These fruits and vegetables are packed with the most pesticides, 2022 ‘Dirty Dozen’ list reports

Saleen Martin, USA TODAY

What are the filthiest fruits and vegetables at the grocery store? Strawberries, spinach and kale, according to a new report.  

Thursday, nonprofit advocacy organization Environmental Working Group released its annual “Dirty Dozen” and “Clean Fifteen” lists using data from the Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration. View | 12 Photos

The Washington, D.C., group found that more than 90% of strawberry, apple, cherry, spinach, nectarine and grape samples tested positive for residues of two or more pesticides. Kale, collard and mustard greens, hot peppers and bell peppers had the most pesticides. A single sample of kale, collard and mustard greens had up to 21 different pesticides.

Strawberries and leafy greens have been repeat offenders at the top of the list, ranking high in the past two years. Bell and hot peppers tested higher for pesticide residue this year, moving up from No. 10 last year to No. 7 this year.

The produce with the least amount of pesticides? Avocados, sweet corn and pineapple topped the group’s “Clean Fifteen.”

Take a look at this year’s lists below.

‘Dirty Dozen’ for 2022

  1. Strawberries
  2. Spinach
  3. Kale, collard and mustard greens
  4. Nectarines
  5. Apples
  6. Grapes
  7. Bell and hot peppers
  8. Cherries
  9. Peaches
  10. Pears
  11. Celery
  12. Tomatoes

‘Clean Fifteen’ for 2022

  1. Avocados
  2. Sweet corn
  3. Pineapple
  4. Onions
  5. Papaya
  6. Sweet peas (frozen)
  7. Asparagus
  8. Honeydew melon
  9. Kiwi
  10. Cabbage
  11. Mushrooms
  12. Cantaloupe
  13. Mangoes
  14. Watermelon
  15. Sweet Potatoes

This year’s data includes results from nearly 45,000 samples of produce from 2020.

Pesticides have been linked to multiple health issues, including brain development. Their impacts on fertility issues have the strongest data, said Alexis Temkin, an Environmental Working Group toxicologist.

“There’s still, I think, a lot of unknown impacts,” Temkin said. “If you’re reducing the exposure in the first place, then the likelihood of adverse health effects occurring is going to be much less.”

Like the customers who rely on store-bought produce, USDA researchers scrubbed and peeled the fruits and veggies before testing them. Experts say the best way to wash produce is by washing it with just cold water. Pesticide residue was still found on over 70% of the non-organic produce tested. Nearly all of the levels fell under the legal limits allowed by government regulations, Environmental Working Group said.

Teresa Thorne, executive director of the Alliance for Food and Farming, a nonprofit that represents organic and conventional farmers, says Environmental Working Group’s lists concern her.

First, she said, peer-reviewed research has shown that it’s scientifically unsupportable, especially the claim that eating organic foods versus conventionally grown foods will result in lower pesticide exposure.

“Residues on conventional-grown are already so minute if they’re present at all,” she said. “The second thing is is that this list has been shown again through peer-reviewed research to negatively impact consumers. When low-income consumers were exposed to this list and some of the messaging in the Dirty Dozen list, they stated they were less likely to purchase any produce, organic or conventional.”

She said Environmental Working Group’s goal to help families access fruits and vegetables with less pesticide exposure was achieved long ago.

According to Thorne, 99.8% of the fruits and vegetables tested by the USDA under the Pesticide Data Program are well below the Environmental Protection Agency’s safety levels. A third have no detectable residues at all.

“We have 13 million children living in food-insecure households right now. To scare people away from conventional-grown, which is the more affordable and accessible fruits and vegetables in today’s environment, really needs to be better thought through.”

Keep Toxins Out Of Cosmetics | Take Action @ The Breast Cancer Site

Support the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act and stop the cosmetics industry from profiting off of poison!

Sponsor: The Breast Cancer Site

Support the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act and stop the cosmetics industry from profiting off of poison!

Cosmetics are among the least-regulated products on the market1. Loopholes in federal law allow use of unlimited amounts of chemicals in products without testing, monitoring of health effects, or adequate labeling2. One-third of cosmetic products on the market contain chemicals linked to cancer, and half contain chemicals labeled “toxic3.”

Nearly 90% of the 10,000 ingredients in personal care products haven’t undergone safety testing4.

The average woman is exposed daily to 126 chemical ingredients via personal care products alone5. Diseases linked to synthetic chemicals, including breast cancer, are rising. Under current law (unchanged since 1938), the FDA can’t require cosmetics companies to conduct safety assessments or mandate product recalls.

Loopholes in the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 19386 allow manufacturers to use unlimited amounts of chemicals in their products without requiring testing, monitoring of health effects, or adequate labeling.

The Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2019 (H.R.4296)7 will give the FDA authority to ensure that personal care products are free of harmful ingredients by phasing out ingredients linked to cancer, birth defects, and developmental harm8. It will also create a health-based safety standard system that will protect both consumers and workers in the cosmetic industry, while providing the funding to the FDA it needs to provide effective oversight of a $50 billion industry that is currently self-regulated9.

This bill will hold cosmetic companies accountable for the safety of the ingredients in their products. It also bans most animal testing, and addresses over-exposure to toxic chemicals experienced by communities of color and professional salon workers10.

If passed, this bill will protect consumers and industry workers, and requires supply chain transparency and industry sharing of safety data to help level the playing field for small, clean cosmetic companies.

The Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2019 (H.R.4296) will give the FDA authority to ensure that personal care products are free of harmful ingredients.

Sign the petition and demand Congress pass this important legislation!

More on this issue:

  1. Lydia Ramsey Pflanzer, Business Insider (11 October 2015), “A $60 billion industry is shockingly unregulated.”
  2. Workgroup for Safe Markets (2021), “Toxic Chemicals in Products.”
  3. Matthew Daly, Associated Press (15 July 2021), “Study: Half of US cosmetics contain toxic chemicals.”
  4. EcoWatch (6 July 2015), “84,000 Chemicals on the Market, Only 1% Have Been Tested for Safety.”
  5. Jane Houlihan, Environmental Working Group (25 July 2008), “Statement of Jane Houlihan on Cosmetics Safety.”
  6. U.S. Food & Drug Administration (27 November 2018), “Part II: 1938, Food, Drug, Cosmetic Act.”
  7. Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky, 116th Congress (12 September 2019), “H.R.4296 – Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2019.”
  8. Scott Faber, Environmental Working Group (5 May 2020), “The Toxic Twelve Chemicals and Contaminants in Cosmetics.”
  9. M. Ridder, Statista (24 August 2021), “Cosmetics Industry in the U.S. – statistics & facts.”
  10. Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a project of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (2021), “Support the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2019.”

