About Us     |     Join PAN    |     Donate

The herbicide glyphosate has been in the news a LOT in recent years. However, as we celebrate significant legal restrictions in California and Vermont on paraquat (another major herbicide) there is still no end in sight for glyphosate with its vast impacts on human health and the environment. Although far more glyphosate (brand name Roundup™) is sprayed on croplands, forest uses have become the herbicide’s fastest-growing market in California. In 2023, the last year for which use data are available, 266,000 pounds were applied to California forests. That’s nearly five times what it was two decades ago. The victims of herbicide application on forest include communities near impacted forests, forest workers who apply the pesticides, and Native Americans and others whose health and livelihoods depend on the use of forest resources.

Glyphosate history

Glyphosate was first sold to farmers in 1974. Since the late 1970s, the volume of glyphosate-based herbicides applied has increased approximately 100-fold. It is most heavily used on commodity crops such as corn, soy, and wheat. We’ve seen the biggest increases associated with development of glyphosate-resistant crops designed precisely to increase use of the herbicide. By 2016 genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops accounted for about 56% of global glyphosate use, far surpassing all other pesticides in intensity of use and geographic coverage.

In 2016 a group of scientists produced a consensus statement recognizing the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer conclusion that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans”. Their conclusions include that: (1) glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage continues to rise; (2) GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation, and air, especially in agricultural regions; (3) GBHs persist in water and soil is longer than previously recognized; (4) glyphosate and its metabolites (the substances it breaks down into over time) are widely present in the global soybean supply; and (5) human exposures are rising—a point emphasized in a chilling 2017 report on glyphosate in our food. The scientist group identified many important remaining information gaps and regulatory needs.

In 2019 a California jury held Bayer/Monsanto responsible for a couple contracting non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma because of exposure to Roundup™ and awarded $2 billion over cancer claims. To date, more than 170,000 lawsuits linking Roundup™ to non-Hodkin’s lymphoma and several other cancers have payouts totaling nearly $11 billion in settlements. However, a May 2026 article from The New Lede revealed a rich payout to lawyers with little for plaintiffs. As the cases mount, so too do other efforts to protect the public from glyphosate exposure including a 2023 legal petition by PAN, the Center for Food Safety and others demanding a glyphosate ban.

Bayer and its government cronies push back

In 2000 presumably reputable researchers published a review article in the peer-reviewed journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology in which they falsely claimed that: “There is no potential for Roundup™ herbicide to pose a health risk to humans.”  It was later discovered to have been ghost written by Monsanto and based entirely on research funded by Monsanto, as were several similar studies. The article was retracted in 2025, as reported in a story covered in The New Lede.

Then in February of 2026, as part of a long history of legal and regulatory favors to Monsanto/Bayer, the White House invoked the Defense Production Act—an executive order to guarantee supplies of glyphosate-based herbicides and elemental phosphorus—a key ingredient in the production of glyphosate. Then in June the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal pesticide law limits lawsuits against Bayer for not warning about cancer risks.

Also in 2026, the U.S. Forest Service pulled out the stops to support a massive increase in use of glyphosate, not in agriculture, but in U.S. forests—both those devastated by wildfires and clear cutting logging. Forest Service recovery plans are supposed to use workers to remove selected trees, cull undergrowth, and set prescribed fires, something like what Native Americans have done for millennia to keep forests healthy and reduce the risk of megafires. The agency also would plant new trees in burned areas where few had survived.

However, in a horrifically misguided plan here in California and elsewhere, the agency started earlier this year by spraying glyphosate on some 10,000 acres of public land in Lassen County to wipe out leafy plants and shrubs that might compete with replanted conifers. Mother Jones reporters discovered that forest spraying, unbeknownst to most of the public, is happening at record levels. They describe a scene where nearly five years after the Dixie Fire (that burned 963,309 acres in Butte, Plumas, Lassen, Shasta, and Tehama counties) the forests remain desolate with very little regrowth of the previously abundant cedars, pines, firs, and more. In fact, the Forest Service and logging companies claim they use glyphosate, “because it helps commercially attractive conifers like pine and Douglas fir rebound faster after fires and timber harvests. It does so by killing deciduous trees, native shrubs, flowering plants, and anything else that might compete for water, nutrients, and sunlight. In short, a key rationale for spraying a disputed chemical in natural settings boils down to executives and regulators treating forests, including our national forests, as tree farms.”

The Forest Service plans to follow the first round of spraying with another this fall. The agency justifies the plan using its 15 year-old risk assessment that repeatedly references the 2000 Monsanto ghost-written paper that was retracted in 2025. The irony of firms and government agencies spraying replanted burn zones is that they may be setting us up for more trouble down the road. Deciduous hardwoods such as oak, aspen, and birch can slow a fire’s progression, studies show, whereas resin-filled conifers are more flammable than other trees. A densely packed commercial conifer forest is, according to a growing scientific consensus, a megafire waiting to happen.

The victims of this forest apocalypse fight back

Herbicide spraying in forests kill broadleaf plants, berry bushes, and culturally significant flora used by Native peoples such as the Maidu who, for generations have relied on forest resources for food, basket weaving, and healing. As a consequence, the Maidu and other Indigenous Californians face severe cultural, health, and ecological threats from an increasing use of glyphosate and other herbicides in the state’s forest lands.

