Theo Colborn  1927-2014

Theo Colborn 1927-2014

Scientist, activist and truthteller, Dr. Colborn spurred the public conversation on endocrine disrupting chemicals. We are so grateful for her pioneering work. Memorial on Grist »

For the bees!

For the bees!

With your help, PAN will keep working for bee-protective policies and a thriving, just food system that’s healthier for us all. Donate today »

30 years later

30 years later

Bhopal is still waiting for justice, and those corporations responsible for one of the worst industrial accidents in history must still be held to account. Learn more »

Gov. Brown, it’s time to lead on chlorpyrifos

Gov. Brown, it’s time to lead on chlorpyrifos

More than 1 million pounds of chlorpyrifos are used in California fields every year. CA residents, tell Gov. Brown the time for action is now. »

Mr. President: Bees need help, now

Mr. President: Bees need help, now


Urge Obama's new task force to enact real and rapid protections for honey bees.
Act now »

Feeding the World

Feeding the World

What would a food system geared towards eradicating hunger look like? Much like sound farming, it all starts at the roots... Learn more »

Pesticide Action Network's blog
By Pesticide Action Network,

As we honor Martin Luther King's legacy this month, we also mark the third anniversary of Citizens United v FEC. This landmark Supreme Court decision essentially declared corporations to be people, opening the floodgates for unlimited political corporate contributions, and changing the face of election campaigns.

Citizen's United v. FEC undid over a century of campaign finance reforms, and the effects of the decision were clearly evident in the November elections. One clear example was the opposition to California's Proposition 37 — an initiative to label genetically engineered (GE) food in the state — which was almost entirely funded by corporations. Contributions totaled 46 million dollars.

Heather Pilatic's blog
By Heather Pilatic,

Earlier this week the European Food Safety Association issued a report concluding that neonicotinoids ("neonics") pose an unacceptably high risk to bees, and that the industry-sponsored science upon which regulatory agencies' claims of safety have relied are fatally flawed.  

...which is exactly what we've been saying since 2010, when we publicized the "leaked memo" showing that EPA has allowed clothianidin (a neonicotinoid) to remain on the market despite the absence of any solid science demonstrating the chemical's safety for bees. Last spring, PAN conducted our own evaluation of the state of the science on pesticides and bees and reached many of the same conclusions outlined in EFSA's comprehensive review of the science (see their full report). The science is not the surprise here. 

Kristin Schafer's blog
By Kristin Schafer,

President Obama faces a profound decision as he considers who will step into Lisa Jackson's shoes. Over the past decade, EPA has become a lightening rod for the heated partisan debate about the size and role of government. The agency has also come to serve as a rhetorical punching bag for those determined to pit environmental protection against economic growth.

The next EPA leader's stance on these big picture issues will inform decisions with very "small picture" impacts, decisions that will directly affect the health and well being of families across the country. From tackling pesticides in our air, water and food to what we do about energy and climate change challenges, this choice will matter. Hugely.

Paul Towers's blog
By Paul Towers,

“We’re facing the extinction of a species.” That’s what one Midwest-based large-scale commercial beekeeper told me last week at the annual gathering of the American Honey Producers Association (AHPA). And he meant it.

Bee losses have been dramatic, especially in recent years. And beekeepers are feeling the sting. According to many who manage hives, commercial beekeeping won’t pencil out in the future unless things change, and soon.

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman's blog
By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman,

Twitter-land was abuzz last week with news that a formerly ardent critic of genetic engineering (GE) has recanted his position. Mark Lynas gave a long mea culpa speech at the Oxford Farming Conference, in which he apologized to the world for tearing up GE crops back in the day, and for what he described as his “anti-science environmentalism.”

Unfortunately, Lynas then went on to ignore the weight of scientific evidence (more on that below). He claimed that GE crop production is good for biodiversity and necessary to feed the world, that organic farming is bad, and that “there is no reason at all why avoiding chemicals should be better for the environment.” He then quickly slammed the door shut on public debate, pronouncing “discussion over.” Many of us in the global scientific community were left shaking our heads, bemused if disappointed in Lynas’ anti-science rhetorical flourishes.