To Top

The Petition:

Dear Rep. Schakowsky and members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; Education and Labor,

I am writing to urge you to pass the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2019, a long-overdue piece of legislation critical to protecting all of us from the dangerous and insidious chemicals we are exposed to every day.

The Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 is woefully out-of-date; loopholes in U.S. federal law allow manufacturers to use unlimited amounts of chemicals in their products without requiring testing, monitoring of health effects, or adequate labeling. This is unacceptable, and I am grateful that you recognize the urgent need to regulate an industry with such a far-ranging impact.

The Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2019 (H.R.4296) will give the FDA authority to ensure that personal care products are free of harmful ingredients by phasing out ingredients linked to cancer, birth defects, and developmental harm. It will also create a health-based safety standard system that will protect both consumers and workers in the cosmetic industry, while providing the funding to the FDA it needs to provide effective oversight of a $60 billion industry that is currently self-regulated.

This bill will hold cosmetic companies accountable for the safety of the ingredients in their products. It also bans most animal testing, and addresses over-exposure to toxic chemicals experienced by communities of color and professional salon workers.

Not only is this legislation good for consumers and industry workers, it will level the playing field for businesses that are striving to make the safest products.

I commend you for displaying the leadership to sponsor the Safe Cosmetics Act and strongly encourage you to continue efforts to pass this important legislation.

We Still Haven’t Properly Reckoned With Monsanto’s Destruction

Tom Philpott 3 days ago

Once the lion of U.S. agriculture, Monsanto skulked off the historical stage and into the maw of its longtime rival Bayer, the sprawling German conglomerate, in 2018. The takeover marked a quiet exit for one the 21st century’s most controversial corporations—one that became embroiled in a pay-for-research academic scandal that made the New York Times’ front page, triggered an annual global “March against Monsanto” in the 2010s, and generated two massive sets of lawsuits regarding its blockbuster herbicides, glyphosate and dicamba.

The brand and most of the media frenzy around Monsanto have evaporated, but the products that made the company worth $66 billion at the time of its sale linger. Glyphosate, whether carcinogenic or not—the question remains fiercely debated—turns up in rain and streams near farm fields, in grain-based food products like cereal and pasta, and probably in your body. In 2021, farmer complaints about off-target damage from dicamba raged through farm country for the sixth straight year. Seeds genetically altered by the company’s technicians to withstand those chemicals still proliferate in fields, in three crops (corn, soybeans, and cotton) that collectively cover more than half of U.S. farmland. These commodities form the material basis of our food supply: the feed for meat animals, and the sweeteners, fats, and thickeners that make processed foods so irresistible.

What was Monsanto—how did it claw its way to such a central place in the food system, and what does its continued existence as an appendage of a German multinational corporation mean for our sustenance and the natural resources it relies on?

In his new book, Seed Money: Monsanto’s Past and Our Food Future, Bartow J. Elmore has delivered the definitive historical account of a firm with a momentous history and an afterlife that makes it as relevant as ever. An environmental and business historian at Ohio State University, Elmore wrote Seed Money for a nonacademic audience—in clear, brisk prose, with an eye for the telling anecdote.

The story starts in the early century, when a drug salesman named John Queeny dreamed of launching a U.S. firm that could break the dominance of German giants like (ironically) Bayer in budding field of synthetic organic chemistry, which involved synthesizing old and inventing new compounds with fossil carbon sources like coal and petroleum. Queeny’s startup, named for his wife, Olga Mendez Monsanto, a descendent of European aristocrats, found a lucrative business line selling saccharin and caffeine to Coca-Cola. It soon shifted to industrial chemicals.

The year 1997 marks a pivotal moment in Elmore’s tale. At that point, Monsanto was a conglomerate with legacy industrial-chemicals business lines that had generated billions of dollars in profits over the decades, but were then mired in lawsuits over toxicity claims. The company’s executives cannily decided to bundle the troublesome divisions into a new firm called Solutia, spinning it out as an independent company whose assets included facilities used to make polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, the highly toxic, environmentally persistent industrial chemicals; and Agent Orange, the grizzly defoliant used by the U.S. military at a vast scale—and great profit to Monsanto—during the Vietnam War. Monsanto “saddled the spinoff with $1 billion in debt and major environmental liabilities,” Elmore reports. Then its executives pitched the remnant as a reborn company based on “Food, Faith, Hope”—which became an instant stock market darling.

To the very end, the company and its boosters would cling to the distinction between “old” Monsanto, which ruthlessly profited by synthesizing highly poisonous compounds from fossil resources like coal and petroleum, and the “new” one, a virtuous player that used cutting-edge biotechnology to develop the tools necessary to “feed the world.”

From the start, the line between the two was murky. One old-line asset the firm did not palm off on Solutia was its blockbuster glyphosate herbicide. Developed in 1970 by a Monsanto scientist, glyphosate promised a miracle cure to farmers’ weed problems because it killed pretty much all vegetation with seemingly low toxicity to humans. (It works by jamming up plants’ ability to produce an enzyme necessary for making vital amino acids, the building blocks of protein. That’s a strategy for nourishment that plants share with fungi and bacteria, but not insects, birds, fish, or mammals, all of which simply consume protein.)

Branded “Roundup,” for its ability to clean all the weeds from a field, the chemical hit the market in 1974 and became an instant sensation in farm country. Then and now, Roundup production relies on a division deeply rooted in Monsanto’s past as an industrial chemicals titan: its phosphorus-mining operations, first in Florida and Tennessee, and later in Idaho. In these regions, “millions of years ago, aquatic creatures once roamed inland seas,” Elmore writes. “Now, these phosphorous-rich bones would seed a new chemical industry.” Monsanto had turned these deposits into a blockbuster business line by selling phosphate-laced detergents, which by the 1960s had come under attack for polluting waterways because phosphorus feeds algae blooms. With the creation of Roundup—which relies on phosphate as a key ingredient—Monsanto exited the detergent business and shunted the output of its Idaho mines into the new herbicide.