One piece of good news came in 2019, after a decade of advocacy and planning, the Maidu successfully won their proposal to regain ownership and stewardship of Humbug Valley, located in Plumas County. This marked the first time ancestral lands have been returned to a federally an unrecognized California tribe, a move encouraging others to pursue claims to lands with cultural and sacred sites. Together their determination to demonstrate the value of their traditional ecological knowledge has won them widespread support among local environmentalists and statewide fishing groups—even county and national forest officials. Under the recovery plan the Maidu will continue ancestral practices—all of which are threatened by herbicide applications—such as digging edible bulbs and roots to encourage more growth; pruning willows to improve their value for basket weaving; and using controlled burns to recycle nutrients and reduce fuel load.

Not only is this a story of perseverance and justice, it’s also personal to me. For the past 25 years my family has spent a precious week every summer on ancestral Maidu lands managed, in part, by the Forest Service in Plumas National Forest and in an area that includes what is now covered by Lake Almanor in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada at the headwaters of California’s Feather River. But now, when my grandson plays outside during these annual family trips, we’ll be worried if he’s being exposed to an herbicide that could have negative health consequences years down the road.

Stand up against continued use of toxic herbicides in our forests

If Quebec, one of the largest timber-producing regions in North America, can eliminate glyphosate and other herbicides in 90 percent of its forests we can too. Back in 1994, the province put in place a “forest protection strategy” designed to balance jobs and profits with healthy forests. Glyphosate, once widely used, was banned in 2001, and logging companies switched to manual and mechanical methods to stifle plant competition with minimal effects on yields, according to a 2010 government study. Now, instead of enriching a German chemical company, the money goes to pay local workers. Ignoring the Canadian case, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an emergency executive order in 2025 allowing the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) and other agencies to bypass normal safety procedures when spraying glyphosate.

In contrast, Native people here in California and beyond have for millennia managed forests in a safe way that has preserved their cultural traditions and protected an essential resource for us all. A recent UC Berkeley study found that forest biomass in the Klamath Mountains region used to be approximately half of what it is now, and that burns carried out by the Karuk and Yurok tribes played a significant role in maintaining forest integrity even during periods of climate variability. In one piece of good news, a 2022 California law, affirmed the right to cultural burns, reducing the layers of liability and permission needed to set “good fire” on the land.

Fortunately, in recent years the frequency and intensity of wildfires have raised serious questions about the wisdom, or lack there-of, of government forest management policies. In addition to growing concerns about the hazards of pesticides, the public is beginning to recognize Indigenous forest management practices as one of the keys to unraveling the deadly cycle of California wildfires. A key result of such practices that include managed harvest of multiple species and cultural burns is maintaining biodiversity, good forest structure and healthy ecological balance. Unfortunately, however, we still face bad policy proposals and there is an urgent need of organized public opposition

Act NOW to help prevent more bad policy

SB 1370 has passed the California legislature and is headed for the Governor’s desk.  This bill would waive California environmental laws for large-scale projects up to 3,000 acres in the name of wildfire prevention. Environmental groups are sounding the alarm that SB 1370 would have disastrous effects for California communities and ecosystems. SB 1370 would make Governor Newsom’s temporary emergency proclamation for wildfire projects permanent. This would remove most statewide environmental regulations, and could expose Californians to dangerous pesticide spraying and toxic pollution without the normal state regulations. Projects encompassing more than 38,000 acres of herbicide spraying across the state have already been approved. It’s our responsibility to speak up and make sure public lands are stewarded well and managed safely, so that they can continue to be enjoyed by future generations.

The fight for cleaner seed ramps up.

Over the last decade, PAN has been fighting alongside our state partners to rein in the harmful, unnecessary uses of neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides in Minnesota. You’ve been in this fight with us, and together we’ve made slow but steady progress towards our goals. Looking ahead to 2027, we’re closer than ever to winning common-sense policies we know will protect farmland, waterways, wildlife and people from exposure to these harmful insecticides.

This year, PAN and our partners officially launched the Campaign for Cleaner Seed, hosted a lobby day at the capitol and shared public testimony at bill hearings.  Of course, we have also been working this summer to meet with Minnesotans across the state who want to join our campaign.

Feedback to MDA—thank you!

Earlier this year, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture requested public comments on their current rules for neonic-treated seed use in the state. In July, PAN submitted a letter of evidence that the department should—and can—do more to regulate these seeds. We are grateful to the 90 PAN partners who signed on. Thank you to you all! Our hope is that this feedback will create an opening for more discussion on what the department can do on its own to improve treated seed regulations in addition to policy wins that we hope will happen at the legislature in 2027.

No surprise: small farms are a climate solution.

This week, IATP and other partners shared results from a recent survey of Minnesota farmers. The study showed that farms that are small to mid-sized, beginning, women-owned, and direct-to-consumer are all significantly more likely to employ a variety of different agroecological practices.  These include the use of cover crops, reduced tillage techniques, reduced inputs, and reduced water consumption.

Farming is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota, and our state is warming faster than any other state in the contiguous US. PAN has been saying for years that small-scale farming on its own is a major climate solution, and we are delighted to see more local evidence to back this up! See the full report and policy recommendations here.

Upcoming Events

Webinar: Neonics in Minnesota and the Campaign for Cleaner Seed
When: Thursday, October 8th, 12-1pm
Where: Zoom, register here

This webinar is a chance for anyone to learn more about neonics, what’s in store for the campaign next legislative session, and how to get involved. We’d love to see you there! Bring your lunch and your questions for an hour long discussion and information session.

Farmer Seed Swap
When: October 14, 5-7pm
Where: Frogtown Farm, 946 Minnehaha Ave W, St Paul

Join us for food, community, a seed swap, and conversation about our seed supply and treated vs. untreated seed. This is a chance for farmers to learn, ask questions, share knowledge, and join a conversation about the future of seed in Minnesota. If you’d like, bring seeds to share with others, and bags so you can take home seeds to plant next growing season!

