SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
pesticides
America Promises Safe Schools, So Why Are Children Still Exposed to Toxic Pesticides?
Schools should be among the safest places in a child's life, not environments where unnecessary exposure to hazardous chemicals remains a possibility.
Aug 12, 2026
In 1998, my 6-year-old son walked onto his Los Angeles elementary school campus and into a preventable crisis.
A school gardener wearing a full hazardous materials suit was spraying pesticides, unaware that children were nearby. My son, unprotected, was sprayed directly in the face with a toxic pesticide. Within minutes, he struggled to breathe and suffered a severe asthma attack.
He recovered. But one question stayed with both of us: How could this happen at a school?
The contradiction was impossible to ignore: If the pesticide required an adult applicator to wear full protective equipment, why was it considered safe to use where children could be exposed?
California's experience demonstrated that schools do not have to choose between controlling pests and protecting students. They can accomplish both.
Children are not simply smaller adults. Pound for pound, they breathe more air; consume more food and water; and their brains, lungs, immune systems, and endocrine systems are still developing. These differences make them uniquely vulnerable to environmental chemicals. Research has linked exposure to certain pesticides with asthma, learning and developmental problems, neurological effects, endocrine disruption, and other long-term health concerns. Children cannot choose where they spend their days, nor can they protect themselves from environmental hazards created by adults. That responsibility belongs to us.
My son's exposure changed the course of my life. It led me to establish California Safe Schools, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting children from harmful environmental exposures. I worked with parents, educators, physicians, scientists, and school officials to create the groundbreaking Los Angeles Unified School District Integrated Pest Management Policy, one of the first of its kind in the nation. Rather than relying on routine pesticide spraying, the policy embraced the Precautionary Principle: When there is credible evidence that a chemical may harm children's health, schools should take preventive action even if every scientific question has not yet been answered. Simply put, children's health should come before convenience.
The policy also established the public's Right to Know, recognizing that parents, teachers, and school employees deserve timely information about pesticides used on school campuses. Families cannot make informed decisions or advocate for their children's health if they are unaware of when or what pesticides are being applied. Transparency became a cornerstone of protecting students.
The Los Angeles policy became a model for California and helped pave the way for the Healthy Schools Act of 2000, which required schools to notify parents and staff before pesticide applications, maintain records of pesticide use, and encourage schools to adopt Integrated Pest Management practices that emphasize prevention and least-toxic pest control methods.
California strengthened these protections even further with AB 405, authored by Assemblymember Cindy Montañez (D-39), sponsored by California Safe Schools, and signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger in 2005.The law prohibited the use on school sites of experimental pesticides, pesticides under conditional registration that had not completed all required health and environmental testing, and pesticides that the US Environmental Protection Agency was phasing out because of health or environmental concerns. The legislation recognized a simple but important principle: Children should never be exposed at school to pesticides that have not been fully evaluated for safety or that regulators have already determined should be removed from use. AB 405 closed important gaps in school pesticide protections and reinforced California's commitment to putting children's health first and protecting more than 6 million students, teachers, and staff.
Over the past 28 years, California Safe Schools has continued to work with parents, educators, students, scientists, physicians, school officials, and policymakers to advocate for safer school environments. One lesson has remained constant: Pesticide exposure in schools is almost always preventable.
Pesticides are designed to kill living organisms. While they target insects, weeds, fungi, and rodents, many also pose risks to human health. The question has never been whether schools should control pests. They should. The real question is how they do it.
For decades, many schools relied on routine pesticide spraying as the first line of defense. Yet experts have long recognized that safer, more effective approaches exist. Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, focuses first on prevention by eliminating the conditions that allow pests to thrive. Better sanitation, sealing cracks and openings, repairing leaks, improving waste management, and monitoring pest activity often reduce or eliminate the need for chemical pesticides. When pesticides are necessary, IPM emphasizes choosing the least hazardous products and applying them only when children are not present or when they could reasonably be exposed.
California's experience demonstrated that schools do not have to choose between controlling pests and protecting students. They can accomplish both.
Unfortunately, protections remain uneven across the United States. While some states and school districts have adopted strong Integrated Pest Management programs, others continue to rely heavily on pesticide applications with fewer safeguards. Parents may receive little or no advance notice before pesticides are used, and school staff may lack training in safer pest management practices. As a result, children's protection often depends on where they live rather than on a consistent national standard.
This is particularly troubling because children spend approximately 1,000 hours each year at school. Schools should be among the safest places in a child's life, not environments where unnecessary exposure to hazardous chemicals remains a possibility.
The good news is that we already know what works.
Integrated Pest Management has been successfully implemented in thousands of schools across the country. It reduces pesticide use while maintaining effective pest control, often lowering long-term maintenance costs by addressing the underlying causes of infestations rather than repeatedly treating the symptoms. Prevention is not only safer; it is also smarter.
