809 by clicking here.

Thank you!

The Targets for this Action are Representatives in the state legislature of Tennessee.

Thank you for your active participation and engagement! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing.

↪️ For more information, please see the Failure-to-Warn and Pesticide Immunity Bills resource hub, as well as our Myths & Facts and 2025 state Tennessee resource page.

Letter to Tennessee House: [Updated on January 9, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to oppose HB 809, a bill that will shield pesticide manufacturers from being held accountable by people who have been harmed by their products.

The chemical companies have argued unsuccessfully all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that they should not be required to warn consumers about the dangers of their products. So now they are asking the Tennessee legislature to do what they have not been able to do in the courts— undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for the harm their products can cause, effects like cancer.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to consumer and farmer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at National Agriculture Law Center. Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world,” says H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate.

For more information, please see the following document. (https://bp-dc.org/failure-to-warn-myths-and-facts-sheet)

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are expanding their all-out push from last year. The focus of these bills is to protect chemical corporations, not Tennesseans.

Please oppose HB 809 and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are compensated.

Thank you!

Help stop legislation in Florida (HB 443/SB 518) that will shield pesticide manufacturers that fail to warn people about the potential hazards of their products!

Beyond Pesticides is a national, grassroots organization that represents community-based organizations and people nationwide seeking to eliminate the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers while promoting alternative pest management strategies.

The legislative session will likely move fast once the legislative session begins on Tuesday, January 13!

HB 443 was pre-filed on November 18, 2025, and referred to Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee, Housing, Agriculture & Tourism Subcommittee, and Judiciary Committee - it is currently in the Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee.

The identical bill on the Senate side, SB 518, was pre-filed on November 17, 2025, and referred to the Judiciary, Agriculture, and Rules Committees on December 1, 2025. The bill has not yet been identified in a specific committee, but we will continue to update as information becomes available.

Now is the time to inform state legislators that it is unacceptable to deny people who have not been fully warned of the hazards of pesticides the right to hold accountable the manufacturers that have harmed them. If these bills were to pass, it would strike a blow for consumer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026. (See Daily News here.)

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at the National Agriculture Law Center, and H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate—please see Mr. Dansby's reflections on the significance of the Bates decision in a 2005 Pesticides and You article.

• Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. “Almost every pesticide injury lawsuit filed in the past ten years has included a claim that the pesticide manufacturer failed to warn the plaintiff of the health risks associated with using their product and that such failure caused the plaintiff's injury,” says Ms. Rollins.
  
  
• "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world," says Mr. Dansby. The Supreme Court in Bates "emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items," including pesticides.

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are intensifying efforts following last year's introduction of bills in twelve states. We mobilized last year, and we were able to defeat bills in ten states. A broad coalition, including Beyond Pesticides and over fifty organizations, coalitions, businesses, and leaders, continues to call on Congress not to include Section 453 language in any piece of federal legislation in the upcoming fiscal year.

As of January 23, 2026, bills have been introduced in six states while decision-makers in D.C. follow the industry's playbook in federal legislative packages as well as in front of the Supreme Court. 

The focus of these bills is to protect corporations, not Floridians, at a time when health care and grocery costs are skyrocketing while people continue to get sick. 

>> Please ask your state Senator and Representative to OPPOSE HB 443/SB 518 by clicking here.

Thank you!

The Targets for this Action are Representatives and Senators in the state legislature of Florida.

Thank you for your active participation and engagement! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing.

↪️ For more information, please see the Failure-to-Warn and Pesticide Immunity Bills resource hub, as well as our Myths & Facts and 2025 state Florida resource page.

Letter to Florida House: [Updated on January 9, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to oppose HB 443, "An act relating to products liability actions under the Florida Pesticide Law," that will shield pesticide manufacturers from being held accountable by people who have been harmed by their products.

The chemical companies have argued unsuccessfully all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that they should not be required to warn consumers about the dangers of their products. So now they are asking the Florida legislature to do what they have not been able to do in the courts— undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for the harm their products can cause, effects like cancer.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to consumer and farmer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at National Agriculture Law Center. Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world,” says H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate.

For more information, please see the following document (https://bp-dc.org/failure-to-warn-myths-and-facts-sheet).

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are expanding their all-out push from last year. The focus of these bills is to protect chemical corporations, not Floridians.

Please oppose HB 443 and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are able to hold chemical companies accountable for the potential harms their products cause.

Thank you!

Letter to Florida Senate: [Updated on January 9, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to oppose SB 518, "An act relating to products liability actions under the Florida Pesticide Law," that will shield pesticide manufacturers from being held accountable by people who have been harmed by their products.