Emerging Farmer Conference
When: November 13-14
Where: Heritage Center, 6155 Earle Brown Dr, Brooklyn Center

The Campaign for Cleaner Seed will be tabling again at this year’s conference. Join other emerging farmers, immigrant farmers, and farmers of color to share learnings, build practical skills, and learn about resources available to support establishing and sustaining your farm. Learn more and register for the conference here.

Perhaps you haven’t heard. Or maybe it was lost amidst a host of other news that has grabbed your attention in recent months. The Supreme Court granted lawsuit immunity to large, multinational pesticide companies.

The Supreme Court of the United States sided with Monsanto (Bayer) in a court case that effectively removed the only useful tool individuals had to keep pesticide companies accountable. The case was found in favor of Monsanto in a 7-2 vote in June. Majority opinions were submitted by Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas. Justice Jackson submitted a dissenting opinion.

Simply put, this decision provides pesticide companies with a liability shield that prevents people like you and me from seeking accountability when a pesticide product can be shown to have harmed us.

Bayer/Monsanto working hard for lawsuit immunity

Bayer (Monsanto) has been seeking to pass laws in numerous states since 2024 that would provide lawsuit immunity for pesticide companies in those states. At the same time, they have been seeking to include language in several federal bills that would both provide legal immunity for pesticide companies and prevent states and localities from having stronger pesticide regulations than those set by the EPA.

But the pressure doesn’t stop there. Bayer has also been pushing the EPA to implement rules in ways that favor agribusiness even more than they do now. They even influenced the President of the United States who issued an executive order listing glyphosate as a product that is “critical for national defense.”

What Bayer didn’t expect was the grassroots resistance in states like Idaho, Missouri and Iowa (among others). Bills failed in all but a few states thanks to a growing understanding of the intent of these proposed laws. Similarly, several sections of the Federal Farm Bill were removed thanks to public opposition. Nationally, politicians are beginning to recognize that the public doesn’t want them to hand pesticide companies a license to deceive.

Meanwhile, Monsanto v Durnell was working its way through the courts. This case started in a Missouri state court in 2019 when John Durnell alleged that his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma had been caused by a 20-year history of using RoundupTM products. In order to win, Durnell had to show that these products were the cause of his illness. He also had to show that Monsanto/Bayer knew about the risk but failed to warn him (and others who used the product) of the potential for harm.

Failure to warn lawsuits are notoriously difficult to win. Yet, Durnell won a $1.25 million dollar settlement. This decision was upheld when the case was appealed to higher level courts.

Until this Supreme Court ruling.

Federal bills introduced seeking to address Durnell case

The Supreme Court ruling made it clear that the biggest issue with our current FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) is that it leaves too much room for interpretation. While two justices clearly understood how FIFRA was interpreted and implemented by the EPA, seven of them did not. As a result, they upended a system that provided an accountability check in state courthouses that had been in place for decades.

Recognizing strong public displeasure with the idea of lawsuit immunity for pesticide companies, several bills have been proposed at the federal level to address this issue. Of these bills, the effort put forward by Representatives Pingree and Massey appears to be the most effective to address this specific problem. The wording is simple, direct and clear. And the bill was informed by experts who understand the workings of FIFRA, state tort law, the EPA and the pesticide registration process.

Of course, it makes sense to support this effort, just as it makes sense to oppose any further efforts to codify lawsuit immunity for pesticide companies or the preemption of stronger state and local regulations.

But all of these are simply defensive actions. While we lost ground after the Durnell case, expending excessive energy to get back to a deeply flawed status quo is missing what could be a golden opportunity.

A way forward after Durnell

Certainly, the decision by the Supreme Court can be further analyzed and we could fire up public opinion to reverse the impacts of the decision through legislation. But I believe this is a time for a bigger action.

More people are becoming aware of the inordinate power that has been granted to multinational agrichemical businesses. At the same time, individuals are struggling with health concerns while research continues to provide evidence showing the link between pesticides and those illnesses. It is becoming clear to all of us that corporations are capturing our food and farming systems for their benefit, leaving people like you and I to suffer the consequences of their actions.

I believe we are remembering our strength as a people united. We want to live lives with clean water, clean air, and safe food produced in healthy soil. And we know that our government is supposed to be serving us, not corporations that are only concerned about how much money and power they can collect for themselves and their top executives.

Here are some suggestions for ways we can make progress:

1. Propose, support and pass laws to ban specific pesticides at the state level.

Already, Vermont has signed a bill into law to ban the dangerous herbicide paraquat and several states are looking at similar bills in the coming year. California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) also recently announced that they would be phasing out the use of paraquat.

Meanwhile, there are several other pesticides that have sufficient history of harm that are worthy of similar bills. For example, chlorpyrifos is another product that should no longer be in use.

2. Pass laws that secure the rights of states and local communities to set stronger regulations for pesticide use.

Pesticide companies have been working for a long time to prevent communities from setting stronger regulations. Even though people are generally in favor of rules that would restrict application near schools or important sources of drinking water they are often startled to learn that such actions aren’t possible throughout much of the United States. It’s time to take power back for the people.

3. Let’s get behind a federal bill that would do more—like PACTPA would have.

There was a federal bill proposed earlier this decade called PACTPA that actually addressed a number of the issues that makes our current pesticide regulatory system inadequate. That bill would have banned organophosphate pesticides (like chlorpyrifos), neonicotinoid pesticides and paraquat. But, it also did so much more.