Every school district should adopt comprehensive Integrated Pest Management policies that prioritize prevention, maintenance, monitoring, and least-toxic methods before chemical pesticides are considered. Hazardous pesticides should never be applied when children are present or could reasonably be exposed. Parents, teachers, and school employees should receive timely notification before any pesticide application so they can make informed decisions. School personnel and pest management professionals should receive ongoing training to ensure these policies are implemented consistently and effectively.
Most importantly, policymakers should recognize that children's health deserves a precautionary approach. When credible scientific evidence suggests a pesticide may pose a risk to children, protecting them should not depend on waiting years for absolute certainty while exposures continue. Prevention should always come before regret.
Nearly three decades after my son's exposure, we should still think about the question that was asked that day: Could it happen again?
The answer should be no.
No parent should have to wonder whether their child will be exposed to toxic pesticides during the school day. No child should suffer an asthma attack or another preventable health consequence because adults failed to take reasonable precautions.
We have the knowledge. We have safer alternatives. We have decades of successful experience showing that schools can manage pests without unnecessarily exposing children to hazardous chemicals.
The remaining question is whether we have the will to make those protections the standard in every school across America.
A safe school environment should never be left to chance. It should begin with a simple promise: No child should be placed in harm's way by preventable pesticide exposure.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Left Should Partner with MAHA to Protect Our Health From Glyphosate
In a time with few points of consensus on the left and right, most Americans—a whopping 84% of adults—are worried about their exposure to harmful chemicals. Let's build on that for a safer country.
Aug 04, 2026
The Supreme Court recently ruled 7-2 that Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, could not be sued because the label of its product, the weed killer Roundup, didn’t mention that the herbicide could cause cancer. The ruling blocked thousands of lawsuits by cancer patients—protecting Bayer-Monsanto from liability for health consequences of exposure to agricultural chemicals—and led to headlines like “MAHA Rattled” and “MAHA Be Damned.”
After the Supreme Court decision and the Trump administration’s approval of two more “forever chemical” pesticides last month, it seems like the Make America Healthy Again agenda is being dropped. Despite what some on the left may think, this is not cause for celebration.
In a time with few points of consensus on the left and right, most Americans—a whopping 84% of adults—are worried about their exposure to harmful chemicals. Nearly as many want the government to do more to identify and regulate harmful chemicals. Regulating Roundup and other pesticides can bring together a new coalition of people across political lines. The left needs to be open to forming new alliances with people we don’t agree with on everything, including MAHA.
Reforming laws so that chemical manufacturers have to accept liability when their products cause harm is one space for bipartisan work. Most Americans don’t want companies like Monsanto-Bayer to be protected from lawsuits when they manufacture hazardous products that result in illnesses. Yet the Supreme Court’s decision does just that: It protects pesticide makers from bearing any consequences when people use their products, unaware of possible dangers of doing so, and later develop illnesses connected to pesticide use, like cancer.
Partnering on one topic while disagreeing on others is part of what politics is about.
Tobacco companies can be sued for the harms of lung cancer and addiction, an achievement after decades when companies were shielded from lawsuits. Pesticide companies should similarly be liable for the harms they knowingly create.
Corporate accountability should be something everyone can agree on. There are already moves toward collaboration in response to the Supreme Court decision. This spring, Democrats joined House Republicans Anna Paulina Luna (Fla.) and Thomas Massie (Ky.) in their push against pesticide liability shields. Then in June, two members of Congress from different political parties—Massie and Democrat Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine)—proposed the People Over Poison Act, which restores the ability of consumers to hold pesticide makers accountable when they don’t warn us about the harms associated with their products, effectively undoing the Supreme Court decision.
Another possibility for collaboration is how chemicals like Roundup are assessed by the Environmental Protection Agency. When the EPA regulates pesticides, the approach requires scientific proof of harm in order to restrict a particular chemical. But we should shift the burden of proof onto chemical companies, as they do in Europe, by asking, “Has this chemical been proven safe?” instead of “has this chemical been proven harmful?”
In the EU, chemicals are regulated according to this approach, also known as the precautionary principle. Perhaps that explains why the US currently allows the use of 72 pesticides and herbicides banned in Europe (more than a quarter of all US pesticide use). A recent Newsweek poll found 89% of Americans (including 87% of Republicans) in favor of a ban on pesticides already banned in Europe. If Bayer-Monsanto wants to keep selling Roundup, they should have to meet this stronger burden of proof.
Those who want to limit Roundup face an uphill battle. Even in the EU, Glyphosate is licensed for use until 2033, and recent reporting shows how powerful lobbyists are putting pressure on the European Commission to delay EU targets to cut pesticide use. Just as in the US, a revolving door between industry and regulators, the influence of lobbyists, and ghostwritten and industry-funded science impact what chemicals get approved. Now, these same lobbyists—who also work for Bayer-Monsanto—want to dismantle Europe’s chemical license renewal process altogether, so new scientific evidence about health risks wouldn’t apply to these decisions. That similar dynamics keep glyphosate on the market in Europe is less a counterargument than another loophole that should be tightened.