In the early 1980s, with legal liabilities from its PCB and Agent Orange operations mounting, petroleum prices skyrocketing, and oil firms big-footing their way into the chemical trade, Monsanto execs decided it was time for a change. That’s when the firm made its foray into the emerging field of seed biotechnology, in search of product lines that were “less dependent on raw material costs” and had a “strong proprietary character,” Elmore reports, quoting a company honcho in 1982.

The new division’s great goal was to engineer crops that could withstand Roundup, which would allow farmers to spray the chemical on their fields throughout the growing season. The Roundup Ready line of seeds—developed from genes found in bacteria outside of Monsanto’s Louisiana glyphosate factory—took U.S. farm country by storm starting in the mid-1990s, proliferating in three pervasive crops: corn, soybeans, and cotton. This caused Roundup sales to spike and opened a new, highly profitable revenue stream: premium-priced, patent-protected seeds. The triumph pushed the new Monsanto into the stratosphere, with a dominant position in the seed trade and a thriving herbicide division to boot.

Robert Shapiro, the CEO who guided the company through the Solutia spinoff and into its biotech future, positioned the company as an information technology player, a kind of cornfield Microsoft. He promised to a confab of environmental journalists in 1995 that Roundup Ready tech would enable farmers to reduce herbicide use because Monsanto’s product would sort out their weed problems. “Putting information in the gene of a plant,” he declared, would stifle the cascade of chemicals unleashed by the post–World War II rise of industrial agriculture and lead to a new era of high-tech, low-impact farming.

By 2008, the company had risen to a position of supremacy over U.S. farm fields, its soybean, corn, and cotton traits having gained near-monopoly status and Roundup sales booming. Responding to real and imagined concerns about the triumph of genetically modified crops, as well as mounting evidence that climate change would imperil global food production, Monsanto positioned itself as the corporation with the key to feeding humanity and staving off global hunger. The company issued a press release promising to “double yield in its three core crops of corn, soybeans and cotton by 2030, compared to a base year of 2000,” while also reducing by one-third the amount of water and fertilizer required to grow them.

But as Elmore amply demonstrates, “the ‘new’ Monsanto was not actually all that new.” Its fate remained tethered to the production of a chemical based on fossil resources—mined phosphate—buried deep underground, and on the ability of that chemical to be copiously sprayed across vast swaths of the landscape, with hope it wouldn’t cause harm.

Seed Money documents in devastating detail the consequences of that triumph: the highly predictable (but denied for years by Monsanto) rise of weeds that evolved to resist Roundup, credible suspicions that Roundup is more toxic than the company originally let on, the deluge of older and more toxic herbicides that were deployed in a futile attempt to control those superweeds, and a festering legal dispute over the company’s phosphate mines in Idaho, which have “contaminated soil and groundwater with hazardous chemicals and radioactive constituents,” as the Environmental Protection Agency has found.

As for the 2008 promise that Monsanto’s wonder seeds would double yields while cutting fertilizer and water use by 2030? The company never came close. A 2020 Purdue University assessment found “little to no evidence” that GMO traits have done anything to boost yields since their introduction in the mid-1990s. Indeed, the “new” Monsanto exited the stage in much the same shape as the “old” one: facing billions of dollars of legal liabilities for its products, which are now Bayer’s problem.

Seed Money brims with startling details about this storied company. But here’s the most eye-popping of all: The company that knowingly marketing PCBs, long after evidence mounted of their harms, didn’t really change its stripes when it metamorphosed into an agribusiness titan with ambitions of feeding the world with its products.

The company’s PCB and Agent Orange operations have been shuttered for decades (though the human ravages they caused linger), but its agribusiness operations, including those Roundup-supplying phosphate mines in Idaho, continue as usual, meaning the firm still relies on dirty fossil resources.

And Monsanto knew that its latest troublesome herbicide, a version of dicamba specially formulated for use on its patented soybean and cotton crops, would likely drift off-target, internal documents show. (According to reporting by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting, Monsanto and Bayer insist that “when applied according to the label, dicamba stays on target and is an effective tool for farmers.”) Bayer continues to aggressively market the chemical, even as drift damage continues. And it is now vowing to deliver soybeans engineered to withstand no fewer than five herbicides, including both dicamba and Roundup.

Elmore’s book provides the last word we need on Monsanto’s past. But the story of its impact on U.S. farm fields, and the communities near them, is far from over.

Microsoft and partners may be compensated if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.

petition: Pesticides are meant to help us grow food, but instead they are polluting our farmland and water sources beyond repair

  • by: Care2 Team
  • recipient: The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Chemical pesticides were developed in order to support crop growth, keeping away potentially harmful “pests” from our vital food supply. But we have known for a long time now that pesticides can also be quite harmful to people and animals that ingest them, either directly on food or through polluted water and soil sources. These chemicals are made to be toxic, and unfortunately it’s impossible to pick and choose who they hurt. The extent of this possible harm has been hard to quantify. Until now. 

A shocking new study just revealed that 64% of the entire world’s farmland is at risk of pollution from pesticides. 

Sign the petition asking the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to create a task force in charge of transitioning global agricultural practices away from pesticides!

Pesticides can have devastating effects on us humans. Short term, they can cause irritations like rashes, blisters, digestive issues, and can exacerbate existing conditions like asthma. Long term, pesticides have been linked to cancer, brain damage, reproductive issues including birth defects and infertility, and a whole host of other complications. 

Our exposure to pesticides doesn’t just come from the crops that are treated with the chemicals, either — they are swept into water sources with runoff and leach into soil. Their harm echoes and ripples far beyond crops, into entire ecosystems and communities. Over one-third of the areas at risk for pesticide pollution are “high-biodiversity regions,” meaning the areas richest with animal and plant life are some of the most likely to be poisoned. On top of that, almost one-fifth of these potentially poisoned areas are in lower-income nations that  already struggle with food and water scarcity as well as crises of public health.

