(Beyond Pesticides, February 10, 2025) With the shutting down of key federal government programs, Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to speak out, especially on issues that preserve state and local authority to protect public health and safety in the absence of adequate federal standards. In this context, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a petition with a proposed policy that would, if adopted, prohibit states from issuing warnings of pesticide hazards, like cancer, on product labels. EPA is taking public comment through February 20, 2025, on the petition, filed by the Republican attorneys general (AGs) of 11* states.  The petition asks EPA to prohibit “any state labeling requirements inconsistent with EPA findings and conclusions from its human health risk assessment on human health effects, such as a pesticide’s likelihood to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm.” [*The 11 states filing the petition include: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota.] According to Beyond Pesticides: “The only conclusion that can be derived from this petition is that the AGs do not care if the people, including farmers, of their states are harmed by pesticides, and they should not be able […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 22, 2025) A study published in Nature Scientific Reports in December 2024 sheds light on how people value the benefits of reducing or eliminating pesticide exposures. The study, based on economic concepts, is a meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to discern what that value is in monetary terms. This study shows the difficulty in gleaning from the existing literature an assignment of true value of social costs associated with pesticide contamination and poisoning, however, was able to glean several points of interest: People’s “willingness to pay” (WTP) is higher for health benefits than ecological ones. In studies that included pesticide risks associated with cancer, the social cost (WTP) tripled. People’s WTP is higher to prevent or ameliorate chronic diseases than to treat or avoid acute exposures. If the study did not specify a pesticide type—even general categories such as herbicide, insecticide and fungicide, and most studies fell into this category—the WTP is significantly higher. In ecosystem terms, use of the term “biodiversity” results in higher WTPs compared to other aspects such as groundwater or aquatic organism health. Consumers are more risk-averse than farmers. The higher the income, the higher the WTP. Social cost is distinguished from the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 8, 2025) On the brink of the second Trump administration, a legal victory just last month overturned a rule issued under the first Trump administration to “practically eliminate oversight of novel GE technology and instead let industry self-regulate,” as characterized by the Center for Food Safety (CFS). CFS served as counsel in the case for the plaintiffs, led by the National Family Farm Coalition. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California decision, responding to the lawsuit filed in 2021 on behalf of farm and environmental groups, remanded the case back to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) with instructions to follow. “This is a critical victory on behalf of farmers, the planet, and scientific integrity,” says George Kimbrell, legal director at the Center for Food Safety, also a plaintiff in the case. Mr. Kimbrell continued, “USDA tried to hand over its job to Monsanto and the pesticide industry and the Court held that capitulation contrary to both law and science.” It remains to be seen whether the incoming Trump administration will appeal this court decision. Unpacking The Center for Food Safety Litigation This legal battle began in 2004 with the Animal and Plant Health […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 11, 2024) A recent report published by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) unpacks the impacts of new European Union (EU) organic regulations that are going into effect in 2025 with a “completely new set of rules for the certification of smallholder producer groups.” These regulations represent a major shift from the current “equivalence” to a “compliance” system with all EU legal requirements. The change announced almost three years ago, to provide time for transition, is intended to improve consumer trust in the organic label and eliminate a “patchwork of rules and derogations [exemptions] in place [that] did not give sufficient certainty and security” (European Commission 2017). The new EU Organic Regulation 2018/848 aims to encourage the sustainable development of organic production in the EU, guarantee fair competition for farmers and operators, prevent fraud and unfair practices, and improve consumer confidence in organic products. According to the FiBL report, “The new EU Organic Regulation 2018/848 aims to encourage the sustainable development of organic production in the EU, guarantee fair competition for farmers and operators, prevent fraud and unfair practices, and improve consumer confidence in organic products.” More than 7 in 10 organic producer groups globally will […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 4, 2024) According to interviews conducted by Farm Progress, the U.S. organic food supply chain has been under pressure to come into compliance with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s March 19, 2024, Strengthening Organic Enforcement (SOE) final rule (See Daily News here). “We are now seeing up to 95 percent of NOP (National Organic Program) import certificates that are coming in are valid, which means that we really closed the gap on products coming into the United States without an import certificate,” says Jennifer Tucker, PhD, deputy administrator for USDA National Organic Program (NOP). “We really closed the door on illegitimate shipments.” Organic advocates welcome accountability measures to ensure the integrity of organic certification in the spirit of continuous improvement, which is regarded as a tenet of the Organic Food Production Act (OFPA). As communities and businesses across the country anticipate a change in decision-making philosophy regarding the role of federal