Some are already seeing the usefulness of finding allies in unexpected places. For example, Indian eco-feminist Vandana Shiva does not align with MAHA moms in several respects, but she has been a longtime advocate of food sovereignty and a critic of chemical and seed companies that impact farmers in South Asia. Before the Supreme Court decision, Vandana Shiva protested alongside Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and MAHA activist “Glyphosate Girl.” She also co-founded a group called Mothers Across the World with Zen Honeycutt, a MAHA mom and fan of Turning Point USA. They might disagree about many things, but Shiva and Honeycutt have a shared cause in regulating chemicals like glyphosate.
Partnering on one topic while disagreeing on others is part of what politics is about. We would do well to embrace even strange bedfellows.
Keep ReadingShow Less
America Works Best When We the People Are in Charge
When ordinary people organize, mobilize, and refuse to accept the dictates of an elite few, America moves forward.
Jul 03, 2026
Two hundred fifty years ago, Americans rejected monarchy. They rejected the idea that power should rest in the hands of one person, one family, or a distant ruling class. Instead, they enshrined an American promise: Legitimate power comes from the people.
Our Constitution opens with three words: “We the People.” As the country marks its 250th anniversary, that promise is worth remembering: In America, the people are supposed to be in charge.
Indeed, every day we see neighbors working together to improve their lives, their communities, and the country.
Earlier this year, hundreds of residents of San Marcos, Texas, packed into public meetings with concerns about a new data center. The Caldwell/Hays Examiner, a local paper, summarized the sentiment: “Electricity bills may soon spike while access to clean water diminishes drastically, given the unfathomably giant data center on its way.”
Do “We the People” govern ourselves, or are we ruled by concentrated power?
The local government rejected the unpopular project, and similar efforts are taking place across the country. In every place the message is clear: The people who live there, not a distant tech company, should be in charge of the community’s resources.
Rural communities are also taking on Big Ag. For example, Grassroots Organizing of Western Wisconsin brought residents together and passed local safeguards that limit threats from factory farms and support family farmers, clean water, and local infrastructure.
Iowans won a big victory against a global pesticide manufacturer. Knowing their state’s unusually high cancer rates, Iowa Farmers Union mobilized from the bottom up and blocked a law that would have shielded a billion-dollar corporation from accountability.
These patriotic efforts help fulfill the promise of “We the People.” They also show what’s possible when people come together to shape the decisions that affect our lives.
Unfortunately, few Americans feel in control right now. We face an unpredictable economy, cuts to healthcare, cruel and reckless Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, and attacks on mail-in ballots. Even that recent win in Iowa is in jeopardy—the Supreme Court just shielded the pesticide company from thousands of lawsuits brought by farmers and families who blame Roundup for their cancer.
These are all symptoms of a single disease: a nation where too much power rests with an elite few rather than with ordinary Americans. That’s exactly what researchers at Topos Partnership found. After listening to nearly 5,000 Americans, we heard one idea emerge: The people are supposed to be in charge.
The real story isn’t Democrats versus Republicans, or newcomers versus citizens, or some fabricated clash of civilizations. The real story—the one that unifies and energizes—is about who decides. Do “We the People” govern ourselves, or are we ruled by concentrated power?
Most Americans in our research recognize that the answer to that question is complicated, but also that being reminded of our defining story could help heal a fractured nation. As one moderate Colorado man expressed: “When everyday people don’t feel in charge, it creates anger, frustration, bitterness. But when everyday people feel like they’re having an impact, it creates a sense of belonging.”
When ordinary people organize, mobilize, and refuse to accept the dictates of an elite few, America moves forward. We’ve seen it in workers establishing safer workplaces and the civil rights movement expanding “who counts” in our country. We decided our nation belonged to us—and acted like it.
Let America’s history and recent successes be the inspiration. This July 4, the most patriotic thing we can do is remember whose hands this country is supposed to be in: ours. When we come together, the people are in charge.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is the PFAS Presidency': Trump EPA Approves Another Forever Chemical Pesticide
"The Trump administration's EPA is once again showing its disdain for Americans' health and the natural world."
Jul 01, 2026
Environmental and public health advocates on Wednesday ripped the US Environmental Protection Agency's fifth approval of a "forever chemical" pesticide during the current term of President Donald Trump, who campaigned on a promise to "Make America Healthy Again."
Despite that pledge, Trump's second administration—much like his first—has served the pesticide industry in various ways, including by putting out a MAHA report that echoes industry talking points, installing a former industry lobbyist in a key EPA post, backing Bayer-owned Monsanto over cancer patients at the US Supreme Court, and issuing an executive order that mandates the production of glyphosate.
Under Trump, the EPA has also approved or reapproved various controversial pesticides, from atrazine and dicamba to trifludimoxazin, which was approved late Tuesday. Like diflufenican and epyrifenacil, which were authorized by the EPA earlier Tuesday, as well as cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, which got a green light from the agency last November, trifludimoxazin is what some scientists and campaigners call a forever chemical pesticide.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—which have been used in not only pesticides but also fabrics, firefighting foam, nonstick cookware, and other household products—are widely known as forever chemicals because they don't break down naturally. They're also linked to a range of health issues, including various cancers.