PACTPA would have done the following:

  • Require the listing of inert ingredients, many of which are as dangerous as the active ingredients;
  • Close loopholes that have allowed the EPA to issue emergency exemptions and conditional registrations to use pesticides even before they go through full health and safety reviews;
  • Create a petition process for the people which will allow citizens to request review of pesticides that would otherwise be approved for use indefinitely;
  • Support local community protective actions from preemption of veto by state law;
  • Protect farmworkers from harm by requiring EPA-reviewed injury reports, improved pesticide label instructions and requiring labels in languages in addition to English; and
  • Broaden the knowledge base by requiring suspension and review of pesticides deemed unsafe by other nations.

We could also include language that protects our right to seek accountability through state tort law when we are injured by a pesticide. We could require the analysis of soil health to be part of evaluating a pesticide product. And we could close the loophole that exempts seed treatments from regulation while we’re at it.

I think we’ve got the will. We do not need to settle for a broken pesticide regulatory system. Let’s make the effort to stop playing defense and do this right.

A new study published in Frontiers in Public Health shows that over 400 million of the world’s farmers and farmworkers suffer from acute pesticide poisoning annually. This total excludes the 84 million children working in global agriculture who are even more vulnerable to toxic chemicals than adults, as well as rural families exposed through spray drift and environmental exposure. Action is urgently needed to remove the most poisonous pesticides from agriculture and to replace them with safer alternatives.

Farmers and farmworkers are mainly exposed to pesticides during preparation and application, as well as when touching treated crops and contaminated equipment or clothing. Farmers may also consume highly contaminated food. Acute pesticide poisoning is any illness or health effect experienced a short time after exposure (for example, within 48 hours) and frequently observed symptoms include headaches, nausea, vomiting and skin rashes. It should be noted that repeated exposure over time might not cause immediate symptoms but can lead to very serious illnesses.

The study found that the greatest number of non-fatal poisoning cases was in southern Asia, followed by Southeast Asia and East Africa. The highest single national incidence was in Burkina Faso, where nearly 84% of farmers and farmworkers experienced unintentional acute pesticide poisonings (UAPP) each year.

Total fatalities around the world from unintended pesticide poisonings are estimated at around 11,000 deaths per year. Nearly 60% of these occurred in just one country, India, indicating serious problems with pesticide use, according to the researchers.

“Meticulous new research has revealed that nearly 50% of the world’s farmers and farm workers suffer from acute pesticide poisoning each year. Systemic failures in data collection have masked this global public health crisis. Underreporting remains widespread, driven by limited access to healthcare and a lack of clinical training or systems to recognise or record pesticide poisoning. Now that the scale of suffering has been revealed, farmers must be supported to access safer alternatives to protect their health and that of their families,” said Dr Sheila Willis, Head of International Programmes, Pesticide Action Network UK.

When highly dangerous pesticides are marketed and sold as everyday goods, widespread poisoning is an inevitable consequence. Blaming farmers for pesticide harm unfairly shifts the whole responsibility onto individuals operating within severe economic and practical constraints. Contract farmers are often legally required to use specific chemical inputs, while growers rely heavily on advice from agrochemical representatives due to a lack of independent agroecological guidance. Furthermore, personal protective equipment is frequently too costly and impractical in hot climates.

The heavy burden of non-fatal unintended pesticide poisonings, particularly for farmers and farmworkers, brings into focus the current policy bias towards focusing only on fatalities, and the need to more seriously address the overall pesticide poisoning problem in international and national policies and regulations.

The implementation of the recommendation by the Council of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to phase out highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), and Target A7 of the Global Framework on Chemicals to phase out HHPs by 2035, could significantly reduce the burden of UAPP if supported.

Javier Souza Casadinho, Regional Coordinator for PAN Latin America, stated: “In Latin America, the use of pesticides – including those banned in Europe – has increased dramatically over the last 25 years following the development of monocultures using genetically modified seeds. Not only are farmers and workers exposed, but so too are families living near the fields that have been sprayed. Children, in particular, are the most affected in terms of their health, given the impact these pesticides have on the endocrine system. Agroecology is the way forward to reduce – and ultimately eliminate – the use of pesticides, whilst producing healthy food.”

“Women in Africa face higher risks from pesticide exposure due to heavy involvement in farming, weeding, and harvesting. They often lack protective gear, safety training, and control over resources, leading to acute and chronic health issues that can also threaten unborn or breastfed children. Even if they were available, protective gear is also not preferred given the hot climate around the year,” said Ms. Dorah Swai, the PAN Anglophone Africa Coordinator.

“The high number of non-fatal, unintentional pesticide poisonings makes it clear that the usual focus on fatalities is not enough. Rather, it is necessary to take a more comprehensive approach to the problem of pesticide poisoning and improve international and national measures for tracking and preventing pesticide poisonings,” said Susan Haffmans, Senior Adviser on Pesticides and International Cooperation at PAN Germany. “We can no longer accept that those who work in the fields and grow our food are exposed to harmful pesticides and become sick. The new findings underscore the urgency of promoting chemical-free crop protection and banning highly hazardous pesticides.”

“We are alarmed but not surprised that South and South-East Asia is leading the list of regions with the highest estimated number of non-fatal acute poisonings,” said Sarojeni Rengam, Executive Director of PAN Asia Pacific. “We have daily proof of the acute and chronic suffering of farmers, agricultural workers, women, and rural communities in our region. Yet, what is often overlooked is that this is also a region rich in farmers’ knowledge, experience, and skills in agroecology. Across Asia, communities are demonstrating that sustainable, pesticide-free food systems are not only possible but are already being practised and strengthened by farmers themselves.” 