intervention in the marketplace, environmental and public health advocates remain clear-eyed on the importance of improving the regulatory system to advance public health, biodiversity, and climate. Concerns Raised by Organic Supply Chain The National Organic Coalition, with member groups including Beyond Pesticides, summarizes the five […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 23, 2024) The stark contrast of two political parties emerged around this summer’s reporting of the Project 2025 blueprint—created by extreme right-wing conservatives—that proposes the gutting of environmental and public health policy and implementation. Many political observers say “Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project,” formally titled “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” will be embraced by a second Trump Administration, despite denials that are challenged by insiders as outright lies. While the public became aware of Project 2025 plans to gut the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and many other agencies, the Biden Administration was announcing the emergency ban (see also August 6 announcement), finalized yesterday, of the weed killer Dacthal, exercising an EPA authority that has not been used in 45 years since the banning of 2,4,5-T (50% of the mixture of Agent Orange). With this decision, EPA set an important precedent for proclaiming (i) an unacceptable harm, (ii) its inability to mitigate the pesticide’s hazards with typical risk mitigation measures, and (iii) the availability of alternatives that made the chemical unnecessary. In dramatic contrast, the Trump supporters behind Project 2025 are intent on politicizing science to undermine governmental structures and laws established to protect public health […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 30, 2024) Public Comment Period on Issues of Organic Integrity Closes Today. Farming is a notoriously risky enterprise, and organic farming presents further challenges along with its multiple benefits. Generally, organic has made great strides over the last several years and is strongly supported by American consumers, findings in the latest U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census. Even late this year, there is the prospect of several more important changes that will improve the organic certification process and some issues that will take more policy changes to resolve in the future. As a part of this process to ensure the integrity of the USDA organic label and the permitted production practices, Beyond Pesticides urges that the public submit comments TODAY (the last day for the comment period) on issues currently before the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). See two sets of comments on key issues that can be submitted with one click each. Click here on issues related to use of plastic, nonorganic ingredients in processed food, and seeds and plant starts. Click here on inert ingredients, contaminants in compost, and drugs in livestock production. U.S. agriculture overall has remained fairly robust between the USDA Census in […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 26, 2024) DNA damage is significantly higher in Latinx children from rural, farmworker families than children in urban, non-farmworker families, according to a recent study published by French and American authors in the journal Exposure and Health. Not only do farmworker children test positive for organophosphate pesticides more frequently than non-farmworker children, but the study finds that farmworker children also experience an increased frequency of DNA damage associated with the presence of organophosphate exposure. These results highlight the disparities in exposures and outcomes for children from vulnerable immigrant communities. Advocates note that as long as pesticides remain in use, farmworkers and their families will continue to shoulder a disproportionate share of the toxic effects of these chemicals (see here, here, and here); another in a long line of reasons to shift away from toxic synthetic pesticide use to the adoption of proven organic, regenerative agricultural practices. (See here, here, and here). Methodology The study assesses pesticide exposure and DNA damage in 45 Latinx children ages 10 to 12 from rural, farmworker families (30) and urban, non-farmworker families (15). Participants were selected from a larger study, Preventing Agricultural Chemical Exposure (PACE5)—a community-based research project by the North Carolina […]

Image: Shelf labeling at Blue Hill Coop, Blue Hill, Maine. Note three levels of information: Local Maine Organic, Organic, and Local Maine, as well as country of origin. Photo by Jay Feldman, heading to the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Assn (MOFGA) Common Ground County Fair. (Beyond Pesticides, September 23, 2024) Public Comments on organic standards are due by 11:59 PM EDT on September 30, 2024. Beyond Pesticides is calling for the public to submit comments to the National Organic Standards Board during its Fall review of standards and allowed substances—a second action in a two-part request for the public to weigh in on key issues that go to the heart of the integrity of practices allowed under the USDA organic food label. The issues addressed in this call for action include the following: end plastic in organic production and processed food as a research priority; eliminate nonorganic ingredients in processed organic food; and, require organic products to be produced using only organic seeds and starts. The first action during the current comment can be found here and includes the following issues: full review of “Inert” ingredients used in organic production; strengthened compost regulations; and, rejection of proposal for new animal drug […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 9, 2024)  Comments are due by 11:59 PM EDT on September 30, 2024. With the opening of the public comment period on organic standards that determine the integrity, strength, and growth of the organic agricultural sector, a study was released last week that shows degradation of the ecosystem linked to increased infant mortality associated with higher pesticide use by chemical-intensive farmers compensating for losses in bat