"This is the PFAS presidency brought to you by Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin," Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, declared Wednesday.
As with his Tuesday critique of the Trump EPA approving diflufenican and epyrifenacil, Donley pointed to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in favor of Trump-backed Bayer, rather than the thousands of Americans who argue that Monsanto's glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup caused their cancer.
"Waiting to open the floodgates on new pesticide approvals until after the Supreme Court granted immunity to pesticide companies takes a special kind of callousness," he said.
Bill Freese, science director at Center for Food Safety (CFS), similarly said Wednesday that "with yesterday's pesticide approvals, the Trump administration's EPA is once again showing its disdain for Americans' health and the natural world."
"The EPA's pesticide division is seemingly no longer able to recognize evidence that a pesticide causes cancer, even when it's the pesticide company's own studies that show it," he continued. "And as per usual, EPA dismisses out of hand incriminating independent studies by scientists not affiliated with the pesticide industry."
In addition to the PFAS pesticides, the EPA is under fire this week for approving new uses for chlormequat, a non-PFAS pesticide tied to reproductive issues, and the fungicide fluoxapiprolin.
CFS co-executive director Sylvia Wu pointed out that the agency dismissed studies showing that fluoxapiprolin and epyrifenacil both produce tumors in laboratory rodents and classified both as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."
"The EPA's illegitimate rejection of the evidence that these two pesticides cause cancer is very similar to the tricks it pulled in denying glyphosate could cause cancer," Wu said. "These blatant violations of the agency's own cancer guidelines are unacceptable."
As for chlormequat, Freese said that "EPA should never have approved this endocrine-disrupting pesticide, particularly since its persistence and potential for widespread use on wheat and other widely consumed grains will mean universal exposure."
Already, "chlormequat is found in the urine of 90% of Americans, thought to come mostly from residues on imported foods where the pesticide has been used," the Center for Biological Diversity noted Wednesday. Like Freese, the group warned that "approval of its use on US wheat and oats ensures that exposure to the US population will increase dramatically."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A National Outrage': Days After Monsanto Ruling, Trump EPA Approves More Forever Chemical Pesticides
Ripping "Trump's reckless push to ignore science and embrace these extremely harmful, long-lasting pesticides," one critic said his legacy will be the millions "his shortsighted policies will sicken and prematurely kill."
Jun 30, 2026
The US Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday continued its betrayal of President Donald Trump's campaign promise to "Make America Healthy Again," approving the use of multiple "forever chemical" pesticides on crops despite public health concerns.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are called forever chemicals because they don't naturally break down—instead accumulating in human and animal bodies as well as the environment. They have been used in everything from fabrics for clothing and furniture to firefighting foam to nonstick cookware, and are tied to various health problems, including increased risk of some cancers.
The Trump EPA on Tuesday finalized its approval of using two PFAS pesticides, diflufenican and epyrifenacil, on corn and soybeans, the two most widely grown crops in the United States.
The agency also expanded its allowances for another previously approved forever chemical pesticide, bifenthrin, and greenlighted the first food use of chlormequat, a non-PFAS pesticide tied to reproductive issues.
"While the Biden administration had approved one PFAS pesticide in the prior four years, this is the third and fourth approval of a PFAS pesticide under Trump in just his second year in office," the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) noted in a Tuesday statement. "The previous two PFAS pesticide approvals were cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram."
As the center detailed:
The EPA has stated in press materials that these new fluorinated pesticides are not PFAS. That assertion is based on the fact that they do not meet the chemicals office's unilateral regulatory PFAS definition. But the new pesticides do meet the much more widely accepted PFAS definition that was developed transparently by dozens of scientists around the world. That definition has subsequently been endorsed by more than 150 leading PFAS researchers, is used by nearly every US state for regulating PFAS, and specifically was written into past versions of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Using the scientific definition of a PFAS that is widely accepted in this country and around the world, these pesticides are PFAS.
The EPA had even initially acknowledged that these pesticides met the more broadly accepted PFAS definition on its fluorinated pesticides webpage. Yet three weeks after creating the webpage, it removed any mention of the conflicting definition, instead portraying the agency’s unilateral definition as the only PFAS definition.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBD obtained documents showing that those website revisions were overseen by EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's assistant administrator, Douglas Troutman, and Kyle Kunkler—a former American Soybean Association (ASA) lobbyist controversially installed as the office's deputy assistant administrator for pesticides—and reviewed by agency Administrator Lee Zeldin.
While ASA president and Ohio soybean farmer Scott Metzger welcomed the Tuesday approvals, saying that "we appreciate EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and the agency" for advancing the registrations, Nathan Donley, CBD's environmental health science director, was deeply critical and tied the developments to the Trump administration's other actions serving the pesticide industry.
"It's a national outrage that Trump's EPA is expanding use of dangerous, cancer-linked PFAS pesticides just days after the Supreme Court limited the American people's right to sue pesticide companies," said Donley, referring to last week's ruling in favor of Monsanto and against thousands of people who argue that its glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup caused their cancer.