“Behind these staggering numbers are farmers, workers and families paying a terrible human price for pesticide exposure. South Asia is bearing an enormous burden, with highly hazardous pesticides such as paraquat implicated in devastating poisoning incidents. This research exposes a crisis that can no longer be ignored. This research puts a human face on a crisis too often overlooked and makes clear that safer, non-chemical alternatives must become the priority to grow our food,” added Jayakumar Chelaton, Executive Director of PAN India.

“The world’s biggest pesticide companies — Syngenta, Bayer /Monsanto, Corteva and BASF — produce some of the most hazardous pesticides on the planet,” said Allison Davis, Executive Director at PAN North America. “While these companies reap immense profits every year from their aggressive promotion and sale of dangerous pesticides, it is the farmers and workers in the Global South who bear the costs and pay with their health and lives. In allowing these corporations to sell chemicals often restricted or banned at home, our governments have failed utterly in their duties to protect and uphold the universal human right to health.”

The systematic review entitled “Worldwide unintentional acute pesticide poisonings: reassessing the occupational and non-occupational burden” includes poisoning data from a selected total of 139 countries, including 62 countries covered by 214 scientific articles and 77 countries covered by data from the WHO Mortality Database. Most studies focused on occupational poisonings, particularly of farmers and agricultural workers. The review included data from 2006 to 2023.

Read the report.

Available for interviews:

Pesticide Action Network International (PAN) is a global coalition of over 600 participating non-governmental organizations, institutions and individuals in 90 countries, working to replace hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives. Founded in 1982, PAN works to end reliance on hazardous pesticides and achieve health, resilience and justice in food and farming. PAN advocates for agroecology as a powerful solution to the negative effects of chemical-intensive agriculture and the converging planetary and societal crises of climate chaos, biodiversity loss, pollution and failing public health. PAN situates its work within a rights-based approach that prioritizes agroecology, food sovereignty and climate justice. You can find more information at http://pan-international.org.

SACRAMENTO – Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network (PAN) applauds California’s phaseout of the highly toxic weedkiller paraquat. Following decades of collective advocacy across farmworkers, rural communities, health advocates and scientists, the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced that all manufacturers of pesticide products containing paraquat-dichloride (known commonly as paraquat) have voluntarily cancelled their registrations. The California phaseout of use in the state is scheduled to be complete by 2029.

The Department of Pesticide Regulation took this action, at least in part, as the result of California’s passage of AB 1963 in 2024, which required a thorough review of paraquat by January 1, 2029. AB 1963 was originally submitted by the Environmental Working Group as a sunset of paraquat by January 2026, which was championed by PAN and CPR. Unfortunately the bill was amended in the Senate Agricultural Committee to only require a thorough review of paraquat by DPR by 2029. With passage, DPR required paraquat manufacturers to fill data gaps related to human health effects by June 2026. In lieu of providing required data, companies voluntarily cancelled their registrations; the last cancellation goes into effect this month. DPR-licensed dealers may continue to possess and sell pesticides that were voluntarily canceled for up to two years following the effective date of each product’s cancellation.

The PAN international network has a decades long history fighting paraquat around the world – starting in 1985 as one of the targeted pesticides in our Dirty Dozen campaign. This was followed by subsequent bans in Finland, Sweden and Switzerland by 1989 and multiple countries since then. We have been campaigning against Syngenta’s production of paraquat, and fighting for both global and country bans ever since.

This voluntary phaseout in California is a major step towards protecting farmworkers, agricultural communities and communities all along the global paraquat supply chain from this highly toxic herbicide. Paraquat has been linked to Parkinson’s disease, ALS, and to health impacts to the heart, liver, kidney and lungs. In addition, the elimination of paraquat and other synthetic pesticides reduces the climate impacts of pesticides, associated extraction of fossil fuels, and release of greenhouse gases from their production, formulation, distribution and application to agricultural fields.

SinoChem, which purchased Syngenta, and is the world’s lead manufacturer of paraquat, imports tens of millions of pounds of paraquat each year into the United States. As imports trend upwards, tariff exemptions, Farm Bill policies, and permissive pesticide regulations are incentivizing the United States’ reliance on paraquat, even as over four decades of activism has led to its prohibition in more than 70 countries. Virtually all U.S. imports of paraquat originate from countries that have banned its use within their own borders.

In the U.S., advocacy groups including PAN have worked to prohibit the use of paraquat. In 2021, these groups sued the EPA over its decision to approve paraquat’s continued registration for use. Following the lawsuit, in 2024 EPA refused to reconsider scientific evidence submitted by the Michael J. Fox Foundation connecting paraquat use to Parkinson’s and continued paraquat’s registration. In January 2025, the U.S. EPA issued yet another delay tactic as it withdrew its interim regulatory decision on paraquat, announcing that it needs more time to examine paraquat’s potential health effects. However in 2026, Syngenta announced it was ending production of paraquat because of competition from generic brands, ultimately a win because of the resulting disruption to the US supply chain.

This California action is long overdue and an important precedent for the country. California is the largest U.S. user of paraquat. The pesticide’s use is heavily concentrated in the San Joaquin Valley, where farmworkers and rural families have some of the highest rates of pesticide exposure in the world. At least 15 different states have introduced legislation to ban paraquat, and Vermont, enacted the first statewide ban earlier this year. California should follow Vermont with an eventual complete ban, and the EPA should follow the states’ lead.