92 different chemicals used in pesticides across the world are threatening our soil, air, and water sources — and pesticide use is only slated to increase, as global warming creates a perfect environment for rising insect populations. We have created a system of agriculture where we cannot sustainably grow the amount of food we need without poisoning the land and water we grow it with!

That’s why we need world leaders to start developing more sustainable systems of agriculture that aren’t completely and utterly dependent on chemical pesticides. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) literally wrote the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, which was last updated in 2013. Taking into account this new study, the FAO must develop a task force in charge of creating innovative, safe, and lasting solutions to what could quickly become a crisis of food scarcity, loss of biodiversity, and public health. 

– Denis Gabor Start Petition Care2

Copyright © 2021, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved Terms of ServiceDo Not Sell My InfoPrivacy Policy site feedback

Demand That the EPA Ban Notorious Bird Poison Avitrol—Act Before January 4

Avitrol is a bird poison that targets and impairs victims’ nervous systems, causing disorientation, convulsions, and a slow, painful death.

Avitrol is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Currently, the EPA is reviewing Avitrol’s registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act as part of a process that occurs only every 15 years or so. If the agency decides not to renew Avitrol’s registration, “pest”-control operators will no longer legally be able to use this hideous poison!

The EPA is accepting public comment regarding Avitrol until Monday, January 4, and your voice is urgently needed. Please follow these instructions carefully to submit a comment.

  1. Visit the comment page and be sure to begin your comment with this text: “This comment pertains to 4-aminopyridine (4-AP), Case 0015, in Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0030, also known as Avitrol.”
  2. Make sure the rest of your comment is personalized. The reviewers give less consideration to comments that appear to be copied and pasted from another source. You can draw ideas from our bullet points below, but be sure to use your own words, and feel free to do some additional research into the topic!
  3. Click “Continue” to submit your comment.

Below are some talking points to consider for your personalized comment:

  • “Pest”-control companies often tell potential customers that Avitrol is a humane flock-dispersing agent that scares birds away from areas where they aren’t wanted. But Avitrol is acutely toxic and causes birds and other animals to suffer immensely.
  • “Nontarget” species, such as protected songbirds, often die from ingesting Avitrol, and predators such as raptors, foxes, hawks, cats, and dogs die from secondary poisoning after feeding on the dead or dying birds.
  • Wildlife pathologists have demonstrated repeatedly that protected and endangered birds, including red-tailed hawks and peregrine falcons, die as a result of ingesting the remains of pigeons and other birds poisoned with Avitrol. For these reasons, several cities have banned its use.
  • Poisoning birds does not resolve perceived problems with them. As long as areas remain attractive or accessible to birds, more will simply move in from surrounding areas to fill the newly vacant niches. However, the Avitrol Corporation, nuisance wildlife control operators, and “pest”-control companies refuse to reveal this fact to potential customers because the only thing that the use of poison guarantees is repeat business.

Once you’ve submitted your comment, please share this alert with all of your contacts. Thank you for taking action to protect birds and other animals imperiled by Avitrol!

We demand an open investigation into the environmental catastrophe in Kamchatka

Екатерина Дворянинова started this petition to Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and 2 others

On September 29th, the first messages appeared on the Internet, drawing people’s attention to the state of the Khalaktyrsky Beach (Kamchatka Krai). Witnesses stated that the shore was covered with dead animals’ bodies. In addition, surfers complained about vision problems, symptoms of poisoning, and fever after contact with water. In a number of cases, after visiting a doctor, people were diagnosed with ocular chemical injuries. 

On September 30th, the Acting Minister of Natural Resources and Ecology of Kamchatka Krai reported, based on results of water sampling and quality assessments, that «… in one of the samples an excess of almost 4 times was found for oil products, in two samples – an excess of 2 times for phenols. During the extraction of samples, the glass of the chemical glassware was covered with an oily substance of a bright yellow color, which, may indicate the presence of a pollutant that is similar in properties to industrial oil

On October 1st, Kamchatka Interdistrict Environmental Prosecutor’s Office initiated investigation of the information spreading on media concerning pollution of ocean water in the area of ​​Khalaktyrsky beach.

On October 2nd, the updated data of the chemical analysis of water samples confirmed an increase of approximately 2.5 times for phenols and 3.6 times for oil products.

On October 3rd, Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of Kamchatka Krai posted on Instagram the following statement: «The color of the water is normal, the smell of the air is normal, the beach is completely clean», which contradicts the testimony of divers claiming thousands of dead animals.

The fact that this pollution has been continuing for more than two weeks, despite the past two storms, may indicate that this is a leakage and not a one-time release of substance. Mass mortality of animals suggests that it can be an effect of a potent toxin.

Dead ringed seals, giant octopuses thrown out of the water were found on the shore, along with perished fish, mollusks, and sea urchins underwater. If the leakage does not stop, more animals of various species, from numerous invertebrates to large mammals such as killer whales, whose migratory routes pass close to the contaminated waters, could be affected.

Despite ongoing water quality assessments, the source and cause of the leakage remain unknown. Until it is detected and eliminated, the situation may worsen, and the destruction of the Kamchatka ecosystem will continue. In addition, with further development, the tragedy may spread to the water areas of the adjacent regions and/or the open sea, which lay beyond the territorial borders of Russian Federation. 

We demand the measures to be taken to identify and eliminate the causes of the accident!

Info and Archive – Toxic Taters Coalition



Pesticide drift happens when pesticides move through the air from the intended application site to places they shouldn’t be – homes, schools, neighboring farms, playgrounds, bee yards, etc.


Short-term impacts: headaches and nausea to chronic impacts like cancer, reproductive harm, and endocrine disruption.  

Acute dangers: such as nerve, skin, and eye irritation and damage, headaches, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, and systemic poisoning – can sometimes be dramatic, and even fatal.  