populations. It is well known that bats, among other wildlife including birds and bees, provide important ecosystem services to farmers by helping to manage pest populations and increase plant resilience and productivity. While degradation of ecosystems is attributable to many factors, pesticide use accounts for an important element in harm to bats and biodiversity. The study, “The economic impacts of ecosystem disruptions: Costs from substituting biological pest control,” published in Science, concludes with a finding  that “insect-eating bat population levels induce farmers to substitute with insecticides, consequently resulting in a negative health shock to infant mortality.” Daily News will cover this study in depth in an upcoming edition. According to research published in the Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (2022), bat population declines cost American farmers as much as […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 30, 2024) There is no more compelling reason to embrace a precautionary pesticide poisoning standard this Labor Day than the need to protect workers. In fact, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) says on its website, Transitioning to Safer Chemicals, that the best way to protect workers is to  “eliminate or reduce hazardous chemicals at the source.” While some try to employ product substitution with “safer” chemicals, Beyond Pesticides urges decision makers to embrace alternative systems, such as organic management systems, that embrace management techniques to meet disease and infestation management goals and use only organic compatible substances. According to OSHA: “In chemical management, [the industrial hygiene principle, known as the hierarchy of controls] guides employers and workers to eliminate or reduce hazardous chemicals at the source by substituting them with safer alternatives. Unlike traditional engineering controls, administrative controls, work practice controls, or personal protective equipment, these strategies can completely eliminate exposure to hazardous chemicals, reduce the potential for chemical accidents, reduce disposal costs, and remove concerns regarding worker compliance and equipment maintenance.” A look through the state and federal databases that track occupational pesticide poisoning for both acute (immediate short-term) and chronic (long-term) pesticide effects […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2024) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pesticide labeling requirements fail to adequately communicate acute toxicity levels to the public, as evidenced in a recent study of consumers published last month in the journal Nature. After evaluating whether the current three “signal” words (CAUTION, WARNING, DANGER) on pesticide products adequately convey pesticide toxicity, the authors conclude that current labeling may result in “unintended adverse effects” because it does not “effectively communicate toxicity risks to consumers.” The signal words on pesticide labels, based on laboratory animal testing for determining lethal doses, are intended to protect users of the product from exposure that can kill through inhalation, skin absorption, and ingestion of the pesticide. However, the signal words do not warn about long-effects like cancer, neurological diseases, reproductive harm, as well as other adverse effects associated with pesticide exposure. (See Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.)   The study tests two prototype labels to evaluate the effectiveness of visual elements in communicating toxicity information, citing research in cognitive psychology that indicates visual elements, like images and graphics, are more effective for conveying information than text alone. This is particularly crucial for pesticide labels, where complex toxicity details need to be communicated quickly […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 1, 2024) The city council of Newbury, Massachusetts unanimously voted to ban second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) on private property earlier this year, according to a press release by Mass Audubon. Several other local governments across the state have passed proposed rodenticide or pesticide ordinances since the fall of 2023 – including the cities of Arlington, Orleans, and Newton. Moreover, proposed legislation sitting in the state legislature calls for designating glyphosate as a restricted-use pesticide on public lands (S.516, S.517, and H.813) and establishing ecologically based mosquito management plans at the state and local levels. (S.445 and H.845) The combination of these pending actions demonstrates the public’s concerns over adverse impacts of toxic pesticides and demands for a transformation toward an ecologically sustainable land management system rooted in organic principles in the absence of federal action. Massachusetts is one of about 45 states that, in some form, preempts local governments from establishing pesticide ordinances. If a municipality’s elected officials vote to pass a pesticide ordinance, some states (including Massachusetts) require passage through the state legislature. This is known as the Home Rule petition process. Back in the 19th century, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John F. Dillon established what […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 31, 2024) The latest commentary on “forever chemicals” in Environmental Health Perspectives captures growing concerns for the class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that are found in pesticide products and cause persistent contamination that threaten human health and the environment. The authors share, “Given that pesticides are some of the most widely distributed pollutants across the world, the legacy impacts of PFAS addition into pesticide products could be widespread and have wide-ranging implications on agriculture and food and water contamination.” Fluorination, which adds fluorine to a compound, is used to modify properties, such as the stability of chemicals. It can also increase residual activity of pesticide ingredients. Fluorinated molecules, including PFAS, are “a serious environmental health concern owing to their highly persistent nature, often potent toxicities, potential to