March, 30 2026, 07:55am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Bill Freese, bfreese@centerforfoodsafety.org
Lori Ann Burd, laburd@biologicaldiversity.org
New Analyses: EPA Consistently Fails to Warn Public of Pesticide Cancer Risks
The Environmental Protection Agency has routinely failed to put cancer warnings on pesticide products even when its own assessments have found a high risk of those products causing cancer, according to two new analyses released today by the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity. The Center for Food Safety analyzed the level of risk the EPA permitted for both currently approved and legacy pesticide active ingredients. The analysis found that pesticides have been allowed on the market with a cancer risk as high as one in every 100 people exposed, a far greater level than the EPA’s benchmark of a one in a million chance of developing cancer. Over the last 40 years, the EPA has approved 200 active ingredients that are “likely” or “possible” carcinogens.
The Center for Biological Diversity analysis examined pesticide product labels for all currently approved pesticide products. The EPA has instituted cancer warnings on only 69 of 4,919 pesticide labels (1.4%) containing an active ingredient that the agency has designated a “likely” human carcinogen. And the agency has instituted cancer warnings on just 242 of the 22,147 pesticide labels (1.1%) that contain an ingredient the agency has designated as a “possible” human carcinogen.
"It’s bad enough that the EPA approves cancer-causing pesticides," said Bill Freese, science director at the Center for Food Safety. "But if the agency is going to allow such chemicals to be freely sold at Home Depot, Wal-Mart and farm-supply stores, the very least the EPA must do is require a clear cancer warning on the label. Warnings save lives by incentivizing users to wear protective equipment that reduces risk."
"It’s dumbfounding that the EPA has failed to require any cancer warning on thousands of pesticide products sold to the public that the agency itself has linked to cancer," said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Why should anyone have confidence in the EPA’s ability to keep tabs on the pesticide industry and protect us all from harmful poisons when it won’t even compel companies to put long-term health warnings on pesticides it knows are really dangerous?"
These new analyses come before the April 27 oral arguments in the Supreme Court case Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell. Monsanto, since acquired by Bayer, is seeking substantial immunity from future lawsuits brought by Americans who used glyphosate-based products like Roundup and contracted rare cancers that numerous studies have linked to the pesticide. The case hinges on whether the EPA has sole authority to implement pesticide label warnings.
Both analyses found that the vast majority of cancer warnings on pesticides come from obligations under Proposition 65 in California, which requires warnings on products, including pesticides, that contain hazardous levels of chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm. However, most Americans are not adequately warned about products’ known cancer risks.
For instance, pesticide products containing mancozeb, diuron and chlorothalonil — three EPA-designated “likely” human carcinogens — are only required to include a cancer warning in the state of California. The pesticides are applied to a wide range of vegetable, fruit and grain crops grown in many other states, according to U.S. Geological Survey reports.
Full Summary of Analyses
The Center for Food Safety analysis focused on the active ingredients contained in currently approved and legacy pesticide products. It found that of the 570 unique pesticide chemicals that the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs has analyzed for carcinogenic potential since 1985, more than a third (35%) are either “likely” human carcinogens (73) or “possible” human carcinogens (127).
For many of these pesticide ingredients the EPA has identified substantial cancer risks far exceeding its policy threshold of preventing a cancer risk of greater than one in 1 million people exposed.
For example, the EPA predicts drinking water contaminated with the pesticide thiophanate-methyl can cause cancer in up to four in 10,000 people exposed. Residential and occupational uses of other registered pesticides can cause cancer in as many as seven in 1,000 people exposed, a 7,000-fold higher risk than the EPA’s threshold for unacceptable cancer risk.
The Center for Biological Diversity analysis focused on the pesticide labels of individual pesticide products and reviewed more than 93,000 historic and currently approved pesticide labels for all products now available to pesticide users. It found that the EPA has instituted cancer warnings on only 69 of 4,919 pesticide labels (1.4%) containing an ingredient that the agency has designated a “likely” human carcinogen and 242 of the 22,147 pesticide labels (1.1%) that contain an ingredient the agency has designated as a “possible” human carcinogen.
In the few instances when the EPA has instituted a cancer warning on pesticide labels, implementation can be haphazard and confusing. For instance, the agency has implemented cancer warnings on some products containing triphenyltin hydroxide. However other products with the same amount of active ingredient and approved for the same uses contain no cancer warning at all.
Center for Food Safety's mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. Through groundbreaking legal, scientific, and grassroots action, we protect and promote your right to safe food and the environment. CFS's successful legal cases collectively represent a landmark body of case law on food and agricultural issues.
