(Beyond Pesticides, July 8, 2026) This piece reports on yet additional new studies linking pesticides to breast cancer. Numerous recent reviews make it clear that pesticide exposure per se raises the risk of breast cancer, across a wide swath of pesticide types. One would think that with the body of science linking breast cancer with pesticide exposure, covered extensively by Daily News and the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, a scientific-based regulatory system would respond with a sense of urgency. And yet, that is not the case, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes “acceptable” rates of disease for individual chemicals or chemical families, but does not evaluate patterns of disease linked to multiple chemical exposure. And so, breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in U.S. women, and women turn to medical intervention with drugs, early surgical intervention, and targeted radiation. Yet, the disease, principally associated with environmental rather than hereditary factors, and treatment cause severe disruption to the lives of women and their loved ones and are devastating to quality of life, while clinical responses can have adverse side effects. Many different pesticides affect cellular processes and structures, including alteration of genetic material, endocrine disruption, cell apoptosis, cell […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 6, 2026) In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June preventing lawsuits against pesticide manufacturers for their failure to display a cancer (and other chronic effects) warning on their products, two members of Congress moved quickly last week with a bill to reverse the decision. U.S. Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced the People Over Poison Act. The legislation, H.R. 9528, is intended to restore the right of consumers to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable under state law when they fail to warn about the full range of potential harm associated with their products. Beyond Pesticides has joined with other environmental, health, farm, and farmworker groups to mobilize a nationwide effort to educate on the legislation, which may be subject to clarifying amendments. The mobilization is asking Congressional Representatives to cosponsor H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act. The Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell allows companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities—to warn consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases. “In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 2-3, 2026) Our call on Independence Day for freedom from the toxic chemicals that tear apart our families and the ecosystems on which all life depends is proclaimed this July 4th with even greater urgency than last year. The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court last week in Monsanto v. Durnell—releasing Monsanto-Bayer of liability for failing to warn those harmed by pesticides—enshrines in our daily lives the power of chemical companies to poison and contaminate with impunity. What did the majority of the Supreme Court justices say in supporting the right of chemical companies to poison without warning? The justices opined that, if they were to support the original plaintiff diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using the Monsanto weedkiller RoundupTM without any cancer warning on the label, it would “expose manufacturers to potentially massive tort liability for doing what EPA required.” And that is exactly what happened when juries across the U.S. issued verdicts against Monsanto amounting to billions of dollars since 2018. The justices could not let that stand. Instead, the justices, in putting the freedom of chemical companies to poison for profit without notification above the rights of people to be warned, have codified a […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2026) With the release of the Republican Farm Bill in the U.S. Senate on June 23 and passage of a bill with nearly identical provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 30, Beyond Pesticides and allies are calling on U.S. Senators to reject the GOP Farm Bill as drafted, citing an undermining of public and environmental health. In addition to severe criticism of the bill language, the Chair of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Senator John Boozman (R-AR), is being criticized by farm, farmworker, health, and food security groups for characterizing the House bill as “bipartisan” and a “significant achievement” because both the House and Senate bills were drafted without input from Democrats.  U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), a Senate Agriculture Committee member, said: “The draft Farm Bill released today by Senate Republicans fails to meet this moment of crisis that American farmers and families are facing. . . [I]nstead, it goes backward, by undermining USDA support for regenerative agriculture and creating loopholes for pesticides to avoid safety oversight. I will not vote for a Farm Bill that leaves small farmers without a functioning safety net, does not make healthy, clean food more […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2026) The Supreme Court today, in a 7-2 decision, issued a ruling that prohibits, under current federal law, the right of those harmed by pesticides to sue manufacturers for their failure to warn consumers of potential hazards on their product labels. The decision effectively shields manufacturers from failure to warn lawsuits. See opinion here. “The Court’s decision today is a tragic setback for public and environmental health, allowing companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities, warning consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, a national health and environmental group. “In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily,” Mr. Feldman continued. The Supreme Court case, Monsanto v. Durnell [24-1068], pits the manufacturer of the weed killer glyphosate, sold as RoundupTM, against a cancer patient with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who was awarded $1.25 million in 2023 because the product label information provided no warning. The decision will vacate, or […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2026) Yesterday, Senator Boozman (R-AK), chair of the Senate Agriculture, Forestry, and Nutrition Committee, released the Senate GOP Farm Bill, the Agricultural Act of 2026, with provisions that undermine public and environmental health, according to farm, farmworker, and environmental advocates. Rather than investing sufficiently in organic agriculture and supporting farmers’ transition to nontoxic practices—in response to health, biodiversity, and climate crises, as well as the high cost of