bioaccumulate, and widespread presence in people, animals, and the broader environment,” the authors state. They continue in saying, “The long-term impacts of using mixtures of extremely persistent chemicals on potentially hundreds of millions of acres of US land every year is, to us, a cause for concern.” The commentary, titled “Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment,” explores how and to what extent PFAS […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 25, 2024) On July 10, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not preempt pesticide exposure victims’ state law claims against pesticide manufacturers, based on reporting from The New Lede. This decision builds on years of judicial precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) that protects individuals’ right to use failure-to-warn claims against producers of toxic pesticides, including Bayer-Monsanto. The importance of judicial review is critical to protecting the public against public health impacts of toxic pesticide use in the context of last month’s SCOTUS decision ending Chevron Doctrine, and with it the end of deferring to federal regulatory agencies on ambiguities in statutory mandates. A growing coalition of environmental and public health advocates, organic farmers, trial attorneys, farmworkers, and physicians are united in pushing back against a concerted effort by industry and its allies to attack victims’ ability to sue under “failure-to-warn” through the Farm Bill, state legislatures, and the proposed federal budget for Fiscal Year 2025. Oregon Court of Appeals In 2022, a local trial court in Oregon ruled in favor of Monsanto on a lawsuit initiated by Jackson County residents Larry and […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 4, 2024) In reflecting on recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that reduce federal government powers to restrict hazardous chemicals, including pesticides (see Clean Water Act decision and federal restrictions of toxic hazards under the reversal of Chevron decision), two remaining authorities in state and local governments and in the courts have become the next battleground to protect health and the environment. What is at stake are two major backstops to weak federal controls and chemical company disregard for safety: the critical importance of state and local governments’ exercise of authority to restrict toxic chemicals, and the ability of people to sue corporations for their failure to warn about their products’ hazards.  The attack on state and local authority in the Farm Bill The Farm Bill in the U.S. House of Representatives: Prohibits the rights of states and local governments to restrict pesticides and protect public health and the environment. The language says the Farm Bill will “prohibit any State, instrumentality or political subdivision thereof… from directly or indirectly imposing or continuing in effect any requirements for, or penalize or hold liable any entity for failing to comply with requirements with respect to, labeling or packaging that is in […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2024) Earlier this month, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on behalf of a group of ranchers and farmers in Texas harmed by biosolids contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The plaintiffs charge that their health and livelihoods were severely damaged due to contaminated biosolids leaching from neighboring properties onto their land. Despite EPA’s responsibility under the Clean Water Act (Section 405(d) and 40 CFR Part 503) to identify toxic pollutants in biosolids and regulate them to protect human health and the environment, the agency has not effectively addressed the dangers posed by PFAS in biosolid fertilizers. EPA’s failure has dramatic impacts on farmers as well as the public, who are eating or drinking PFAS-contaminated crops, dairy milk, beef, or other meat products. The shortcomings of federal regulations underscore the urgent need for a shift in how federal and state agencies approach these issues, prioritizing precaution to prevent future harm. The persistence of these legacy or “forever” chemicals in the environment illustrates the severe consequences of a historically lax regulatory framework in the U.S.  The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) has identified […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2024) It has been a couple of weeks since U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR), ranking GOP member on the Senate Agriculture Committee, released the Republican framework vision without statutory language for a Senate Farm Bill that would renew the law’s commitment to chemical-intensive agriculture and undermines efforts to curtail pesticide use and hold chemical company polluters accountable. In his press statement, Sen. Boozman issues an approach that largely mirrors the House-side text, passed by the House Agriculture Committee earlier this month in a 33-21 vote. On the same day that Sen. Boozman announced the framework, the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee approved the federal food and agriculture budget for Fiscal Year 2025 with a $355 million cut from last year’s budget, affecting specific programs that support pollinator health, ecosystem health, and public health related to pesticide use and organic agriculture. The full House Appropriations Committee will vote on this budget on July 10 before moving to the House floor. Advocates are adamant in their resolve to demand more – not less – support from Congress to address the climate emergency, insect apocalypse, and public health implications borne from reliance on toxic petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. The Senate […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 10, 2024) Expanding the planting of genetically engineered crops is the major focus of “The Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology – Plan for Regulatory Reform under the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology” (Framework), released in May by three federal agencies. In its Framework, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) use the words “exempt” or “exemption” in reference to federal safety regulations 21 times. Then, another 21 times the agencies identify their efforts to “streamline” the process for bringing genetically engineered “plant-incorporated protectants” (PIPs) to market. Without including the word “resistance” even once, the Framework advances the interests of the biotech and allied industries, ignoring the serious scientific issues regarding health and environmental effects and the economic failure for farmers facing crop loss. Meanwhile, the issue of resistance is not new to EPA, which has for years acknowledged the resistance problem despite allowing continued weed resistance to weed killers used with herbicide-tolerant crops and insect resistance to the pesticides incorporated into plants.   >> Tell USDA, FDA, and EPA to replace agricultural provisions in the Framework with policies that discourage GE crops […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 20, 2024)  (Beyond Pesticides, May 20, 2024) The Republican Farm Bill draft in the U.S. House of Representatives, released on Friday, May 17, is a broad attack on pesticide restrictions and the right to sue chemical manufacturers and allied users of pesticides when harmed. “This legislation is a complete nonstarter for the millions of people who want stronger pesticide restrictions, democratic decision making on toxic chemicals in communities, and the right to sue manufacturers and pesticide users when harmed and misled on the hazards of pesticides,” said Jay Feldman, executive director. “We vehemently oppose this Republican legislation with the understanding and experience—bridging farmers, medical practitioners, land managers, local policy makers, and families—that we can and must transition to safe practices and products that protect our health, biodiversity, and climate,” Mr. Feldman continued. The Farm Bill attack takes place on many critical fronts. The draft legislation: 1. Takes away the right to sue for failure to warn when harmed by pesticides. The language says: “prohibit. . .a court from directly or indirectly imposing or continuing in effect any requirements for, or penalize or hold liable any entity for failing to comply with requirements with respect to, labeling or […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 14, 2024) As research continues to emerge on the value of organic farming, U.S. Congress debates its future as Farm Bill negotiations have been stalled for months. Recent studies published within the past few months show the significance of organic agriculture’s support of fungal and microbial life, which is essential to soil health. Meanwhile, last week the Democrat-led Senate and Republican-led House of Representatives presented their respective visions to amend the 2024 Farm Bill. The office of U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, released an initial Senate framework for the (now 2024) Farm Bill. At the same time, U.S. Representative Glenn Thompson (R-PA), chair of the House Agriculture Committee, released an outline of the House version, then followed up with more details. While the Senate Democratic proposal includes more robust support for expanding and strengthening organic product supply chains and domestic production, the House Republican support for organic land management principles and practices demonstrates that the Farm Bill could recognize, across the political spectrum, its economic, ecological, and public health benefits in the United States. Despite this, a growing coalition of advocates is alerting the public and members of Congress that the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 24, 2024) On April 16, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted an “update” to the Draft Herbicide Strategy Framework (Draft Herbicide Strategy Framework to Reduce Exposure of Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species and Designated Critical Habitats from the Use of Conventional Agricultural Herbicides) that was released last summer, weakening aspects of the agency’s efforts to “protect” endangered species from herbicide use. The update outlines three types of modifications to the Draft Strategy, including “simplifying” its approach, increasing growers’ “flexibility” when applying mitigation measures, and reducing the mitigation measures required in certain situations. By reducing the stringency of the Strategy, advocates are again questioning EPA’s commitment to fulfilling legal requirements under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or protecting endangered species and their habitats in the midst of an unprecedented rate of global extinction. ESA is celebrated as one of the most far-reaching conservation laws globally, credited with preventing the extinction of 99 percent of those species the government targets for protection, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). ESA establishes a framework to categorize species as “endangered” or “threatened,” granting them specific protections. Under ESA, EPA is required to consult with relevant agencies […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 8, 2024) When Mexico in 2020 decided to protect its traditional varieties of corn for reasons of health, safety, environmental protection, and food sovereignty with the banning of the importation of genetically engineered (GE or GM-genetically modified) corn by 2024, the powerful biotech industry and the U.S. government began a concerted campaign to stop the country’s efforts. With the opposition spearheaded by BIO, “the world’s largest trade association representing biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations” (as described in its March 15 press release), including companies like Bayer/Monsanto, the U.S government is calling Mexico’s action a trade barrier. The U.S. is invoking the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the trade agreement that replaced the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 2020. This is just one of the latest examples of corporate power reigning over U.S. environmental and economic policies. Mexico has already announced a delay in the planned April 1 ban on the importation, production, distribution, and use of glyphosate. Interestingly, this is all happening despite reports that the Biden administration is seeking to “tackle corporate abuses,” which is apparently limited  to tax reform and […]