(202) 547-9359LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Gives Trump 'King-Like' Power to Purge Independent Agencies
“Today’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter takes a wrecking ball to a 90-year pillar of American law," said House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin.
Jun 29, 2026
The US Supreme Court on Monday upheld President Donald Trump's firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, overturning 90 years of precedent and giving the chief executive what dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor called "a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted."
Last March, Trump fired Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, the two Democratic FTC commissioners at the time, without cause in what critics called yet another illegal abuse of power by the twice-impeached convicted felon.
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) of 1914, a president may only fire FTC commissioners "for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." The Supreme Court's 1935 Humphrey's Executor v. United States ruling interpreted the FTCA to mean that the president could not remove an FTC commissioner for any other reason, such as a policy disagreement.
The justices shredded that precedent with Monday's 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which found that "the FTC's for-cause removal provision is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution."
BREAKING: The Supreme Court upholds Trump’s firing of FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause.The decision overturns a 90-year-old precedent that protected the heads or board members of independent agencies from arbitrary presidential dismissals. Full story to come.
[image or embed]
— Democracy Docket (@democracydocket.com) June 29, 2026 at 7:20 AM
Chief Justice John Roberts joined fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—the last three appointed by Trump—in the majority, while liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Delivering the court's opinion, Roberts wrote that the "Humphrey's framework, in short, has not withstood the test of time."
"We long ago abandoned the notion that there are some powers that are only partly executive," the chief justice asserted. "Forty years have now passed, in fact, since we recognized that the FTC exercises executive power—and did so even in 1935, when Humphrey's was decided."
Slaughter and officials at independent executive agencies, Roberts wrote, "exercise the president’s power, not their own, and thus must be responsible to him."
"At this point, all that is left of Humphrey's is its observation that an agency that 'exercises no part of the executive power' need not fall within the rule of presidential removal," he added. "If anything more is left of Humphrey's, we overrule it."
As she did last week with Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, a 6-3 ruling that affirmed Trump's deadly policy of blocking people legally seeking asylum from entering the United States, Sotomayor took the rare step of reading her dissent in Slaughter from the bench.
"Today, this court undoes centuries of political practice and concludes that all three branches of government have been acting in open defiance of the Constitution all this time. Its conclusion is wrong," she asserted. "The text of the Constitution, along with its history, the long-standing practices of the political branches, and the precedents of this court, make clear that Congress may limit the causes for which the heads of commissions like the FTC can be removed by the president."
"In holding otherwise, the court gives the president a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted, elevating him above his once-coequal branches by transforming a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed into a license to act in defiance of those very laws," she continued.
"If nothing else, the doctrine of stare decisis, which today’s decision cursorily dismisses, should have made this a profoundly easy case under Humphrey’s," Sotomayor added, referring to the Latin legal term for "to stand by things decided," or precedent.
Responding to the ruling, Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said that “today’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter takes a wrecking ball to a 90-year pillar of American law and to Congress’ power to create independent expert agencies that serve the will of the American people as expressed in federal law rather than the whimsical political agenda of one president."
“In overturning Congress’ authority to prevent the president from removing the leaders of independent agencies at whim, the court’s right-wing majority has given President Trump sweeping new power to purge Senate-confirmed commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission and other independent agencies for no reason other than personal loyalty, political obedience, or refusal to bend the law to the personal will of the president," Raskin added. "This decision invites presidential domination of the independent agencies Congress created to protect the people against corporate fraud, financial corruption, attacks on workers’ rights, and other abuses of concentrated economic and political power."
Numerous civil society groups and constitutional experts also expressed alarm over Monday's ruling, which follows the high court's previous affirmations of expanded executive power in cases including Trump v. United States. Roberts wrote for the 6-3 majority in that 2024 case that the president enjoys prosecutorial immunity for all "official acts"—which Sotomayor said in her dissent made him "a king above the law."
“Independent agencies are the guardians of American consumers, workers, and investors," Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said of Trump v. Slaughter. "They have held wealthy corporations that rip off hardworking Americans accountable and forced dangerous products from the market. Having stripped most independent agencies of their independence, President Trump is already politicizing and weaponizing them, including agencies such as the FTC and the Federal Communications Commission, to the detriment of everyday Americans.”
At Issue One, a group dedicated to reducing the influence of money in politics, vice president of advocacy Alix Fraser said that “today, the Supreme Court greenlit further abuses of presidential power and stripped independent commissions of their independence."