This is a celebration for both human health and the environment. But this is just the beginning, California needs to honor its Sustainable Pest Management Roadmap that calls for elimination of all highly hazardous “Priority Pesticides” that represent the most toxic pesticides across the state.

###

Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN) North America, is the North America Regional Center for the international PAN network. We work with those on the frontlines to tackle the pesticide problem and reclaim the future of food and farming from the pesticide and biotech corporations that have, for far too long, dictated how we grow food, placing the health and economic burdens of pesticide use on farmers, farmworkers and rural communities.

Contact:

Margaret Reeves, PAN Senior Scientist, mreeves@panna.org

As California’s 2025-2026 legislative session draws to a close we’re excited to update you on the status of some key pieces of legislation that we’ve been following. We’re happy to report that we’ve already secured key victories, have helped block harmful bills, and are actively driving forward legislation that will transform our food and farming systems!

Bills we oppose:

SB 1419

SB 1419 undermined the original intent of the Farmer Equity Act of 2017, which focused on improving socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher’s (SDFR) access and outreach to state programs, given that SDFRs continue to receive less government support, face greater language barriers, greater unfamiliarity with government assistance programs, and lower income generation relative to white farmer counterparts. A socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher is defined as someone who is a member of a group subjected to racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice because of their identity, without regard to individual qualities. It’s imperative that we continue to center the historical inequities endured by SDFRs and honor this history with efforts to support their success and meaningful participation.

Status: Pulled by the author (a win!)

SB 1370 

SB 1370 would exempt broadly-defined wildfire mitigation projects from nearly all statutes, rules, regulations, and requirements of any agency within CA Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) or California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). This exemption applies to pesticide laws, enabling widespread applications (some projects are up to 3,000 acres) of harmful herbicides, such as carcinogenic glyphosate (RoundupTM). Under SB 1370, projects are not required to be economical or effective, with recent research demonstrating that certain methods of fire mitigation have proven ineffective or harmful to the landscape by increasing the flammability of landscapes through invasion of non-native, more flammable grasses. We must protect our landscapes from the unnecessary application of harmful pesticides.

Status:  In Senate Appropriations

Bills we support:

AB 52

AB 52 would authorize the Secretary of Food and Agriculture to formally establish two advisory committees: the Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) Producer Advisory Committee and the Small-Scale Producer Advisory Committee, to advise the California Department of Food and Agriculture under the Farmer Equity Act of 2017. The BIPOC Producer Advisory Committee has made significant progress towards implementing the Farmer Equity Act of 2017, including developing a formal Block Grant recommendations framework and BIPOC Accountability Subcommittee for CDFA’s block grant administration processes, providing input and increasing transparency around CDFA’s grant administration approach, instituting an anonymous grower-based feedback system, advocating for dedicated Tribal consultation, and raising the need for clearer, diverse communication channels and application assistance. Codifying these committees in statute affirms their importance and ensures their continued role in shaping equitable agricultural policy.

Status: In Senate Appropriations on suspense file. Pursuant to legislative rules, bills are referred to the Appropriations Suspense File if their estimated fiscal impact exceeds established financial thresholds.

AB 53 

AB 53 authorizes federally recognized tribes to receive grants and loans through the California Riparian Habitat Conservation Program and the Inland Wetlands Conservation Program. AB 53 also enables the Department of Fish and Wildlife to enter into management agreements with tribes for department-managed lands. A systematic literature review conducted by Nikolakis et al. (2026), reported that Indigenous lands delivered positive conservation outcomes in British Columbia, often at levels comparable to or exceeding those of state-managed protected areas. It’s critical that we support Indigenous stewardship and land return, as many tribes employ land management practices that support biodiversity, soil health, carbon storage, climate resiliency, land sovereignty, and the reinstatement of pest predator-prey relationships that can eliminate reliance on pesticides.

Status: In Senate Appropriations

Pollinators and beneficial insects need year-long support, not just some nice words over the course Pollinator Week.  It reminds me of a conversation I had with a respected peer and I remember them saying that “it matters more what you do the rest of the week than it does what you say on Sunday.” And here we are, saying all sorts of things about supporting pollinators during Pollinator Week.

But what happens next?

Lip service for Pollinator Week

The history of Pollinator Week goes back to 2006 when Senate Resolution 580 was passed and a proclamation was issued by the Secretary of Agriculture the following June. Since that time, many groups and individuals have organized and participated in events that try to elevate the importance of pollinators.

As the topic became more popular, some corporate interests looked to capitalize on the movement. For example, Bayer Corporation offered the Blue Ribbon Bee Keeper Award and a seed giveaway in 2020. The irony is that Bayer holds responsibility for significant harm to pollinator populations in the first place. What they have done the other fifty-one weeks of the year doesn’t match what they say during Pollinator Week.

Bayer was among the forerunners in the research and development of neonicotinoid insecticides, which have been shown to harm bees and pollinators of all types In fact, if you would like more information, the Xerces Society provides a searchable database for research regarding the dangers of pesticides to invertebrates.

In an effort to try to show that they actually cared about pollinators, Bayer put out a web page giving lip service to bee health. The page is no longer active, but I was able to locate the same page I saw in 2020 using the Wayback Machine, an internet archive. On the page, Bayer made the claim that their products are necessary and that neonicotinoids do not harm pollinators.

Well, actually, they were only concerned about domesticated honey bees. Things like the Grass-catching wasp were not on their radar. The only supporting evidence they gave was a link on the words “research shows.” It was the only link in the text on that web page. And where did it go?