Pesticide drift can cause economic, environmental, and human health damage. Farmers are frequently unable to sell crops that have been damaged by drift, especially if the crops were certified organic. Livestock can become ill, and sometimes die, when exposed to drifting pesticides. People can experience short term health issues such as burning skin, vomiting, headache, dizziness, and difficulty breathing, and long term conditions including asthma, fatigue, depression, infertility, miscarriage, birth defects, some forms of cancer, increased chemical sensitivity, and neurological impairments. 


  1. REPORT IT IMMEDIATELY!!! We know it’s tough to deal with government bureaucracy sometimes, but reporting it will help us all by keeping track of the number of drift incidents in the state. Hopefully, it will also help you find a resolution to the problem you’re facing. Remember Toxic Taters is here to help. In Minnesota, reports should first be reported to the MN Poison Control System anytime by calling 1(800)222-1222 or online at  You can fill out a complaint online through the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) at or call the Minnesota Department of Agriculture; Reports can be made by telephone at 651-201- 6333 (8AM-4PM).  After hours, contact the Minnesota Duty Officer at 1-800-422-0798.  On the White Earth Indian Reservation call the Pesticide Coordinator at 218-935-2488 ext. 2115. 
  2. Call a doctor immediately and report exposure. Ask to have your report put in your medical file. Ask what symptoms you should watch for and what medical remedies are available.
  3. If people were exposed to drift, put any clothing worn at the time of exposure into an airtight plastic bag and put the bag in the freezer. Provide this bag to the investigator.
  4. Document everything in writing. Include dates, times, and as much detail as you are able as soon as possible.
  5. For drift incidents in Minnesota, call Toxic Taters at 218-375-2600 for additional information and support.
  6. For drift incidents in Minnesota, call EPA Region 5 to report the incident 312-353-2000 or 1-800-621-8431


If you or your family experience pesticide drift, keep a record of everything you notice during and after the incident.

  1. Date, time and details of the incident, including weather (wind direction and speed/strength, precipitation at the time of drift and between drift incident and sampling, and temperature) and any odors in the air (like sweet, sulfur, skunk, other).
  2. Affected crops and other land — include photos
  3. Pesticide applicator name, contact information, prior notification, spray plane description, and FAA registration number
  4. Owner of the land intentionally sprayed and types of crops sprayed
  5. Who was affected; how they were exposed; symptoms; medical attention sought
  6. Chemical compounds involved, if known
  7. Organic certifier test results and notification information (if you are an organic grower)
  8. MN Department of Agriculture Investigation: dates, times, samples, test results, orders, investigation case file (after release)
  9. White Earth Natural Resources Investigation: dates, times, samples, test results, orders, investigation case file (after release)
  10. Potentially provable damages (value of crop ordered destroyed, documented loss of sales, loss of organic certification, response costs)
  11. All documents and correspondence, including email, related to the drift incident

*Note: Different records are needed to document health impacts, damage to conventional and organic crops. When in doubt, keep all your records and communications. 

Toxic Taters Brochure (PDF)


  • This tool is designed primarily to help healthcare providers recognize, manage and report pesticide-related illnesses. It can help identify a pesticide or class of pesticides that may be responsible for a pesticide-related illness. This resource also provides information for reporting a known or suspected pesticide poisoning. Find out more about data sources and search methodology.

Pesticide residues found in potatoes link

***All information can be found Pesticide Action Network’s website here***

1. Tests for any given food are often conducted in multiple years. In all cases WhatsOnMyFood shows only the most recent test year. The test results for Potatoes come from test year 2009.

2. All pesticide residue results on this page and elsewhere on the WhatsOnMyFood website were obtained by the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP)

3. Punzi, JS, Lamont, M, Haynes, D, Epstein, RL, USDA Pesticide Data Program: Pesticide Residues on Fresh and Processed Fruit and Vegetables, Grains, Meats, Milk, and Drinking Water, Outlooks on Pesticide Management, June, 2005. Available online

4. All toxicological data was either compiled for this site — typically from U.S. EPA reregistration eligibility decisions — or obtained from data compiled for the PesticideInfo website

5. Includes pesticides that are moderately acutely toxic, highly acutely toxic or chronically toxic to honeybees.

6. The percentage found is for all four of the following combinations combined: domestic or imported, and conventional or organic. To see data broken down into each of these combinations separately, click on “Conventional vs. Organic.”

7. A pesticide residue may not be listed as carcinogenic, neurotoxic, hormone-disrupting or as a reproductive or developmental toxicant for either of two reasons: (1) it may have been studied for toxicity in one or more of these categories and the weight of the evidence did not support designating it as toxic, or (2) it may not have been studied.LEARN MORE!*|END:WEB_VIDEO|* “Farm to Family Pesticide Free: Addressing McDonald’s Impacts on Our Families 2016” Webinar.*|END:WEB_VIDEO|*


Toxic Taters has been working since early 2015 to protect Hubbard, Becker, Wadena, and Cass counties from an RDO expansion that has been threatening thousands of acres of the pines with conversion into potato fields.  

In February of 2015 RDO was seeking 54 new well permits in the Pineland Sands Aquifer.  Thanks to citizen pressure one year later only one well has been approved and two additional permits are in process.

As of February 13th, 2016 we haven’t gotten the DNR to require that RDO do an environmental assessment, but we’ve effectively paused the expansion.  

Now, we are calling on RDO’s major buyer, McDonald’s to show their commitment against deforestation by telling RDO forests are worth more than fries.  

We will continue to work to protect the water, land, forests, and communities of the Pinelands Sands Aquifer from RDO Expansion.  

You can see our petition for an environmental assessment and the DNR’s decision by clicking on the links below.

Citizens EAW Petition

DNR EAW Decision 


The following position statement regarding GMO’s was adopted by the Toxic Taters Leadership Team on 9-28-15.

Toxic Taters does not support GMOs.  Research has linked GMOs with increased pesticide use. We recognize the increased use of pesticides along with other attributes of genetically modified organisms to harm the environment and human health, as well as cause negative impacts on the livelihoods of non-GMO and organic farmers.  We believe that the well-being of the earth and its inhabitants for generations to come must be prioritized over corporate profits.  This does not occur with GMOs and therefore we cannot support their use.