In addition to the Trump administration backing Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—in the case before the high court, the president in February issued an executive order mandating the production of glyphosate. Since returning to office last year, Trump has also faced criticism for EPA approvals of other pesticides, from atrazine to dicamba, and for his administration's MAHA report that echoes industry talking points.
Donley declared Tuesday that "Trump's reckless push to ignore science and embrace these extremely harmful, long-lasting pesticides ensures his legacy won't be the many monuments he's built to himself, but the many millions of people his shortsighted policies will sicken and prematurely kill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Trump's Name Written All Over It': Supreme Court Sides With Monsanto Over Roundup Cancer Victims
"People who were exposed, workers who were never warned, consumers who trusted a label—they now have fewer tools to use to fight back. And the corporations responsible for that harm have more protection than ever."
Jun 25, 2026
Public health advocates, legal experts, and members of Congress were among those outraged on Thursday by the US Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Monsanto—and, effectively, against thousands of people who argue that its weedkiller Roundup caused their cancer.
Jay Feldman, executive director of the organization Beyond Pesticides, blasted the 7-2 decision as "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."
"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," Feldman said in a statement.
The closely watched case stems from a state-level lawsuit and a resulting verdict in favor of John Durnell, a Missouri man who argued that Monsanto's glyphosate-based Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer, which is in remission after multiple rounds of chemotherapy. A jury agreed the herbicide's label should have had a cancer warning.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans over a decade ago, but the US Environmental Protection Agency and Bayer still insist it is safe. In a majority opinion penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the country's high court agreed with the company's argument that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts Durnell's failure-to-warn claim under state law.
In a dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that "the majority reads into FIFRA a labeling requirement that does not exist, and it reads out of FIFRA the statute's ongoing prohibition on misbranding. This interpretation cannot be squared with the text of FIFRA or our precedents. Ultimately, the effect of the majority's interpretation is both remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs like Durnell."
Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—similarly noted in a Thursday statement that the ruling "should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles," which the company also said that it will keep trying to resolve by seeking final approval of its proposed $7.25 billion class settlement.
"This case was never just about Bayer," Environmental Working Group president and co-founder Ken Cook emphasized Thursday. "It was about whether states retain the authority to provide stronger protections for their residents when federal regulations fall short, and whether ordinary Americans can hold powerful corporations accountable when their pesticides cause harm."
Despite returning to office with a promise to "Make America Healthy Again" alongside Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump's administration "didn't sit on the sidelines—it lobbied the Supreme Court to strip Americans of their right to sue. And its tactics worked," Cook pointed out. "When a president uses the vast power of the federal government to protect a pesticide company from accountability—instead of the people he swore to serve—our system is no longer working for ordinary Americans."
"The ultimate losers are the American people," Cook concluded. "People who were exposed, workers who were never warned, consumers who trusted a label—they now have fewer tools to use to fight back. And the corporations responsible for that harm have more protection than ever."
Federal lawmakers who have fought against GOP efforts to pass a legislative "liability shield" for pesticide companies, including Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) joined Cook in ripping the ruling, as did Earthjustice senior attorney Patti Goldman, who said that it "allows Monsanto and other chemical companies to avoid responsibility when their labels leave people unprotected from serious harm."
As Farm Action president Angela Huffman also warned that the ruling "sets a dangerous precedent for other corporations seeking similar immunity," Sarah Starman, senior food and agriculture Campaigner at Friends of the Earth, took aim at the Supreme Court for issuing a decision that "sells out farmers, gardeners, and rural communities to multibillion-dollar pesticide corporations."
Food & Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen, also condemned the decision, declaring that "once again, the Supreme Court has sided with big business over people and the environment."
"Today's ruling is a disaster for public health—and it has Trump's name written all over it," said Heinzen. "If one needed any further proof that the president's feigned mission to 'Make America Healthy Again' was a farce, today's decision is all the evidence needed. Trump has been all too willing to endorse Bayer's crusade to pollute with impunity, while the administration doubles down on a failed pesticide regulatory scheme."
"Industrial agriculture is poisoning America," she stressed. "The fight against toxic pesticides does not end here. Congress must pass the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act to safeguard access to justice for all harmed by these toxic chemicals, and a Farm Bill that finally puts public health first. Until then, the Supreme Court has shut the courthouse doors to tens of thousands of sick and suffering Americans."
Kayla Hancock, director of Protect Our Care's Public Health Project, also called out Trump for dispatching US Solicitor General D. John Sauer to argue the case on the side of Bayer and its legal team.
"First Donald Trump signed an executive order plowing the field for increased glyphosate production despite the known health risks to help grow profits for his chemical industry donors," Hancock said. "Then Trump dispatched his [US Department of Justice] lawyers to help Big Chemical secure blanket immunity from at least 100,000 glyphosate-related liability claims."