synthetic fertilizers—the bill reduces oversight of organic production by loosening inspection and certification requirements. “The bill, drafted without input from Senate Democrats, redefines underlying statutory standards, increasing dependency on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture at a time when we urgently need to shift to sustainable and cost-effective agricultural and land management practices,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, a national public interest group representing farmers, consumers, and environmentalists. “We are facing health and environmental crises, demanding leadership—not exhibited in this Republican Farm Bill—that ensures a livable future,” Mr. Feldman said. The text is largely the same as the version passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in April, the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026 (H.R. 7567). The House vote made history when 73 […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 1, 2026) A study in Psychiatry Research, entitled “Toxic Exposure and Rates of Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors Among U.S. Military Veterans,” adds to the body of science linking poorer mental health among military members with exposure to environmental contaminants. While previous research focuses on mental health broadly, the current observational cohort study focuses on exposure to toxic substances and suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs) through the analysis of data from 248,926 U.S. veterans enrolled in the Million Veteran Program (MVP). In comparing self-reported exposures to nine toxicants, including Agent Orange, chemical/biological weapons, anthrax vaccine, solvents/fuels, petroleum combustion products, lead, other metals, pesticides, and open-air burn pits, and mental health records, the researchers find that military veterans with higher toxic exposures are more likely to have STBs. The authors also report that these associations occur across all major service cohorts (pre-Vietnam, Vietnam, post-Vietnam, Gulf War, and post-9/11 eras). “Our work contributes to growing evidence that veterans who report more toxic exposures are more likely to have STBs, consistent with greater risk for other mental health outcomes (e.g., depression, PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder]),” the researchers conclude. Importance and Background Military members experience increased health risks with exposure to environmental […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2026) On April 27, 2026, advocates—including Beyond Pesticides—from across the political spectrum came together in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to speak out against the chemical industry campaign, led by Bayer/Monsanto, the Trump administration, and Republican lawmakers, to shield chemical manufacturers from liability for failing to warn people who have been harmed by their pesticides. Their multi-pronged strategy targets the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Congress, and state legislatures. The question of the public’s right to sue chemical manufacturers that do not warn of product hazards was heard before the Supreme Court, as Monsanto argued that people who have been diagnosed with cancer after using the weed killer glyphosate should be prohibited from suing the company for failing to warn on the product label. The chemical manufacturer argued in Monsanto v. Durnell that federal registration of a pesticide preempts legal rights afforded to people under state law under U.S. federalism. The chemical industry is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse decades of jurisprudence and shield manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticide adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses. Highlighted Quotes […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 14, 2026) A novel study mapping pesticide mixtures and cancer risk, published in Nature Health, “reveals a robust spatial association between environmental pesticide exposure risk and cancer incidence.” The team of international researchers incorporates pesticide risk modeling with Peruvian National Cancer Institute (INEN) registry data to map pesticide-induced cancer clusters in Peru, finding significant associations between pesticide mixtures and cases of carcinogenicity. The study analyzes 31 active ingredients to identify pesticide-associated cancer hotspots, none of which are classified as carcinogenic on their own by international standards. When combined as pesticide mixtures, as experienced in real-world environments, heightened risks and synergistic effects are noted. “Collectively, these findings strongly support a mechanistic [causal] link between pesticide exposure and cancer, challenging assumptions of human non-carcinogenicity derived from reductionist experimental models,” the authors state. “This study redefines the exposome [measure of all environmental, dietary, lifestyle, and social exposures of an individual] as a lineage-conditioned, mechanistically tractable framework and shows how complex pesticide mixtures can contribute to carcinogenic trajectories, with profound and far-reaching implications for global health policy and socio-ecological equity.” Background An extensive body of scientific literature connects individual pesticide active ingredients to a wide array of health and environmental effects […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2026) In advance of opening U.S. Supreme Court arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell, Beyond Pesticides joined an amicus brief filed yesterday and led by Center for Food Safety (CFS), which challenges Bayer/Monsanto’s position that it should not be held liable for failing to warn consumers that the use of their pesticide products could cause cancer. The chemical company giant, along with the broader chemical and agribusiness industry, argues that they should be given immunity from litigation because their products are registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a claim that is disputed in detail in the amicus brief. Groups joining the brief include Consumer Federation of America, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP), Rural Coalition, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Center for Biological Diversity, Beyond Pesticides, and Food & Water Watch.  