Report abuse Created with

Petition: Bayer’s fighting for the right to kill more bees

286,355 signatures

13,645 signatures until 300k

UPDATE, 06/2020: The end is in sight — we’ve only got a few months to go before the European Court of Justice presents its judgement on Bayer’s neonic ban appeal. This decision could uphold or crush the full ban on bee-killing neonic pesticides we worked so hard to pass, so it’s crucial that bee lovers from across Europe and beyond get to have their say.

Bayer’s own head of sustainability said he’d “accept the judgement of a society” on neonics. Add your name now to tell him and all of Bayer’s bosses you’re on the bees’ side!

Bayer’s just announced it’s trying to overturn a historic ban on bee-killing pesticides in court.

If it wins, it’ll be game over for the bees.

Hundreds of thousands of SumOfUs members just helped win a landmark EU-wide ban on toxic neonics. We can’t sit back and let the pesticide industry destroy all that we’ve achieved for the bees.

Bees are vital to our food supply — providing one of every three bites of food we eat. But bees and other pollinators are declining at catastrophic rates and neonic pesticides are a key culprit. That’s why maintaining the EU’s ban on neonics is so important.

In May this year, the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of a partial ban on three neonics — and we hoped the case was finally settled for the bees.

But now, Bayer announced it wants to drag the EU back into court again and appeal. If it wins, it would wreck the recent almost complete ban too!

But people power is Bayer’s biggest threat.

Thousands of SumOfUs members have already chipped in to send the Bee Defender Alliance — a small group of independent scientists and beekeepers — and their kick-ass lawyers back into the European Court of Justice to take on Bayer. A huge petition will show Bayer, decision makers, and the media that people across Europe still support the bees — and we won’t back down until Bayer stops its bullying tactics.

Sign Petition: Ban the Use of Asbestos in Cosmetics!

by: Care2 Team recipient: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Update: Yet another U.S. cosmetics manufacturer, Beauty Plus Global (BPG), has had to recall its products bcause they were contaminated with toxic asbestos. In fact, this is actually the second time in five months that BPG has had to recall its products due to lethal contaminants. It’s time the U.S. FDA gets its act together, takes health seriously, and ban the use of asbestos in cosmetics now! Recently, jewelry and makeup retailer Claire’s Accessories recalled several cosmetic products after a customer raised concerns that they may contain asbestos. Thankfully, Claire’s Accessories was committed to taking the allegations seriously and having an independent lab test the products for asbestos, but how would asbestos get into the cosmetics in the first place? Well, it turns out that, despite its many known health risks, asbestos is not banned from use in cosmetic products. Please sign this petition to change that now. While it is against the law to use any ingredient in a cosmetic that makes the product harmful to consumers when used as directed, asbestos is not specifically included in the list of ingredients prohibited from use in cosmetics. But it absolutely should be. Once asbestos fibers enter the body, they never dissolve and can cause inflammation and permanent changes to the body’s cells. Prolonged exposure to asbestos can cause life-threatening diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), lung cancer, and mesothelioma. The U.S. is far behind when it comes to restricting the use of harmful chemicals in personal care products. Whereas the E.U. has banned 1,400 chemicals and Canada has banned 600, the U.S. has banned just 30 harmful chemicals. We need to catch up.

Kitten saved by PDSA after eating toxic pollen – Katzenworld
Kitten saved by PDSA after eating toxic pollen – Katzenworld

Lucky Luna nearly loses life after lily lark

Luna, a Ragamuffin kitten, was just four months old when her owner, Emily Pryce (29), received a bouquet of flowers for her birthday. The flowers included lilies and Emily had placed these on a table, thinking they would be out of harm’s way.

However, Emily came home for lunch one day to find Luna with pollen all around her mouth. She knew lilies could be dangerous to cats, so contacted her local vet. They advised Luna would probably need urgent treatment, but an overnight stay and all the treatment could cost around a thousand pounds.

Emily said: “I checked our insurance paperwork only to find out that it had run out the day before! Although I work, I couldn’t afford to pay that much up front.

“But I knew I had to get Luna the help she needed though, so I rang PDSA. They advised that I was eligible for their new reduced-cost service. They told me to bring her straight in, and it was such a relief to know that she would get the treatment she needed.”

Luna was examined by the vet team at PDSA and blood tests confirmed that she had eaten enough of the pollen to cause potential kidney failure, so needed urgent treatment.

She stayed at PDSA for two nights, receiving round-the-clock care to help her recover. Her confident and friendly nature meant she quickly became a firm favourite with the team, and her care plan included plenty of cuddles as well!

Thankfully, with intensive support to remove the toxins from her system, Luna remained stable and was able to go home a few days later. But not all cases have a happy ending like hers.

Veterinary Care Assistant, Jemma Hughes, said: “Lilies have become quite popular in Easter bouquets, but all parts of the plant, including the flower and leaves are toxic to cats. The biggest danger is if a cat gets some of the pollen on their fur, then grooms themselves, as ingesting even a small amount can be fatal.”

PDSA is advising people not to give lilies to anyone with cats, and for owners to be aware of the dangers.

Jemma continued: “All members of the lily family [Lilium] are toxic to cats, and a number of other plants can also pose a danger to pets, including peace lilies [Spathiphyllum], daffodils, Lily-of-the-Valley [Convallaria], Laburnum, Azalea and Cherry Laurel. If you think your pet may have eaten something they shouldn’t, call your vet immediately for advice. The quicker they get treatment the more likely it is they will survive.”

Continue reading here.

Petition:Sentient creatures demand a Ban on 1080

2 minutes

Please meet Rex Betty, and Kenya.

On 11 April 2014, Rex died a painful death after eating a Sodium Monofluoroacetate (1080) poisoned bait, in his suburban backyard in Collie, Western Australia. Rex’s death was drawn out and was observed by his owners who were unable to help him. Betty and Kenya both met the same cruel fate. Tests were undertaken on the baits found in Rex’s backyard and they were 1080 dry baits. Thousands of domestic pets die each year from 1080 poison, many go unreported because it is so distressing for the owners to observe. Domestic Pets regularly die across Wildlife suffer the same cruel and unnecessary fate, many of which are endangered species. So called “target specific” baiting is a myth. Baits can be carried for up to 2K and wildlife feed from poisoned carcass.