"The ruling opens the floodgates for more governing decisions based on the president’s whims and self-interest," he added. "This ruling not only subverts the Constitution’s clear guardrails against executive overreach, it also breaks from the court’s historical precedent to uphold the FTC removal provision."
The Slaughter case, overturning precedent, returns us to a spoils system where a president can “clean house” every four years, destroying our professional, independent civil service.
— Barb McQuade (@barbmcquade.bsky.social) June 29, 2026 at 8:31 AM
Leah Greenberg, co-executive director at the pro-democracy group Indivisible, issued a statement calling the ruling "shocking, but sadly not surprising."
"John Roberts and the MAGA majority are willing to set fire to history, precedent, and any consistent constitutional principle in order to give Trump more power with less oversight," she said. "This brazen, undemocratic partisanship and corruption must be investigated, the justices must be held accountable, and the court must be reformed to disempower the current anti-constitutional majority.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and affairs at the anti-corruption watchdog Stand Up America—which said the ruling "opens the door to king-like powers for Trump to fire independent watchdogs and install loyalists throughout government"—lamented that “the MAGA Supreme Court just overturned a century of law to give more power to Donald Trump."
"Trump couldn’t find a lawful reason to fire a member of an independent agency, so he ignored the law, fired them anyway, and turned to his allies on the Supreme Court to reward his gross abuses of executive power," he continued. "His lackeys on the court obliged."
“Today’s ruling hands Trump sweeping power to purge independent watchdogs and install loyalists throughout the US government who will answer to him alone," Edkins added.
Republicans have long sought a repeal of Humphrey's. Project 2025—the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a far-right overhaul of the federal government—calls for the ruling to be overturned.
Trump welcomed Monday's decision with a post on his Truth Social network claiming that he personally "won" the ruling.
Monday's decision means Trump will now be able to fire at will leaders from agencies including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, National Labor Relations Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and US Postal Service.
But not the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. That's because in a separate but related ruling released on Monday, the justices rejected Trump's attempt to oust Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook, finding 5-4 in Trump v. Cook that his bid to fire her did not comply with the Federal Reserve Act's for-cause removal protections.
“The court’s decision in Slaughter is all the more peculiar in light of... Trump v. Cook," Raskin said in his statement."There, the court rightly rejected President Trump’s lawless attempt to fire Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook without adequate cause, due process, or judicial review."
While acknowledging that "central bank independence matters immensely to the American economy," Raskin contended that "Congress' constitutional judgments about the necessity of institutional independence should matter just as much at the FTC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Communications Commission, and the many other important independent agencies Congress has created to serve the interests of the American people."
Humphrey's Executor is dead and the president can fire anyone in the executive branch at will but NOT Federal Reserve governors is really a parody of the difference between the money power and everything else in America
— David Dayen (@ddayen.bsky.social) June 29, 2026 at 7:20 AM
Indivisible's Greenberg said that “the carveout for the Federal Reserve only shows how grossly political" the Slaughter decision is.
"Apparently, independence only matters when financial markets are at stake," she added, "but not when agencies are protecting consumers, workers, or the public from corporate abuse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Victory for Voters,' Supreme Court Rejects Trump-GOP Attack on Mailed Ballots
"At a time when the Roberts Court has too often made it harder for Americans to exercise their rights, today's decision is an important and welcome exception."
Jun 29, 2026
In a surprise blow to President Donald Trump's intensifying assault on democracy in the lead-up to the November midterms, the US Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can decide to count ballots received after Election Day as long as they were postmarked in time.
Although the high court's right-wing supermajority has handed Trump various victories over his two terms, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's three liberals for the 5-4 decision, which was welcomed by advocates for Americans with disabilities, military families, the elderly, and others who choose to vote by mail.
While over half of US states allow at least some ballots received after Election Day to be counted, in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the RNC challenged a Mississippi law that requires ballots to be postmarked on or before the date of the election and received by the registrar no more than five business days afterward.
Good news that SCOTUS preserved mail ballot grace periods but very disturbing that 4 justices led by Alito amplified Trump's conspiracies about mail voting, including debunked claims of "voter fraud" www.motherjones.com/politics/202...
[image or embed]
— Ari Berman (@ariberman.bsky.social) June 29, 2026 at 11:00 AM
Following oral arguments in March, the ideologically split majority found that "nothing in the federal election day statutes requires ballots to be received by Election Day," with Barrett—one of three justices appointed by Trump—delivering the majority opinion. She stressed that "we cannot add to the words Congress chose."