The chemical companies have argued unsuccessfully all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that they should not be required to warn consumers about the dangers of their products. So now they are asking the Florida legislature to do what they have not been able to do in the courts— undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for the harm their products can cause, effects like cancer.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to consumer and farmer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at National Agriculture Law Center. Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world,” says H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate.

For more information, please see the following document (https://bp-dc.org/failure-to-warn-myths-and-facts-sheet).

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are expanding their all-out push from last year. The focus of these bills is to protect chemical corporations, not Floridians.

Please oppose SB 518 and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are compensated.

Thank you!

Help stop legislation in North Carolina (S.401) that will shield pesticide manufacturers that fail to warn people about the potential hazards of their products!

Beyond Pesticides is a national, grassroots organization that represents community-based organizations and people nationwide seeking to eliminate the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers while promoting alternative pest management strategies.   

The legislative session will likely move fast once the legislative session convenes on Monday, January 12! While Section 19 of S.639 was not included in S.401, a conference committee was formed to address discrepancies for the final version of the North Carolina Farm Act. Once the conference committee makes its decision, the full House and Senate will have to vote on whether to pass legislation that includes Section 19.

Since it is an even-numbered year, the North Carolina legislature only meets for certain blocks of dates in 2026, including the following periods:

• January 12-15 

• February 9-12 

• March 9-12 

• April 6-9 

Now is the time to inform state legislators that it is unacceptable to deny people who have not been fully warned of the hazards of pesticides the right to hold accountable the manufacturers that have harmed them. If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow for consumer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026. (See Daily News here.)

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at the National Agriculture Law Center, and H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate—please see Mr. Dansby's reflections on the significance of the Bates decision in a 2025 Pesticides and You article.

• Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. “Almost every pesticide injury lawsuit filed in the past ten years has included a claim that the pesticide manufacturer failed to warn the plaintiff of the health risks associated with using their product and that such failure caused the plaintiff's injury,” says Ms. Rollins.
  
  
• "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world," says Mr. Dansby. The Supreme Court in Bates "emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items," including pesticides.

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are intensifying efforts following last year's introduction of bills in twelve states. We mobilized last year, and we were able to defeat bills in ten states. A broad coalition, including Beyond Pesticides and over fifty organizations, coalitions, businesses, and leaders, continues to call on Congress not to include Section 453 language in any piece of federal legislation in the upcoming fiscal year.

As of January 23, 2026, bills have been introduced in six states while decision-makers in D.C. follow the industry's playbook in federal legislative packages as well as in front of the Supreme Court. 

The focus of these bills is to protect corporations, not North Carolinians, at a time when health care and grocery costs are skyrocketing while people continue to get sick. 

>> Please ask your state Representatives and Senators, including the conference committee, to stop the inclusion of Section 19 (S.639) into the final version of the North Carolina Farm Act!

Thank you!

The targets for this Action are state Representatives and Senators in the state legislature of North Carolina.

Thank you for your active participation and engagement! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing.

↪️ For more information, please see our Myths & Facts and North Carolina resource page, as well as the Failure-to-Warn and Pesticide Immunity Bills resource hub.

Letter to North Carolina House: [Updated on January 9, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to oppose the inclusion of Section 19 of S.639 into the final version of the North Carolina Farm Act (S.401) that will shield pesticide manufacturers from being held accountable by people who have been harmed by their products.

The chemical companies have argued unsuccessfully all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that they should not be required to warn consumers about the dangers of their products. So now they are asking the North Carolina legislature to do what they have not been able to do in the courts— undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for the harm their products can cause, effects like cancer.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to consumer and farmer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at National Agriculture Law Center. Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world,” says H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate.

For more information, please see the following document (bp-dc.org/failure-to-warn-myths-and-facts-sheet).

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are expanding their all-out push from last year. The focus of these bills is to protect chemical corporations, not North Carolinians.

Please oppose the inclusion of Section 19 of S.639 in the final version of the North Carolina Farm Act (S.401) and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are able to hold chemical companies accountable for the potential harms their products cause.

Thank you!

Letter to the North Carolina Conference Committee: [Updated on January 9, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to oppose the inclusion of Section 19 of S.639 into the final version of the North Carolina Farm Act (S.401)! As a member of the conference committee, you have the opportunity to take a stand to ensure that this bill is not passed with language that will shield pesticide manufacturers from being held accountable by people who have been harmed by their products.