1080 is a poison with no known antidote. It kills all breathing creatures slowly and cruelly and has the capacity to kill humans. In humans, symptoms include pains in the chest, nausea, vomiting, respiratory distress and frothing of the mouth, coma. 1080 does not discriminate. Made in USA and banned in most countries it is still used in epidemic proportions across Australia.

1080 is a potential risk to human health, it should be banned from any use.

Glyphosate Could Be Factor in Bee Decline, Study Warns

Olivia Rosane

Another study has cast doubt on the environmental safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, the most frequently used weedkiller in the world.

Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) exposed bees to glyphosate and found that it reduced the beneficial bacteria in their guts, making them more susceptible to disease.

“We need better guidelines for glyphosate use, especially regarding bee exposure, because right now the guidelines assume bees are not harmed by the herbicide,” UT graduate student and research leader Erick Motta said in a UT press release. “Our study shows that’s not true.”

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Monday, exposed bees to glyphosate amounts that occur on crops and roadsides and then assessed their gut health three days later.

Of eight common gut bacteria, four were reduced following exposure to glyphosate. The exposed bees also had higher mortality rates when subsequently exposed to the widespread pathogen Serratia marcescens.

The study’s authors wondered if glyphosate exposure could be a factor in the decline in U.S. bee populations and recommend that farmers and gardeners stop using glyphosate on flowering plants favored by pollinators.

“It’s not the only thing causing all these bee deaths, but it is definitely something people should worry about because glyphosate is used everywhere,” Motta said.

Monsanto, the company that made Roundup before being acquired by Bayer AG, disputed the findings.

“Claims that glyphosate has a negative impact on honey bees are simply not true. No large-scale study has found any link between glyphosate and the decline of the honeybee population. More than 40 years of robust, independent scientific evidence shows that it poses no unreasonable risk for humans, animal, and the environment generally,” a Monsanto spokesperson said in a statement reported by The Guardian.

RMIT University in Melbourne chemist Oliver Jones also expressed skepticism that the study meant glyphosate was actively harming bees in the environment.

“To my mind the doses of glyphosate used were rather high. The paper shows only that glyphosate can potentially interfere with the bacteria in the bee gut, not that it actually does so in the environment,” he told The Guardian.

Other studies have shown that glyphosate can harm bees and other animals, however.

A study published in July found glyphosate exposure harmed bee larvae and another, published in 2015, found bees exposed to levels present in fields had impaired cognitive abilities that made it harder for them to return to their hives, The Guardian reported.

A further study of rats also showed glyphosate exposure harmed gut bacteria.

“This study is also further evidence that the landscape-scale application of large quantities of pesticides has negative consequences that are often hard to predict,” University of Sussex Professor Dave Goulson told The Guardian.

Glyphosate’s impact on human health has been in the news in recent months after a jury decided in favor of a California groundskeeper who claimed that Roundup exposure caused his cancer and ordered Monsanto to pay him $289 million in damages.

Glyphosate is making its way into human guts too. A recent study found Roundup traces in popular oat-based snacks and cereals.

Petition · Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Costco: Remove Roundup From Your Shelves! ·

Dear Craig Menear, Chairman and CEO of Home Depot; Marvin Ellison, President and CEO Lowe’s; and Walter Craig Jelinek, CEO Costco:

As the leaders of the most successful retail outlets in the US and around the world, we, your customers, request that you protect us and our communities by removing Roundup products from your shelves.

The California EPA Prop 65 Carcinogen List mandated that all products in California containing the chemical glyphosate, a key ingredient in Roundup, must carry a WARNING label, identifying them as cancer and reproductive harm-causing products, by Saturday, July 7, 2018. Monsanto sued and has temporarily stopped this 30-year practice of labeling. Yet, the judge in that case agreed to keep glyphosate on the Prop 65 List, acknowledging that glyphosate is a carcinogen, but not requiring a warning label. Thus, glyphosate, carries no warning label today. Unacceptable!

We think everyone deserves to know! These products should not be sold to the public!

We call on Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Costco today to protect us, your customers, and stop selling Roundup (and all glyphosate herbicides) now, due to its carcinogenic effects and lack of labeling.

Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, a 46-year-old grounds keeper for the Benicia, CA Unified School District, and father of three young boys, is currently in court in San Francisco putting Monsanto on trial for causing his Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer because the glyphosate products he used at work carried no cancer warning label.

By the end of the year, over 10,000 people are also expected to sue Monsanto for the same kinds of exposures that Lee Johnson experienced using glyphosate-based products. There are many safe, non-toxic alternatives on the market today. There is no need to sell a known carcinogen.

The customer care representatives that we have spoken with at your stores have taken our calls very seriously. We hope you do, too. Will you remove Roundup from your shelves?

Thank you!


Moms Across America and USA Consumers


Craig Menear, Chairman and CEO of Home Depot 800-466-3337 press 7, 5 (customer care) Email Twitter: @HomeDepot

Marvin Ellison, President and CEO of Lowe’s 704-758-1000 (press 3) Email Twitter: @Lowes

Walter Craig Jelinek, CEO, Costco Tel: 800-774-2678 (and Press 6) or 425-313-8163 (425) 313-8100 Twitter: @CostcoTweets Email:

Petition · Get harmful chemicals out of sunscreen ·

Get harmful chemicals out of sunscreen
Arabella Hubbauer started this petition to Coppertone and 1 other

Summer means the beach, roofdecks, backyard barbecues and for many, being outside as much as humanly possible. It also means sunscreen! But what if the chemicals in sunscreen products were potentially harmful — not just to humans, but also do precious wildlife and coral reefs in the ocean?

You might not know the name Oxybenzone, but it’s a common chemical in many brand name sunscreens. But in many places around the globe — most recently Hawaii — lawmakers have been working to ban sunscreens with the chemical because of its potentially harmful side effects to human health (including possible effects on the endocrine system), and devastating impact on coral reefs and ocean life.

Coppertone and its parent company, Bayer, have a real moment to be industry leaders and remove Oxybenzone from products. Tell the makers of Coppertone to get potentially harmful chemicals out of sunscreen.