Click to access the 17 additional amicus briefs filed in support of the respondents: Stand for Health Freedom; The American Association for Justice and Public Justice; Children’s Health Defense; 36 State Legislators; The Local Government Legal Center, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and International Municipal Lawyers Association; Former EPA Officials and Environmental Protection Network; Philip Landrigan, MD, MSc, Lianne Sheppard, PhD, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2026) A statement decrying chemical company secrecy was released today by over 200 grassroots, health, farm, farmworker, environmental, and consumer groups, socially responsible corporations, over 340 citizens from 46 states, and international partners. The statement, released before the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow reaches the final deadline for submission of amicus briefs in a case in which Bayer/Monsanto argues, with support of the Trump administration, that it should not be required to disclose on its product labels the potential hazards of its pesticide products. Oral arguments in the case will be heard on April 27, with a decision anticipated in June. Decades of law have upheld the legal argument that chemical companies are liable for their failure to warn users of their pesticides about the harm that they could cause. Bayer/Monsanto is attempting to reverse years of case law and billions of dollars in jury verdicts and future cases in which the company has been held liable for causing cancer but not warning product users. See statement, Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards. Chemical Industry State Campaign The chemical industry last year launched a multi-pronged campaign to establish immunity from litigation by those who have […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2026) Through today, organizations, institutions, and corporations can sign on to a public statement calling for chemical companies to continue to be held liable for harming but not warning people who use their pesticide products. The statement, joined by grassroots, health, farm, farmworker, environmental and consumer groups, and socially responsible corporations, will be released tomorrow—just as U.S. Supreme Court begins on April 1 considering Monsanto/Bayer’s claim that the company is not responsible for failing to warn those whose cancer was found by a jury trial to be caused by its weed killer glyphosate (RoundupTM). Groups can sign on to the statement by 5:00pm (Eastern) by clicking here. In the case before the U.S. Supreme Court case, Monsanto v. Durnell, Monsanto/Bayer is seeking to overturn over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements and stop future litigation on their failure to warn about the potential cancer effects of glyphosate/RoundupTM. If Monsanto/Bayer wins, chemical companies will be able to legally withhold information on their pesticide product hazards not required to be disclosed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Bayer/Monsanto wants to overturn decades of legal precedent, including a previous Supreme Court decision, which establishes EPA-required, minimum pesticide product label language, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2026) In a study of birth outcomes in Arizona, published in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, researchers find that preconception and prenatal exposure to certain carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids increases the risk of lower Apgar scores, a metric used to assess neonatal health at one minute and five minutes after birth. The results reveal that exposure to “several pesticide active ingredients at any point during preconception and/or pregnancy were associated with increased odds of low Apgar scores: the carbamates carbaryl and formetanate hydrochloride; the organophosphates diazinon and tribufos; and the pyrethroid cypermethrin.” This multi-institutional study, led by the University of Arizona with researchers from Harvard Chan School of Public Health and UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, provides novel insights, as it incorporates pesticide exposure over a 15-year period both before conception and throughout pregnancy. “To analyze associations of preconception and prenatal exposures to carbamate, organophosphate, and pyrethroid pesticide classes and 25 individual active ingredients with newborn Apgar scores to evaluate the relationship between these exposures and neonatal health,” the authors explain. They continue: “We used pesticide use registry and birth certificate data from 2006 to 2020, linked as part of the Arizona […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 23, 2026) After President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950 and issued an Executive Order (EO), Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides, U.S. Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) stood up to say “no.” They introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (HR 7601) to undo the February 18 Executive Order, which is now being supported by a campaign to urge Congressional Representatives to cosponsor the bill.  With the EO’s declaration that contains no supporting documentation or findings, the U.S. government is granting Bayer/Monsanto immunity from lawsuits for adverse health effects or damage associated with the production, transportation, use, and disposal of the weed killer glyphosate. The executive order proclaims: “There is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides. Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity.  Given the profit margins growers currently face, any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.” […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 16, 2026) On the brink of the first genetically engineered (GE) wheat to be introduced into the U.S. market, after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved it in August, 2024, groups are calling on Congress to instruct USDA to prohibit HB4 wheat and instruct EPA to prohibit the use of glufosinate herbicides on wheat. The herbicide on which the crop is dependent, glufosinate, is a highly toxic herbicide banned in the European Union because of its links to reproductive and developmental harm. The drought- and herbicide-tolerant wheat, known as HB4 GMO wheat, follows a long line of genetically engineered crops that have been allowed to be grown in the U.S., with Roundup ReadyTM (glyphosate-tolerant) soybeans being among the first crops allowed in 1996. While the introduction of this technology promised to reduce pesticide use (herbicides are included under the definition of pesticide), the exact opposite occurred, with the skyrocketing of herbicide use. (See Daily News review of a study by Charles Benbrook, PhD, “Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S.—the first sixteen years.”) The extraordinary increase in herbicide use associated with GE crops has been accompanied by an escalating increase in weed resistance […]