It takes you to a website hosted by an organization that is sponsored by Bayer, Syngenta, and related pesticide companies. And it did NOT go directly to any research. This is why you bother to check out your resources and carefully consider the motivations they might have. Otherwise, you might believe that Bayer really does care about pollinators more than they do their profit margins.

Monarch on milkweed

Monarch on milkweed – image R. Faux

What you do matters in the weeks beyond Pollinator Week

I have heard the argument that large businesses and people with the most money and power have so much control that it doesn’t matter what each of us does in the grand scheme of things. Ok, I’ll grant you that I don’t have much power in this world on my own. But, I do have enough power to make a difference. And so do you.

How we make that difference can differ greatly from person to person. But when we all work towards the same goals, we will be surprised by the change that we can bring about!

On our fifteen acre farm, we do our best to keep learning and finding ways to provide healthy habitat for beneficial organisms. While you may not operate a small-scale diversified farm, there are things you can do as well.

You can advocate in your community for a reduction in the use of insecticides in your public spaces. If you work for or own a business that maintains some outdoor space, you can push to put in native plantings rather than manicured, single-species lawns. You can encourage your town to change zoning laws to allow for more natural plantings. You can refuse to buy bedding plants and perennials that have been treated with neonicotinoid insecticides.

You can choose to find ways to co-exist with insects that you were taught to fear and avoid when you were young. Just like I have with wasps.

You can also look for opportunities for policy change at the state and national levels. Tell your governor to take action to protect pollinators in your state. Encourage legislation that would remove the loophole that allows neonicotinoid seed treatments to be used without any regulation.

What I do matters to the tens of thousands of creatures that live on or pass through the Genuine Faux Farm. If we do our part here and you do your part where you are, the bees, hoverflies and wasps will have more opportunity to thrive and the land we live on will be more alive because of it.

This is the fourth in a Pollinator Week series for Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network.  Our first, second and third entries can be found by following the links.

Over the last few years I have been gaining more appreciation for beneficial invertebrates and unsung pollinators. I think it is safe to say that most of us start with some basic knowledge and appreciation of certain insects, but we learn fear and even revulsion for most. For example, butterflies and honeybees are generally considered to be “good” while anything else is suspect.

I willingly admit that my understanding and acceptance of different beneficial (and even neutral) insects is an ongoing project. It all starts with my willingness to learn about them. I find that it’s harder to feign indifference or outright hostility when I know more about someone or something. And, after I spent time and effort a few years ago to learn more about wasps, it has gotten easier to calmly observe other wasps and wasp-like creatures.

My learned instinct from my youth is still hard to suppress. The fear that I might get stung will probably never fully go away. But it is a healthy thing to acknowledge that wasps and other insects will do what they must to protect themselves. It is even healthier to recognize the difference between presence and aggressive intent.

Grass-carrying wasp pulls nesting material into metal pipe

Grass-carrying wasp pulls nesting material into metal pipe – image R. Faux

An unsung pollinator, the grass-carrying wasp

I was doing some small-engine maintenance and I noticed a slender wasp with purple wings fly by me. At first, I thought it had an exceptionally long stinger, or maybe an ovipositor (egg laying tube). And, to my credit, I didn’t flinch too much as it flew past my face on the way to a box that held various metal tubing.

Curious, I watched as it landed and entered the tube. That’s when I realized it was carrying a dried blade of grass. Since it didn’t come back out immediately, I left to get the camera so I could try to capture an image or two. I was hopeful this wasn’t a single trip or its last trip as it was setting up a nesting spot for a future generation.

Happily, I was able to observe as the wasp emerged without the blade of grass. Then, not long after, it returned with another addition for its nest. This time I was ready with the camera.

The blade of grass was twice as long as the insect, but this did not seem to cause it much difficulty. On this particular trip, the blade was lined up in parallel with its body and it maneuvered into the next cavity easily. But, as I noticed later, not every trip went smoothly and there was some problem solving required to line the grass up with the nest’s entry point. I even noticed that it dropped what it was carrying at least once.

Everyone, I’d like to introduce you to the grass-carrying wasp (Isodontia mexicana).

This particular wasp has a beautiful purple sheen to its wings and is often observed as they industriously build a nest for its young. These are predatory, solitary wasps. The females will hunt prey (typically tree crickets) and will often bring them to the nests so the young have sustenance later.

Grass-carrying wasps are a type of thread-waisted wasp that show a preference for plants with white flowers. We’ve seen them on a plant we call thousand-flower asters (Boltonia) and on the various goldenrod at our farm. Nectar from flowering plants help feed the adults and their visits can effectively promote pollination.

These wasps are not aggressive. I suppose if I tried to hold one in my hand and keep it captive, it might feel like it had no choice but to sting. Otherwise, it’s more interested in building a nest, or finding some food, than it is in me. Yes, you heard it here first, it isn’t all about me.

Supporting different pollinators and predators

While I did not intend for that bucket of metal tubing to become a nesting spot for a wasp, it did cause me to reflect on the things I was doing and other things I could be doing to support insects like the grass-carrying wasp. In the wild, they will use hollow plant stems for their nests. In a world where humans have built things up, Grass-carrying wasps may select anything that has the right size and shape. For example, I’ve seen their nests in the track of a storm window.

The formula for these beneficial insects is similar to others we hope to see in our landscape. They need food sources and they need habitat that includes nesting spaces. At our farm, we try to accomplish that by having a wide range of flowering plants that provide an extended bloom time. We maintain untilled ground and wild spaces. There are even areas we have identified for brush piles that provide shelter for everything from praying mantids to more of our wasp friends.