"Sadly, the Supreme Court agreed to give glyphosate makers a free pass to poison Americans without warning," she added. "Donald Trump always has and always will prioritize big money corporate interests that benefit him, even if it means marginalizing the MAHA movement and concerned moms. And whenever Trump sells out public health to the highest industry bidder, there's no bigger apologist than his phony health secretary, RFK Jr."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Vermont Applauded for Banning Parkinson's-Linked Neurotoxic Herbicide Paraquat
Noting that "70+ countries and one US state" have banned the chemical, the Michael J. Fox Foundation said that "this is a clear and critical message" to federal and state lawmakers that "the time to ban paraquat is now."
May 26, 2026
In a move cheered by advocates for public health and the environment, Vermont on Tuesday became the first US state to ban paraquat, a neurotoxic herbicide banned in over 70 countries but protected by the Trump administration despite being linked to Parkinson's disease.
Democratic Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed H. 739, which bans the sale and use of paraquat, after the legislation was passed by the state Legislature with strong bipartisan support. The ban—which contains a provision allowing for limited use of the chemical on fruit orchards through the end of 2030—is set to take effect on November 1.
As Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) campaigner Liam Sacino recently noted, the US Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] acknowledges that "even a small amount" of paraquat "can be fatal, and there is no known antidote."
"The agency has also decided that due to health risks, it should never be used around home gardens, schools, recreational parks, golf courses, or playgrounds," Sacino added. "Regardless of these conclusions, the EPA still allows paraquat to be sprayed on farms, posing a potentially increased risk to those who work on the farms and live nearby."
The EPA paradoxically calls paraquat "an important tool for the control of weeds in many agricultural and non-agricultural settings," a stance promoted by the chemical industry, some of whose highly toxic products the pesticide-friendly Trump administration has designated as vital to US national security.
Ban advocates point to mounting evidence that paraquat exposure greatly increases the risk of developing Parkinson's disease, a neurodegenerative illness. One recent UCLA study found that the odds of developing Parkinson's could more than double for people living within 500 meters of paraquat application.
That study added to a body of research linking paraquat to Parkinson's that dates back to at least 2011, when National Institutes of Health researchers concluded that the brain disorder is “positively associated” with the herbicide. A 2013 paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Neurology found that exposure to paraquat roughly doubled the risk of developing Parkinson’s. In 2020, four of the world’s leading neurologists published a book citing paraquat as a cause of the ailment.
Parkinson's advocacy groups, including the Parkinson's Foundation and Michael J. Fox Foundation, hailed the Vermont ban.
The Michael J. Fox Foundation noted that "70+ countries and one US state have now banned paraquat."
"This is a clear and critical message to other states and our federal government: The time to ban paraquat is now," the group added.
Environmental groups also cheered the ban.
"We applaud Gov. Scott and the champions in the Legislature that made this moment possible that will protect all Vermonters, including farmers and children, from being exposed to this dangerous chemical,” Environmental Working Group legislative director Geoff Horsfield said in a statement.
“With Vermont leading the way, states across the country now have a clear path to end the use of one of the most toxic herbicides still on the market,” Horsfield added. “This is a turning point in the effort to protect public health from a chemical that has been tied to devastating neurological harm.”
Other states including California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania have either introduced bills to ban or strictly limit paraquat, or are considering doing so.
"We should not wait for federal action when we can act now to protect farmworkers and families," PIRG's Sacino said Tuesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite Defeat of Pesticide Liability Shield, House Farm Bill Still 'Has Industry Fingerprints All Over It'
Support for stripping the pesticide provisions, said one advocate, "is proof that the Farm Bill should strengthen our food system, support farmers, and safeguard public health—not serve as a vehicle for corporate giveaways."
Apr 30, 2026
The diverse coalition opposed to a legislative "liability shield" for the pesticide industry celebrated on Thursday after the US House of Representatives stripped it out of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026—though progressive voices still sounded the alarm about the chamber's approval of the amended bill.
Dozens of Republicans and all but six Democrats backed Rep. Anna Paulina Luna's (R-Fla.) amendment targeting the protections for the pesticide industry. The 280-142 vote removed Sections 10205, 10206, and 10207 from the Farm Bill—which was later approved 224-200, with support from 14 Democrats and all but three Republicans.
"Major pesticide issues haven't been debated on the House floor in a very long time," said Jason Davidson, senior food and agriculture campaigner with Friends of the Earth US, in a statement. "For the people to win over the size, influence, and money of the pesticide industry is a remarkable display of grassroots power and a tremendous victory for Americans' ability to hold these companies accountable."
The House vote came just days after pesticide critics held "The People v. Poison" rally outside the US Supreme Court as the justices heard arguments in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, which is expected to have sweeping implications for cancer patients trying to take on the maker of the weedkiller Roundup, whose key active ingredient is glyphosate.
Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—and the US Environmental Protection Agency insist glyphosate is safe, even though the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified it as a probable carcinogen to humans over a decade ago.
Despite President Donald Trump campaigning on a promise to "Make America Healthy Again," he has often served the pesticide industry, including by siding with Bayer in the case before the high court and signing a February executive order mandating production of glyphosate—a measure that also included a liability shield.
Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) on Wednesday introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act to reverse Trump's order. The bill's lead sponsors in the House, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), were among those cheering the passage of Luna's amendment on Thursday.
