November, 18 2021, 10:12am EDT

Groups Urge EPA to Ban Nerve Agent Pesticides
Report shows exposure to organophosphates linked to intellectual disabilities and cancer.
WASHINGTON
Today, Earthjustice filed a petition along with a coalition of 10 health, community, and farmworker groups, filed a petition asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban neurotoxic organophosphate pesticides, which are prevalent in our food and water, and endanger farmworkers and their families. The EPA recently banned all food uses of chlorpyrifos, the most well-known organophosphate pesticide, but only one among a dangerous pesticide group. Chlorpyrifos is just one of over a dozen organophosphates the agency reauthorized for use in agricultural fields, even though they are acutely neurotoxic -- meaning that people who are exposed at high doses over a brief period can experience severe neurological symptoms -- and are linked to neurodevelopmental harm to fetuses and infants.
Along with the petition, Earthjustice is releasing a comprehensive, first-of-its-kind report and data set collating 17 organophosphate human health risk assessments, as well as agricultural pesticide usage data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This report documents the location and amount of organophosphate usage in the United States and the dangerous health effects associated with exposure. This powerful tool also shows what crops are sprayed, the foods that contain elevated levels of pesticide residues, and links to health risks evaluations and brief regulatory history. The report's findings are staggering:
- Certain regions are particularly at risk. Hot spots include central and southern California, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, central and southern Florida, southern Georgia, and South Carolina.
- Exposure to organophosphate pesticides occurs through multiple pathways. Farmworkers are most at risk, but people anywhere in the US can be exposed through their drinking water, food, and the air they breathe. Infants and toddlers face greater harm from dietary exposure. Exposures to most of the organophosphates examined show infants and toddlers are exposed to dangerous levels, in some cases 100 times over EPA's so-called levels of concern.
- In addition to neurotoxicity, organophosphates are associated with other serious health effects. Nearly half of the 17 organophosphates reviewed were associated with reproductive harm or characterized as carcinogenic.
- Organophosphate pesticide residues are widespread and found in concerning levels in the produce we eat and feed our families. Even though it is not legally allowed, residue was found on cilantro, basil, frozen strawberries, frozen spinach, mangoes, and sweet bell peppers; while residues found on raisins, mangoes, mustard greens, and snap peas exceeded allowable limits.
- People living near fields where organophosphate pesticides are used can experience dangerous levels of exposure. Oral and skin exposures resulting from spray drift were associated with risk levels of concern for more than half of the organophosphates examined. Rural communities are already more vulnerable to harm than the general population because factors like poverty and racial injustice can make these communities much more vulnerable to negative health impacts.
"The EPA said it banned chlorpyrifos to protect children and workers from harm," said Earthjustice attorney Patti Goldman. "But the EPA's own data shows that all organophosphates are linked to intellectual disabilities, not just chlorpyrifos. The EPA must ban all organophosphates from food."
Decades of scientific research show that exposure to organophosphates, particularly during pregnancy, can lead to reduced IQ, loss of working memory, and attention deficit disorders in children. Harms to children's brains occur at even low levels of exposure, according to studies that tracked mothers and children. Furthermore, organophosphate can cause acute poisoning to farmworkers at allowable levels of exposure, even when workers wear the most protective equipment. In some cases, exposure can be lethal.
Earthjustice is co-petitioners with the United Farm Workers, United Farm Workers Foundation, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Farmworker Association of Florida, Farmworker Justice, GreenLatinos, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, League of United Latin American Citizens, Learning Disabilities Association of America, Pesticide Action Network North America, and Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste.
Quotes from our co-petitioners:
"As the son of farm worker parents who have labored in California's agricultural fields for over 35 years, I urge the EPA to ensure the protection of farmworker families who are on the frontlines of exposure to harmful insecticides," said Eriberto Fernandez, Strategic Campaigns Coordinator, United Farm Worker Foundation. "Organophosphates have no place in our food. To advance environmental justice, the agency must ensure that its decisions leave no farmworker behind. To protect ALL farmworkers, EPA must ban ALL uses of this neurotoxic pesticide and we will continue to advocate to that end."
"Farmworker families across the country are raising children with learning disabilities, ADHD and other neurodevelopmental problems due largely to agricultural and dietary exposure to organophosphate pesticides. With the least access to resources, these families struggle every day to make a living and provide the care they can for their offspring," said Jeannie Economos, Farmworker Association of Florida. "Not only is this an incredible injustice to the men and women whose work feeds America, it is tragic for the children's futures. Our communities suffer. Banning OP pesticides is a public health and justice issue."
"Organophosphate pesticides have harmed generations of farmworkers and their families. As the people who bear the brunt of the damaging health effects from the pesticides applied to our crops, it is past time to protect farmworkers and their children by ending the use of these particularly toxic chemicals," said Bruce Goldstein, President, Farmworker Justice.
"Farmworkers and their families have faced heavy exposure to organophosphate pesticides for far too long. Use of these dangerous pesticides must be ended," said Anne Katten, Pesticide and Work Health and Safety Specialist, CRLA Foundation.