In a statement cheering the decision, Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and rule of law at Campaign Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in this case with Protect Democracy, said that "all voters, no matter how they cast their ballot, deserve the freedom to make their voices heard. This is a cornerstone of American democracy. And access to vote-by-mail, along with early voting and in-person voting, makes our democracy stronger by expanding access to the ballot for more voters."
Robert Weiner, the Voting Rights Project director at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law—which also submitted an amicus brief in this case and is suing over Trump's executive order on mail-in voting—celebrated that the ruling "rejects yet another attempt to prevent eligible voters from casting their votes and having them counted."
"Our democracy is stronger when more people, not less, can participate," declared Weiner, encouraging all US voters to "check the rules in your state," and anyone voting absentee "to mail their ballots early and confirm they were received."
Retired Amb. Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said that "this ruling respects state authority over election administration and prevents needless confusion for voters and election officials. At a time when the Roberts Court has too often made it harder for Americans to exercise their rights, today's decision is an important and welcome exception."
US Marine Corps veteran and Vet Voice Foundation CEO Janessa Goldbeck called the decision "a victory for every American who follows the rules, mails their ballot on time, and deserves to have their vote counted," while also highlighting that absentee voting is common among troops and their families.
"For service members stationed around the world, military spouses, veterans, and other Americans who rely on voting by mail, this ruling recognizes a simple principle: Voters should not lose their voice because of circumstances beyond their control," Goldbeck said.
As Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, pointed out, older voters also often vote by mail. He said that "for generations, states have adopted practical election rules that reflect the realities of mail delivery, protect the right to vote, and meet the needs of their citizens. The court's decision means that voters in the 14 states that provide a grace period for regular mail ballots, and the 29 states which allow additional time for at least some mail voters, including military and overseas voters, can breathe a little easier."
"Our alliance members in Mississippi proudly joined this case to defend the constitutional right to vote. We have always maintained that no eligible voter who casts a ballot in a timely manner should have that vote tossed out because of circumstances they cannot control," he added. "We will continue fighting to protect every eligible voter's right to have a ballot cast in a timely manner."
Among the older voters who have recently voted by mail is 80-year-old Trump, noted Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón—who applauded the new ruling as "a victory for voters and for an election system that meets the needs of the people it serves."
"Now, it's on Congress to pass long-overdue nationwide protections for voters," she asserted. "Common Cause will mobilize our one million members to make sure Congress hears voters loud and clear: national voting protections now."
Donald Trump spent years attacking voting by mail—even as he voted by mail himself.Then he asked the Supreme Court to throw out laws protecting your right to vote.The Court said no.
[image or embed]
— JB Pritzker (@jbpritzker.bsky.social) June 29, 2026 at 11:07 AM
Republicans narrowly control both chambers of Congress, and Trump continues to pressure lawmakers to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act requiring proof of US citizenship to register and vote in federal elections. Given Democratic opposition to the bill and the GOP's slim Senate majority, passage would require working around the filibuster.
Democratic leaders on Monday joined voting rights advocates in celebrating the Supreme Court's new ruling but also emphasized that, in the words of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), "as the midterm elections approach, Trump and his allies are working overtime to silence Americans' votes."
"Senate Democrats will continue to do everything we can to protect free and fair elections, where everyone's voice is heard," he vowed.
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said that "the DNC is proud to have stood with the state of Mississippi to defeat the RNC's latest attack on Americans’ voting rights," and "Trump and Republicans are attacking our elections and trying to rig the system in their favor because they know the American people are ready to reject their chaos and corruption this November."
He, too, pledged that "the DNC will remain vigilant and use every tool at our disposal to protect every eligible voter's access to the ballot box."
Democratic Association of Secretaries of State Chair Cisco Aguilar said that "my attendance at the oral arguments for Watson v. RNC in March was a demonstration of Nevada's commitment to protecting mail voting and ensuring that every eligible voter can cast a ballot in the way that works best for them."
"Democratic secretaries of state have repeatedly said that the Constitution is clear: States decide how their elections are run. Today's ruling shows they were right," Aguilar continued. "This ruling should also be a warning to the president that the letter of the law still holds weight with the Supreme Court."
"Despite this win, the right to vote remains more under threat this year than ever before," he added. "Democratic secretaries of state will continue to be on the frontlines of democracy, fighting to protect the rights of all Americans to legally cast their ballots and have confidence that their votes will be counted."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Journalists Set the Record Straight After Musk Claims ‘Not a Single' Child Died From DOGE’s USAID Cuts
"Come with me on a reporting trip," said New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. "You'll see the dying children themselves."
Jun 29, 2026
As Elon Musk continues to claim that "not a single" child has died as a result of his foreign aid cuts at the beginning of the second Trump administration, journalists—including ones who witnessed the consequences of the policy firsthand—are correcting the record.
Since being called out by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who cited a journal's projection that 4.5 million children under 5 could die by 2030 as a result of the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) sudden termination of most of the United States Agency for International Development's (USAID) programs—including an 88% cut to children's health aid awards—last year, the newly minted trillionaire has repeatedly asserted that the claim that he is responsible for the deaths of kids is "a total lie."
"There is not even a single dead child!" Musk wrote on his social media platform X last Monday. "If there were, it would be worldwide headline news!"
Multiple journalists have been quick to respond that, in fact, the deaths of children and other people directly attributed to the termination of USAID programs by the agency he headed have been widely documented by major news outlets.
"Independent analyses estimate that your actions to dismantle USAID and drastically reduce lifesaving foreign aid have already killed 700,000 people," wrote Atul Gawande, the former USAID global health chief and longtime New Yorker writer, who cited models from Boston University epidemiologist Brooke Nichols.
In a lengthy thread posted on Thursday, Gawande cited nearly two-dozen examples in which news outlets named people who died as a direct result of cuts to health programs they relied upon, including:
- Nyagoa, the 1-year-old daughter of Nyajime Duop, who died of cholera after the International Rescue Committee's mobile health team stopped coming to her village in South Sudan after its grant was terminated, according to a December report from ProPublica. Save the Children said last year that it was forced to either shutter or scale back care at its 27 child clinics in Akobo County, in South Sudan's Jonglei state. In April 2025, amid a cholera outbreak, the group reported that five children died while walking three hours to the nearest clinic after the one near them closed, which was reported by The Associated Press.
- 5-year-old Suza Kenyaba in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who died on February 19 after shipment of an anti-malaria drug that had already been purchased was left stranded in a distribution warehouse after payments to contractors were frozen by the US government, according to The Washington Post. There were more than 600 malaria deaths in the DRC's Haut-Katanga province in the first six months of 2025, more than the total number in 2024. The Post found that 95% of USAID malaria medication shipments in the first six months of 2025 were either delayed or did not arrive at all.
- 11-year-old Paciencia in Mozambique died after the case worker handling her treatment for HIV was abruptly laid off along with most others, hospitals ran out of the US-funded antiretroviral drugs she relied upon, and she was given the wrong medication after the data clerks who managed patient information were laid off, according to the South African publication Spotlight. The National Association for Self-Sustained Development (ANDA), the US-funded group that handled this HIV treatment, found that at least 16 children died between January and June 2025 in the province of Manica, many more than they had seen before the cuts.
These are just a few of the numerous other examples cited by Gawande, who added that part of the reason verifying deaths has been challenging is that DOGE's cuts also "destroyed" USAID's data and auditing systems, which meant that figures and overall mortality effects would take another year to fully tally.
However, he said he and a team of reporters had already compiled individual reports of more than 1,200 people whose deaths can be directly attributed to the cuts.
Even after being presented with direct evidence to the contrary, Musk continued to insist on Sunday that critics of his cuts to USAID "cannot cite a single name of someone who died out of the 'millions' they falsely claim have died. Not a single name!"
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, whose reporting on the impacts of the sudden aid cuts was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize, responded that he could give Musk a list of "many, many names of people who have died because of your aid cuts."
He listed the names of just a few of the people whose cases he had witnessed firsthand, which are recounted in greater depth in his reports. As Kristoff wrote:- Yamah Freeman was a [21-year-old] woman who died in childbirth because you stopped paying for the diesel for ambulances in her part of Liberia. I talked to her parents and sister in their village.
- Gbessey Kiadu, age 1, died of malaria because of your cuts in Liberia. I talked to his mom in her village.
- Ibrahim Koroma, an infant, died of AIDS in Sierra Leone after you interrupted HIV supplies. I talked to health workers who cared for him.
- Achol Deng was an 8-year-old girl with HIV in South Sudan who died when you cut funding for the health care worker who provided her medicines. I talked to him.
"I could go on and on," Kristof continued, "In almost every village you go to in South Sudan, Uganda, Liberia, Sierra Leone or other countries I reported in, you find people dying because of aid cuts."
He issued a "challenge" to Musk: "Come with me on a reporting trip, and we'll talk to these moms and dads, and you'll see the dying children themselves. I think if you see the kids whose lives are at stake, maybe you'll change your mind."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