"Industrial agriculture's pesticide addiction is poisoning America," declared Food and Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf. "From the fields of Iowa to the halls of Congress, advocates have made our voices clear: Bayer's cruel Cancer Gag campaign has no place in our communities. US farm policy must support farmers and consumers, not the corporate overlords pulling the strings at our expense."
Wolf's group praised the defeat of the pesticide language but remains concerned about the EATS/Save Our Bacon Act, conservation cuts, and the Farm Bill's failure to reverse the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act's attack on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
"This Farm Bill has industry fingerprints all over it. By shrinking markets for high-welfare sustainable farmers, and doubling down on devastating cuts to federal food assistance, this pro-factory farm bill will do more harm than good," Wolf warned. "It's time to end the corporate power grab in Washington. This Farm Bill must be dead on arrival in the Senate."
Earthjustice Action legislative director of healthy communities Ranjani Prabhakar was also critical, arguing that "by passing this deeply flawed Farm Bill, House Republicans have doubled down on an approach that puts corporate polluters ahead of farmers, families, and our environment. This legislation weakens long-standing protections for endangered species and critical ecosystems and strips funding from conservation programs that help farmers combat climate change."
The "overwhelming support" for Luna's amendment, Prabhakar said, "is proof that the Farm Bill should strengthen our food system, support farmers, and safeguard public health—not serve as a vehicle for corporate giveaways. We urge the Senate to reject this harmful bill and work toward a solution that truly invests in resilient agriculture, healthy communities, and a sustainable future."
Progressive lawmakers also blasted the broader bill. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that "the Farm Bill is a real opportunity to help farmers and Americans across this country. However, Republicans are using it as a shell to push through permanent cuts to food assistance, even as food prices continue to skyrocket."
"As we take food from hungry kids," she said, referring to SNAP cuts, "this bill also leaves American farmers without a lifeline after they have lost billions thanks to Trump's tariffs. At the end of the day, this bill will make more people hungry and does nothing to address the affordability crisis or struggling workers."
While welcoming that the legislation will no longer shield pesticide manufacturers from liability for their products, Jayapal charged that "today's Farm Bill is a further betrayal of the American people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bayer Continues Push to 'Close the Door' on Glyphosate Victims at US Supreme Court
"Bayer is intent on preserving its right to harm at all costs—a pursuit the Trump administration is all too willing to endorse," said a Food and Water Watch campaigner.
Apr 27, 2026
As pesticide critics held a "The People v. Poison" rally outside the US Supreme Court on Monday, the justices heard arguments in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, a case whose conclusion is expected to have sweeping implications for cancer patients trying to take on the Roundup maker—now owned by Bayer—in the country's legal system.
The case stems from John Durnell's 2019 lawsuit against Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging that exposure to the herbicide Roundup—whose active ingredient is glyphosate—caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. A jury found that the company failed to warn users of the risks associated with the weedkiller, and awarded Durnell $1.25 million in damages.
Bayer argued before the Supreme Court on Monday that Durnell—and others like him—should not be able to bring such a suit because the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state rules for labeling pesticides when the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't require a cancer warning. Bayer and the EPA continue to insist that glyphosate is safe, despite the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classifying it as probably carcinogenic to humans over a decade ago.
As The Associated Press and Reuters reported, the justices appeared "divided" on Monday, with the AP noting that several "seemed sympathetic to the company's argument that it can't be sued under state law because federal regulators have found Roundup likely doesn't cause cancer. Others, though, grilled attorneys about whether that wrongly stops states from responding to changing research."
Patti Goldman, senior attorney at Earthjustice—which filed an amicus brief in this case on behalf of farmworker organizations—said in a statement that "questions from the justices recognized that the Environmental Protection Agency approves pesticide labels based on the evidence before the agency at a single moment in time, but that evidence can become outdated as real-world exposure grows and scientific studies document resulting harms."
"Federal law requires the manufacturers to update their labels to provide sufficient warnings and directions to protect the public," Goldman stressed, "and state failure-to-warn claims reinforce that obligation—while ensuring children, families, and workers have a path to seek remedies for the harm they suffer."
Other groups that have submitted amicus briefs include Environmental Protection Network—which is made up of former EPA staffers—and the Center for Food Safety, one of the advocacy organizations that joined the rally outside the court. The event was also attended by members of Congress from both major political parties.
"This isn't left v. right—it's right v. wrong," said US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). "Big corporations and their lobbyists have captured both parties, putting profits over our families' health. I've fought Monsanto and Bayer for years, and just filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court to protect our right to sue them for illnesses caused by their products."
Despite President Donald Trump's campaign promise to "Make America Healthy Again," the Republican recently issued an executive order mandating the production of glyphosate, and the US Department of Justice has sided with Bayer in this case—part of a broader trend of his administration serving the pesticide industry's interests.
"Monsanto Company v. Durnell will have enormous consequences for environmental health litigation," Food and Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen said Monday. "Bayer is intent on preserving its right to harm at all costs—a pursuit the Trump administration is all too willing to endorse. This case threatens to close the courthouse doors to the many Americans harmed by pesticides."