The chemical companies have argued unsuccessfully all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that they should not be required to warn consumers about the dangers of their products. So now they are asking the North Carolina legislature to do what they have not been able to do in the courts— undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for the harm their products can cause, effects like cancer.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to consumer and farmer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at National Agriculture Law Center. Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world,” says H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate.

For more information, please see the following document (bp-dc.org/failure-to-warn-myths-and-facts-sheet).

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are expanding their all-out push from last year. The focus of these bills is to protect chemical corporations, not North Carolinians.

Please oppose the inclusion of Section 19 of S.639 in the final version of the North Carolina Farm Act (S.401) and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are able to hold chemical companies accountable for the potential harms their products cause.

Thank you!

Letter to the North Carolina Senate: [Updated on January 9, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to oppose the inclusion of Section 19 of S.639 into the final version of the North Carolina Farm Act (S.401) that will shield pesticide manufacturers from being held accountable by people who have been harmed by their products.

The chemical companies have argued unsuccessfully all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that they should not be required to warn consumers about the dangers of their products. So now they are asking the North Carolina legislature to do what they have not been able to do in the courts— undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for the harm their products can cause, effects like cancer.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to consumer and farmer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at National Agriculture Law Center. Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world,” says H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate.

For more information, please see the following document (bp-dc.org/failure-to-warn-myths-and-facts-sheet).

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are expanding their all-out push from last year. The focus of these bills is to protect chemical corporations, not North Carolinians.

Please oppose the inclusion of Section 19 of S.639 in the final version of the North Carolina Farm Act (S.401) and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are able to hold chemical companies accountable for the potential harms their products cause.

Thank you!

With media focus over the last month on the recent retraction of an apparently definitive scientific article central to the argument in support of the use of the weed killer glyphosate (Roundup™), we are reminded of regulators' overwhelming dependence on pesticide companies for health and safety data. The problem is exacerbated by widespread regulatory and statutory deficiencies and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collusion with industry, undermining health and environmental protection. 

>> Tell Congress to hold oversight hearings to determine how EPA can eliminate the use of toxic pesticides that are no longer needed to grow food or manage landscapes cost-effectively. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> Tell Congress to hold oversight hearings to determine how EPA can eliminate can eliminate the use of toxic pesticides that are no longer needed to grow food or manage landscapes cost-effectively. In the event that your elected officials are not updated in the system, we invite you to email them personally with the message below. 

The target for this Action is the U.S. Congress. 

Thank you for your active participation! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing. 

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

Help stop legislation in Missouri (SB 1005/HB 2712) that will shield pesticide manufacturers that fail to warn people about the potential hazards of their products!

Beyond Pesticides is a national, grassroots organization that represents community-based organizations and people nationwide seeking to eliminate the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers while promoting alternative pest management strategies.   

The legislative session will likely move fast once the legislative session begins on Wednesday, January 7! 

Now is the time to inform state legislators that it is unacceptable to deny people who have not been fully warned of the hazards of pesticides the right to hold accountable the manufacturers that have harmed them. If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow for consumer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026. (See Daily News here.)

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at the National Agriculture Law Center, and H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate—please see Mr. Dansby's reflections on the significance of the Bates decision in a 2025 Pesticides and You article.

• Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. “Almost every pesticide injury lawsuit filed in the past ten years has included a claim that the pesticide manufacturer failed to warn the plaintiff of the health risks associated with using their product and that such failure caused the plaintiff's injury,” says Ms. Rollins.
  
  
• "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world," says Mr. Dansby. The Supreme Court in Bates "emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items," including pesticides.

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are intensifying efforts following last year's introduction of bills in twelve states. We mobilized last year, and we were able to defeat bills in ten states. A broad coalition, including Beyond Pesticides and over fifty organizations, coalitions, businesses, and leaders, continues to call on Congress not to include Section 453 language in any piece of federal legislation in the upcoming fiscal year.

As of January 23, 2026, bills have been introduced in six states while decision-makers in D.C. follow the industry's playbook in federal legislative packages as well as in front of the Supreme Court. 

The focus of these bills is to protect corporations, not Missourians, at a time when health care and grocery costs are skyrocketing while people continue to get sick. 

>> Please ask your state Senator and Representative to OPPOSE SB 1005 and HB 2712 by clicking here.

Thank you!

The Targets for this Action are state Senators and Representatives in the state legislature of Missouri.

Thank you for your active participation and engagement! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing.

↪️ For more information, please see our Myths & Facts and Missouri resource page, as well as the Failure-to-Warn and Pesticide Immunity Bills resource hub.

Letter to Missouri Senate: [Updated on January 6, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to oppose SB 1005, a prefiled bill that (with misleading wording) will shield pesticide manufacturers from being held accountable by people who have been harmed by their products.