"Production of food for our tables should not put at risk the neurodevelopment of children nor poison farmworkers. EPA must now side with public health, not corporate profit, and ban organophosphates," said Mark Magana, President & CEO of GreenLatinos.
"Latino and Latina workers and their families have long suffered disproportionately from the impact of organophosphate pesticides because of their line of work or proximity to fields in which these toxic nerve agents are used. We must ensure that this structural injustice that is poisoning our communities is eradicated," said Jose Vargas, National President of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement.
"Farmworkers and their children, the health professionals who serve them, and others all agree, we cannot regulate away these hazards. OPs must be banned," said Margaret Reeves, Pesticide Action Network.
"We need to stop neurotoxic pesticides from tainting the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the fruits and vegetables we eat," said Penny Richards from the Learning Disabilities Association of Illinois, who was exposed to pesticides while pregnant and now her adult son has learning disabilities. "Given the science, organophosphates have no place in food."
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
'Insane This Is Legal': Bettors Make Huge Profits From Suspiciously Timed Wagers on Iran War
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year."
Mar 01, 2026
Bettors on the prediction platform Polymarket made a killing with suspiciously timed wagers that the United States would attack Iran by February 28, the day President Donald Trump announced a bombing campaign against the Middle East nation.
Bloomberg reported that six accounts on Polymarket, all newly created this month, "made around $1 million in profit" by betting on the timing of the US attack on Iran. The accounts, according to Bloomberg, "had only ever placed bets on when US strikes might occur," and "some of their shares were purchased, in some cases at roughly a dime apiece, hours before the first explosions were reported in Tehran."
One account with the name Magamyman raked in over $515,000 by betting roughly $87,000 that the "US strikes Iran by February 28, 2026."
The lucrative bets quickly drew scrutiny from lawmakers. US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that "it’s insane this is legal."
"People around Trump are profiting off war and death," Murphy alleged. "I’m introducing legislation ASAP to ban this."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote that "prediction markets cannot be a vehicle for profiting off advance knowledge of military action" and demanded "answers, transparency, and oversight."
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year," Levin wrote, referring to the president's eldest son. "The [Justice Department] and [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] both had active investigations into Polymarket that were dropped after Trump took office."
There's no concrete evidence that Trump administration officials or staffers were behind the hugely profitable bets, but the wagers heightened concerns about the possibility of insider trading using increasingly popular prediction market platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi. Last month, bettors used Polymarket to make big profits on suspiciously timed wagers on when the US would oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Polymarket currently allows users to bet on when Iran will have a new supreme leader, when the US and Iran will reach a ceasefire agreement, and when the US will invade Iran.
The celebrity news tabloid TMZ reported Saturday that "a group at a Washington, DC restaurant was talking openly in the bar area Friday afternoon about a national secret that was about to literally explode hours later—the bombing of Iran."
As journalist David Bernstein noted, that—if true—leaves open the possibility that "these 'insider' bets have been placed by any rich person with good ears in DC."
"Not to mention that for all we know these administration clowns were probably gossiping about it on a text chain with half a dozen people they accidentally invited," Bernstein added. "This is hardly the locked lips brigade we’re dealing with."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: 'Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack' in Decades
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said one analyst.
Mar 01, 2026
Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.
According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration's argument was "the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades."
During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that "imminent threats from the Iranian regime" against "the American people" drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials "provided absolutely no evidence" to back that assertion during the briefing.
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said Kimball.
Following the start of Saturday's assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.
Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration's narrative. "Reporters need to do more than stenography," he wrote in response to Punchbowl's Jake Sherman.
"The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.
Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday's briefing "suggested Trump’s negotiators"—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—"may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program." Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.
Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel "forever" for Iran's peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman's foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.
Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump's decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.
The administration's inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday's strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.
In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran "refused to make a deal" and because the Iranian government "has targeted and killed Americans," hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has "sidelined anyone who could articulate... a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don't care."
The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.
"President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu's decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran."
"The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq," Sanders added. "The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Leaders Face Backlash Over 'Cowardly' Responses to Trump War on Iran
"As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
Mar 01, 2026
The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran—and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.
While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday's attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.
Schumer (D-NY)—who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis—said he "implored" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to "be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next."
"Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon," he added, "but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home."
Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that "Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region."
"The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East," said Jeffries.
The Democratic leaders' responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump's attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.
This is a disgusting and cowardly statement handwringing about process and the need for a briefing.
No you idiot. This war is a horror and a disaster and must be directly opposed. Any Democrat who can’t say that needs to resign and ESPECIALLY the ones in leadership. https://t.co/CdZoEyNkOy
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) February 28, 2026
Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that "as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
"Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war," Valdez added.
Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.
"The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms," Chávez wrote.
Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.
The top Democrats' responses to Saturday's US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue "uninterrupted" even after the killing of the nation's supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats—and even some members of leadership—who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that "the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions."
"This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic," said Ocasio-Cortez. "This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.
"Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president," she said. "But let’s be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