Oh, and we’ll be leaving that bucket of tubing where it is until the new generation emerges. And, maybe, next year, we’ll cut some bamboo poles and tie them into a bunch and see if we can encourage more of them to nest next year.

If you would like to learn about more different pollinators, let me encourage you to read this blog on PAN’s website.  This is the third in a series of articles for Pollinator Week 2026.  You can find our first entry here and our second entry here.

Today, the nation’s highest court ruled that agriculture giant Bayer, which owns RoundupTM manufacturer Monsanto, should be granted a liability shield even when individuals can show they were harmed by Bayer’s pesticide products. This decision removes the only effective tool for individuals to hold pesticide companies accountable when they fail to warn consumers of risks for harm that were known, but not disclosed, by the company. As a result, this ruling allows pesticide manufacturers, like Bayer/Monsanto, to withhold information for potential injury or illness from everyone, including the EPA. This will effectively remove the consequences for misrepresenting their products and give them a license to deceive us when it comes to the dangers that come with the use of and exposure to their pesticides.

In Monsanto v. Durnell, Bayer argued that they should be immune to “failure to warn” lawsuits on the grounds that the language in FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) gives the EPA universal control of approving labels. Their argument was that if the EPA registered Monsanto’s RoundupTM product labels without mentioning cancer risk, that should preempt state or individual rights to sue Monsanto/Bayer for failing to warn about those risks.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson, argued that “[i]n accepting Monsanto’s argument and holding that Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim is preempted, the Court misunderstands FIFRA’s requirements, misinterprets the scope of FIFRA’s preemption, and ultimately leaves Durnell without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered.”

FIFRA was always meant to set the minimum requirements for pesticide labeling and was not intended to absolve pesticide manufacturers of accountability or their responsibility to protect the public from harmful effects they knew existed. But this decision does just that, even though internal documents revealed that Monsanto knew RoundupTM may increase risk of cancer and that they sought to conceal that information. Further, FIFRA was not written to prohibit states from setting stronger labeling requirements when they so choose. But this decision also sees FIFRA and EPA’s use label as being able to preempt states from doing so.

“This shameful ruling deals a monumental setback to the people and families impacted by pesticide related illness,” PAN Organizing Lead Cristobal Lagunas said. “SCOTUS has sided with a billion-dollar corporation and conveyed that the farmers, farmworkers, people and communities harmed by pesticides don’t deserve to hold corporations accountable for the harm they cause. This decision creates a crisis of public health and casts a dark cloud over the agricultural industry and the people who work tirelessly to keep America fed. While today is difficult, we know and deeply believe that a change in our systems is still possible and that farmers, farmworkers, and the movement that supports them will continue to write this story. We will continue to work toward a future where people are fed, healthy, and prosperous.”

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the United States—so widely used that it is found in the bodies of most Americans. Whether glyphosate causes cancer is not in question; the science is clear that it does. The International Agency for Research on Cancer at the WHO determined that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen in 2015. But even though there is a growing body of research that confirms that glyphosate can cause cancer, EPA has declined to acknowledge this at the federal level. Because of this, some states have opted to enact further regulations and labeling requirements to try to better protect consumers from carcinogens.

But today, the court ruled that FIFRA and the EPA pesticide use label is the final, and only, word for pesticide registration even if the use label is inaccurate. The court left no recourse for individuals who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using RoundupTM. The Court ignored what the jury trials and successful lawsuits revealed. The science EPA used to approve labels for RoundupTM heavily relied upon industry-funded studies. Internal Monsanto documents showed that employees ghostwrote scientific studies, the company sought to influence regulatory assessments and they downplayed or disputed evidence of glyphosate’s cancer risks. These revelations illustrate the importance of the court discovery processes when people are allowed to sue, and reaffirm the importance of objective, third-party scientific review of pesticide registration.

“This ruling is extremely disappointing and shows a profound misunderstanding of the pesticide registration labeling processes and the importance of the state courts as a tool to hold pesticide companies accountable for harm,” said PAN’s Communications Manager and Iowa farmer Rob Faux.  “Moving forward, we need to work together to push legislation forward that will address the increasing risk of harm due to existing and future pesticides products.  The EPA must rededicate themselves to seeking to protect the public from harm from pesticides and seek to aggressively remove or further restrict registrations for dangerous products.”

Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network condemns the Court for refusing to hold Monsanto accountable and revoking the public’s right to sue and the rights of states to protect their citizens. We call on EPA to enact stronger protections for pesticide registration that ensure the agency is not relying on industry-funded research to approve pesticides. EPA must ensure that products are rigorously tested to be safe for those who apply them and the consumers who eat food grown with pesticides.

Similarly, we call on Congress to remedy this situation. If FIFRA is the only way we can protect people from the harmful effects of pesticides, we must revise it to be sure that it is comprehensive and impactful. If the Supreme Court is unable to understand the intent and function of the law as it stands, then it needs to be revised so its purpose to protect people and not international pesticide companies is clear and incontrovertible.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling means that people cannot sue pesticide corporations for the health harms of their products when the EPA labels the pesticide as “safe”. This is a blatant disregard for the rigged rules that currently allow labeling to be heavily influenced by pesticide corporations, using studies submitted by pesticide corporations,” Allison Davis, Executive Director of PAN, reflected. “When citizens sue, critical and independent science is revealed to the public. We call on Congress to immediately reform the law and address blatant conflicts of interest in pesticide labeling and to allow citizens their day in court.” 

DONATE