The chemical companies have argued unsuccessfully all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that they should not be required to warn consumers about the dangers of their products. So now they are asking the Missouri legislature to do what they have not been able to do in the courts— undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for the harm their products can cause, effects like cancer.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to consumer and farmer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at National Agriculture Law Center. Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world,” says H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate.

For more information, please see the following document (bp-dc.org/failure-to-warn-myths-and-facts-sheet).

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are expanding their all-out push from last year. The focus of these bills is to protect chemical corporations, not Missourians.

Please oppose SB 1005 and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are able to hold chemical companies accountable for the potential harms their products cause.

Thank you!

Letter to the Missouri House: [Updated on January 6, 2026]

I am writing to ask you to oppose HB 2712, a prefiled bill that (with misleading wording) will shield pesticide manufacturers from being held accountable by people who have been harmed by their products.

The chemical companies have argued unsuccessfully all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that they should not be required to warn consumers about the dangers of their products. So now they are asking the Missouri legislature to do what they have not been able to do in the courts— undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for the harm their products can cause, effects like cancer.

If this bill were to pass, it would strike a blow to consumer and farmer safety. In a climate with less regulation, the ability to be held accountable creates an incentive for manufacturers to develop products that better protect our health and the environment—not to mention the compensation it provides to those harmed. The contradictions have been made even more clear with the retraction of a seminal academic paper on November 26, 2025, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in 2017 when reviewing the human health assessment and carcinogenicity classification for the herbicide active ingredient, which is slated for a final review in 2026.

Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at National Agriculture Law Center. Failure-to-warn is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. "Bates was a golden opportunity to return the civil litigation system to its traditional role of responding to societal needs in a complex, rapacious, and competitive world,” says H. Bishop Dansby, attorney and advocate.

For more information, please see the following document. (bp-dc.org/failure-to-warn-myths-and-facts-sheet)

Petrochemical-based pesticide manufacturers, predominantly German-owned Bayer-Monsanto, are expanding their all-out push from last year. The focus of these bills is to protect chemical corporations, not Missourians.

Please oppose HB 2712 and ensure that those who are harmed by toxic products are able to hold chemical companies accountable for the potential harms their products cause.

Thank you!

There is no better time than the beginning of a new year to reflect on what we can do as individuals and collectively to have a meaningful effect on our health, the health of our families and communities, and the legacy of a sustainable world. We need to start with a new vision that prioritizes health and the health of our planet.  

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

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

>> Ask your Mayor, in the new year, to adopt a policy and program for organic management of your community's parks and public spaces. [In the event that your local mayor is not in the system, we invite you to email this message to them personally!] 

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

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

1. Health and Safety: Organic foods and parks are free from harmful pesticides, fossil-fuel-based substances, and toxic chemicals, making them safer and healthier for all ages. Visit Beyond Pesticides' 40 Common Lawn and Landscape Chemicals page to learn more about the health impacts of pesticides in communities. See how you can manage your landscape without petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.  

2. Environmental Stewardship: Organic land management supports practices that protect pollinators, improve soil health, increase biodiversity, and reduce toxic runoff into water bodies. Learn more about how to protect pollinators in your community by reading BEE Protective.  

3. Trust and Transparency: The USDA Certified Organic label ensures strict standards and regulations for organic products, providing trust and transparency for consumers worldwide. We provide oversight for parks that use organic land management. Visit Beyond Pesticides' literature called Save Our Organic to learn more about the power of the organic label and use our Keeping Organic Strong page to keep USDA accountable to the principles and values in the Organic Foods Production Act.  

4. Just Communities: Supporting organic farming practices can benefit local communities and economies, as well as promote responsible animal welfare and fair labor conditions. Organic parks are the ethical choice to promote environmental justice. The Black Institute's Poison Parks report shines a spotlight on New York City's previous reliance on glyphosate-based herbicides and that people of color communities, including landscapers, bear the burden of this toxic chemical's impact.  

5. Climate Resilience: Organic farming often exhibits better performance during droughts and challenging environmental conditions. Watering needs are very site-specific and the type of soil impacts drainage. Once established, a deep root system from organic land management requires less water and results in the draw down of atmospheric carbon, contributing to efforts to reduce the adverse effects of carbon on climate.  

>> Ask your Mayor, in the new year, to adopt a policy and program for organic management of your community's parks and public spaces. [In the event that your local mayor is not in the system, we invite you to email this message to them personally].  

The targets for this Action are U.S. mayors [county and municipal]. 

Thank you for your active participation! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing.

Letter to the mayor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.