Heinzen argued that "should the Supreme Court hold that the Environmental Protection Agency's failed pesticide regulatory scheme preempts state failure to warn lawsuits, leaving tens of thousands of sick Americans without legal recourse, Trump and his industry-dominated EPA will be to blame."
"This high stakes case should be a wake-up call for Congress to act," the campaigner added. "Industrial agriculture's pesticide addiction is poisoning America. Congress must pass the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act to safeguard access to justice for all harmed by toxic pesticides."
As The American Prospect noted Monday in its "three-part series on Bayer's crusade for immunity from Roundup-related cancer claims," the company "is now aggressively lobbying Congress to permanently close the door" on the weedkiller's victims, and managed to get an immunity provision included in the 2026 Farm Bill that advanced out of the US House Agriculture Committee last month.
After joining the rally at the Supreme Court on Monday, Friends of the Earth (FOE) US led a protest outside Bayer's headquarters in downtown Washington, DC, delivering hundreds of thousands of petition signatures are calling on the company to phase out the production of toxic pesticides, including glyphosate and neonicotinoids.
"People are sick and tired of being exposed to toxic pesticides while pesticide corporations shirk responsibility," said FOE senior campaigner Sarah Starman, who spoke at the rally. "Bayer and other pesticide companies should not be allowed to profit from chemicals that threaten our health, harm our environment, and undermine the future of our food system. The hundreds of people who rallied outside the Supreme Court and the 200,000 people who signed comments to Bayer are demanding change."
In the leadup to the arguments before the nation's top court, the Environmental Working Group last week sued the Trump administration at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, accusing the EPA of unlawfully delaying its response to an EWG petition seeking stronger restrictions on glyphosate.
"The EPA's silence leaves families in the dark and falls far short of its responsibility to protect public health," declared EWG president and co-founder Ken Cook. "It's time for the agency to stop stalling and do its job."Keep ReadingShow Less
Citing Child Cancer Risk, Lawsuit Targets Trump EPA Over Glyphosate
"The EPA's silence leaves families in the dark and falls far short of its responsibility to protect public health," said the Environmental Working Group's president.
Apr 21, 2026
Just days before the US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments related to glyphosate's health risks, the Environmental Working Group on Tuesday sued the Trump administration for unlawfully delaying its response to an EWG petition seeking stronger restrictions on "the most widely used herbicide in the United States and globally."
The filing at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit calls out the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to act on evidence that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, "is exposing infants and young children to harmful levels through everyday foods."
EWG and its co-petitioners filed a formal administrative petition under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 2018, during President Donald Trump's first term, and amended it the following year. They want the EPA to revoke or modify the glyphosate policy for oats, so it's stricter, and restrict its use as a pre-harvest drying agent.
"Congress required EPA to ensure that pesticide residues in food are safe, with particular protection for children," the new filing states. "Yet, more than seven years after being presented with substantial scientific evidence that the current tolerance for glyphosate in oats may not meet that standard, EPA has failed to make any final, reviewable determination."
EWG president and co-founder Ken Cook declared in a Tuesday statement that "parents shouldn't have to second-guess whether everyday foods like cereal and snack bars are putting their children at risk of cancer."
"The EPA's silence leaves families in the dark and falls far short of its responsibility to protect public health," he continued. "It's time for the agency to stop stalling and do its job."
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic" to humanity over a decade ago, while the EPA has repeatedly claimed that it is not likely to cause cancer in humans despite mounting research, the recent retraction of a landmark study on the pesticide's supposed safety, and legal battles between patients and Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018.
Next week, the nation's top court is set to hear arguments in a case that, as EWG warned Tuesday, "could have sweeping implications for whether farmers and consumers can keep pursuing lawsuits for harms linked to glyphosate, and whether states can require warning labels on glyphosate products."
The Wall Street Journal noted Monday that while the company continues to insist on glyphosate's safety, it "wants anyone with a claim to join the settlement" negotiated with a team of lawyers representing around 40,000 claimants that "would bring Bayer's total price tag to resolve the Roundup litigation to roughly $22 billion."
Despite Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s campaign promise to "Make America Healthy Again," the administration has notably sided with Bayer in the case before the Supreme Court, and the president in February even issued an executive order mandating the production of glyphosate.
"If anyone still wondered whether 'Make America Healthy Again' was a genuine commitment to protecting public health or a scam concocted by President Trump and RFK Jr. to rally health-conscious voters in 2024, today's decision answers that question," Cook said at the time. "It's a shocking betrayal to all of us but especially the people who live and work near farm fields where glyphosate is used."
Still, EWG is plowing ahead with its legal action, arguing that "the EPA has a clear legal duty to act on this petition, and it has simply refused to do so," as the group's general counsel and COO, Caroline Leary, put it. "This kind of delay has real consequences for families who rely on the agency to ensure children are not exposed to toxic farm chemical residues like glyphosate."
"This is exactly the kind of situation where courts are meant to step in," Leary added. "The EPA cannot avoid its responsibilities simply by doing nothing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy