

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Bill Freese, bfreese@centerforfoodsafety.org
Lori Ann Burd, laburd@biologicaldiversity.org
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) 547-9359"The case for windfall taxes has never been clearer," said 350.org's chief executive.
An analysis released Monday estimates that oil and gas price spikes driven by the US-Israeli war on Iran have so far cost consumers and businesses around the world over $100 billion—money that has flowed into the coffers of some of the wealthiest, most powerful fossil fuel companies on the planet.
The new analysis by 350.org finds that, just over a month into the war, consumers and businesses have lost between $104.2 billion and $111.6 billion to rising oil and gas prices—an estimate that the environmental group acknowledges is likely conservative, given it doesn't account for "wider knock-on effects, such as rising fertiliser and food costs, declines in economic output and employment, or broader inflation driven by fossil fuel price volatility. "
The more than $100 billion, 350.org said, "has been siphoned from ordinary people to oil and gas companies."
“On top of the incalculable suffering of families and communities torn apart by the war, ordinary people around the world are paying an extraordinary price through fossil fuel-driven energy spikes," said Anne Jellema, 350.org's chief executive. "Over $100 billion has gone straight into the pockets of fossil fuel companies, while families struggle to afford energy and basic necessities."
"The case for windfall taxes," Jellema added, "has never been clearer.”

The analysis was published as global oil prices rose again following a weekend missile attack on Israel by Yemen's Houthis and Trump's threat to "take the oil in Iran," signaling another potential escalation in a war that has already killed thousands, sparked an appalling humanitarian crisis, and destabilized the global economy.
One key beneficiary of the chaos is the fossil fuel industry, which is set to reap billions in windfall profits thanks to rising oil and gas prices. Reuters reported late last week that analysts covering Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil have significantly raised earnings estimates for the fossil fuel giants in response to war-fueled price surges.
"US shale producers and other companies without major operations in the Middle East should gain the most, benefiting from higher prices without costs associated with shut-in production, stranded tankers, or expensive repairs to war-hit facilities," Reuters noted. "Still, executives said the big profits will probably not boost their planned capital spending on new production."
Earlier this month, Democratic lawmakers in the US Congress introduced legislation that would impose a windfall profit tax on large American oil companies and return the money to consumers in the form of quarterly rebates. The bill stands no realistic chance of getting through the Republican-controlled Congress, which is awash in Big Oil campaign cash.
“American consumers are once again getting squeezed at the gas pump as President Trump’s war of choice in Iran sends gas prices soaring and money flowing to his Big Oil donors,” said US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), the bill's lead sponsor in the Senate. “We should send any big windfall for Big Oil back to the hardworking people who paid for it at the gas pump."
The president's decision means the US "will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil," said one observer.
President Donald Trump said Sunday that his administration would let a Russia-owned tanker carrying an estimated 730,000 barrels of oil to reach Cuba, loosening the illegal fuel blockade that has intensified the island's already-grave humanitarian crisis.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said that "if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem," backing off his previous threat to tariff any nation that supplied the besieged island with fuel. Cuba has not received any oil imports since January 9, sparking nationwide blackouts and food shortages and leaving hospitals without critical supplies—with deadly consequences for patients.
Trump insisted that the oil on the Russian tanker—which experts say is enough to buy Cuba at least several weeks of energy—is "not going to have an impact," declaring, "Cuba is finished."
"They have a bad regime, and they have very bad and corrupt leadership," added Trump, who presides over what analysts have deemed the most corrupt administration in US history. "Whether or not they get a boat of oil is not going to matter."
Reporter: There's a report that the US is going to let a Russian oil tanker go to Cuba?
Trump: If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba, I have no problem with that.
Reporter: Do you worry that that helps Putin?
Trump: It doesn’t help him. He loses one boatload of oil.… pic.twitter.com/8Vh6gHwaxs
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 30, 2026
Trump's comments came after The New York Times reported that, "barring orders instructing it otherwise," the US Coast Guard would not intercept the Russian tanker as it approached Cuba.
The Russian vessel, known as the Anatoly Kolodkin, is expected to reach the island by Monday night, providing some reprieve to a nation whose economy has been strangled by unlawful US economic warfare for decades. In recent days, an international convoy of activists has delivered tons of food, medicine, and other aid to the island, but the shipments are a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.
Michael Gallant, a member of the Progressive International Secretariat, welcomed news that the US is allowing the Russian tanker to reach Cuba as "very good news"—but said Trump's decision is hardly deserving of praise.
Very good news. “The US will allow,” of course, means “will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil” https://t.co/YF2RRIXC2S
— Michael Galant (@michael_galant) March 29, 2026
Trump imposed the fuel blockade in January, absurdly characterizing Cuba as an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security.
Earlier this month, Trump threatened to "take" Cuba by force, calling it a "very weakened nation." Trump's remarks prompted Cuba's president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, to vow "impregnable resistance" to any US attempt to seize the island. The Trump administration is reportedly seeking Díaz-Canel's removal as a necessary condition in talks with the Cuban government.
Trump's threats led Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to introduce legislation last week that would prohibit the administration from using federal funds for any attack on Cuba without congressional authorization.
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," Jayapal said in a statement. "These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want."
"Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied," Jayapal added. "Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.