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 5, 2026) In a deep analysis of public records, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), a nonprofit newsroom and public health research group, discloses significant financial ties between Bayer-Monsanto, lobbying firms, and the second Trump Administration, raising concerns about basic safeguards to curb corporate influence over federal policymakers. The USRTK tracker and report, “Tracing Bayer’s ties to power in Trump’s Washington,” (see more) finds that there have been significant lobbying investments by the multinational pesticide corporation just in the past year, including:  “At least $9.19 million on federal lobbying in [2025]”;   “16 key administration officials with ties to Bayer’s lobbying or legal network. Bayer and its lobbyists have access to people in power at the White House, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and even those in high level positions closest to Trump”;  “45 people registered to lobby for Bayer under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and at least 13 outside lobby firms – seven of which are now among the highest-paid firms in D.C”; and,  “More than 30 senior officials at lobby firms retained by Bayer have direct ties to Trump, having worked in one or both of his administrations or political campaigns.”  The report points out that the four main trade and […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 25, 2026) Residues of the weed killer glyphosate, which has been classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, have been routinely found in food products, and a recent state survey in Florida confirmed previous findings. The findings are well within the legal standards for allowable residues. So, why is the Trump administration, in invoking the Defense Production Act of 1950 by Executive Order and its immunity-from-lawsuits provision for glyphosate manufacturers, concerned about glyphosate residues in food and other nondietary exposure? Could it have something to do with the over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements on glyphosate exposure against the manufacturer Bayer/Monsanto, with tens of thousands of cases pending, and the robust independent, peer-reviewed scientific findings that link glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a host of other adverse health effects? Nothing in the President’s executive order appears to meet the intent of the statute and its stated purpose to protect “the ability of the domestic industrial base to supply materials and services for the national defense and to prepare for and respond to military conflicts, natural or man-caused disasters, or acts of terrorism within the United States . . .” Without […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 20, 2026) As pesticides’ adverse effects on human and ecosystem health stack up in the scientific literature, health and environmental groups are focused on striking an entire section of the Republican Farm Bill that will eliminate protections, which have been written into law for generations. The section is Section X, Subtitle C, Part 1 on “Regulatory Reform.” Threatened are policies intended to protect against the diseases and illnesses touching families and communities, including brain and nervous system disorders, birth abnormalities, cancer, developmental and learning disorders, immune and endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, among others. Wildlife, including mammals, bees and other pollinators, fish and other aquatic organisms, birds, and the biota within soil, are adversely affected with reproductive, neurological, endocrine-disruptive, and developmental anomalies, and cancers. (See Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.) With the urgent threat of a markup of the legislation scheduled to begin on March 3, attention shifted to a newly released Executive Order (EO) that could provide blanket legal protection for the manufacturer of the weed killer glyphosate, Bayer/Monsanto. By activating the Defense Production Act of 1950 and its immunity from lawsuits provision for glyphosate manufacturers, the administration could mandate production of glyphosate as a “national security” concern and provide […]

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 6, 2026) The United States, under Donald Trump’s direction, has withdrawn from 66 international organizations, the most important for health being the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. International organizations committed to the application of the best available science and policy development via consultation and consensus serve as a vital check against rampant personal and industry nest-feathering at the expense of global health. The Trump administration has removed this check while expanding his and his associates’ self-dealing and dismissing the critical interactions of crises such as climate change and synthetic chemicals. Although Trump announced this move on inauguration day last year, the completion of the process last week puts the stamp of finality on his total abandonment of public health. This in turn threatens the collapse of WHO—and even the U.N.—altogether, which has wide implications for agriculture, particularly pesticide policies, climate action (and inaction), and infectious disease monitoring, including vaccines and pandemic prevention. [See commentary: On Public and Environmental Health and Worldwide Collaboration.] Other U.N. environmental, health, and agricultural organizations on the list are groups focused on forest degradation, freshwater and oceans, mining, minerals, metals, and sustainable development, biodiversity, and ecosystem […]

[Update on February 9, 2026: In a press release on Friday, February 6, titled “EPA Implements Strongest Protections in Agency History for Over-the-Top Dicamba Use on Cotton and Soybeans for Next Two Growing Seasons,” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to ignore the wide body of science that documents harms from dicamba, as well as the viability of alternative methods, in establishing what the agency is boasting are “the strongest protections in agency history for over-the-top (OTT) dicamba application on dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean crops” as a direct response to the “strong advocacy of America’s cotton and soybean farmers.” These so-called “strong protections” are described as a way to ensure farmers can access the tools they “need” while also protecting the environment from dicamba’s harmful drift. In using “gold-standard science and radical transparency,” EPA created new label restrictions for the next two growing seasons that include “cutting the amount of dicamba that can be used annually in half, doubling required safety agents, requiring conservation practices to protect endangered species, and restricting applications during high temperatures when exposure and volatility risks increase.” Relying on unenforceable label restrictions and mitigation measures, however, fails to adequately protect health and the environment. See […]