The Environmental Working Group has long considered Oxybenzone toxic, and regularly warns that using sunscreen with this chemical is problematic for health and for the environment. There are also countless sunscreens that don’t use this chemical — some even produced by Bayer! — that allow for people to continue to use sunscreen while also not dousing themselves with a chemical that could cause serious side effects, as well as bleach coral reefs that are already under terrible duress.

As one scientist who co-authored a study on coral reefs and the impact of sunscreen on them stated, “any small effort to reduce oxybenzone pollution could mean that a coral reef survives a long, hot summer, or that a degraded area recovers.”

With so many potential Oxybenzone-free sunscreens available, let’s make it the industry standard that the sunscreens we’re putting on our body remove this chemical that could harm human beings, and looks like it’s harming precious coral reefs.

138,106 have signed. Let’s get to 150,000!

Get harmful chemicals…


© 2018,, Inc.Certified B Corporation

Thirteen bald eagles were found dead in a field. This is what killed them.
Thirteen bald eagles were found dead on Maryland’s Eastern Shore in February of 2016. A new report shows the birds were poisoned. (WUSA 9)

The 13 bald eagles were found lifeless on a Maryland farm more than two years ago, many with wings splayed, bodies intact, and talons clenched. Several were too young to have their species’ distinctive white heads. And at least six, according to a federal lab report, had ingested a highly toxic pesticide that essentially has been banned from the U.S. market, in part because it is lethal to birds.

The 2016 report, obtained by the Annapolis radio station WNAV and shared with The Washington Post, answers one big question in a mysterious wildlife crime that angered conservation organizations and stumped U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service investigators, who were involved because the bald eagle is a federally protected species. Tests showed that the birds were poisoned, as officials suspected. What remains unsolved is who did it.

“There was no smoking gun,” said John LaCorte, a special agent for the Fish and Wildlife Service who spent six months interviewing more than a dozen landowners and property managers in the Eastern Shore area where the eagles died. “It’s very frustrating.”

The chemical that killed the birds, carbofuran, came under scrutiny three decades ago for killing what the Environmental Protection Agency estimated were as many as 2 million birds a year, threatening the bald eagle’s then-fragile road to recovery. The granular form, which a Fish and Wildlife official in 1987 told The Post was the primary cause of death for bald eagles in the Chesapeake Bay region, was banned in the mid-1990s. The EPA disallowed the use of liquid carbofuran on food crops in 2009, saying the residue posed an unacceptable safety risk. Environmental groups hailed the decision as a victory for human health and for wildlife.

Today, the pesticide is off the market and the bald eagle is no longer endangered, though it is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. But carbofuran still occasionally kills birds and other wildlife in the United States. Sometimes those deaths are intentional, and sometimes they are collateral damage after an animal scavenges a poisoned carcass.

In November, a Montana farmer was fined $1,000 for the killing of a bald eagle that fed on a calf carcass he had injected with carbofuran in a bid to kill coyotes; it also killed three coyotes and a hawk. Last June, a Pennsylvania man was fined $3,500 after sending Furadan, the brand name carbofuran was previously sold under, to workers at his New York farm and instructing them to pour it on sheep carcasses to kill hawks that had preyed on his lambs. It killed two red-tailed hawks, a rough-legged hawk and two bald eagles. A Wisconsin father and son were each ordered to pay more than $100,000 in 2014 after killing more than 70 wild animals, including bald eagles, as they targeted wolves and coyotes with carbofuran.

Photographs displayed last month at a news conference in Sacramento show the harm done to wildlife by the use of a banned pesticide at illegal marijuana grow sites hidden on public land. (Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

California authorities recently raised alarm about the widespread use of carbofuran at illegal marijuana grow sites. Mourad Gabriel, a wildlife biologist who has documented that trend, said in an interview that the chemical is usually found in Spanish-labeled bottles, suggesting illegal importation.

“They’re not using it as a pesticide. . . . They’re using it as a rodenticide to kill the animals that will come and eat the plants,” U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott told reporters in Sacramento in May. “This is a game-changer, because it’s a lethal poison.”

Carbofuran is an acute toxin, which means it can kill after a single exposure or an exposure of a short duration. And it doesn’t take much. Farmers in Africa have used it to kill lions that eat livestock.

Karyn L. Bischoff, a toxicologist at Cornell University’s Animal Health Diagnostic Center, recently examined a dog that had been fatally poisoned by carbofuran in the Caribbean. “It’s a pretty ugly way to die,” said Bischoff, whose lab sees carbofuran poisoning cases every year or two. The chemical can cause diarrhea, vomiting, seizures and excessive salivation, she said. It can also cause glands in the lungs to secrete fluids, causing animals to “drown in their own fluids.”

Robert Edgell, 89, owns the property of more than 100 acres outside Federalsburg, Md., where the eagles were discovered in February 2016. He had just gotten out of his truck when he stumbled upon the first carcass, which he described this week as a “young, immature eagle.” Walking on, he found two more dead eagles and then, nearby, a fourth standing upright with its tail feathers seemingly stuck in the ground. It looked as though it had been stuffed, he said.

Others were discovered in the same area by a man Edgell said he had allowed to look for deer antlers on the property. Federal officials who came to investigate collected them all — 13 total — as well as a partial raccoon carcass and fur found nearby. Killing just one bald eagle is punishable by up to two years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

“I was dumbfounded,” said Edgell, a retired state trooper whose farm has been in his family since 1910. “Usually you see one or two soaring over the place, but to see 13 in that area and all deceased. . . . In all my years, I’d not seen anything like this.”

Six of the bald eagles were sent to the Fish and Wildlife Service Forensics Laboratory in Oregon, which determined that all had carbofuran in their stomachs or in their crops, or both. All had consumed a “recent meal,” states the report, which was obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by WNAV reporter Donna L. Cole. Five of the six had eaten raccoon, and some had eaten deer or chicken; the sixth had dined on marsh rice rat, but the report notes that any of the birds could have vomited other stomach contents.

The lab also examined the raccoon carcass and fur. It could not determine a cause of death, but carbofuran was detected on both samples. LaCorte said investigators believe the birds fed on the carcass of the raccoon, which may have been the target, and then perished.

“Bald eagles don’t normally predate on raccoons,” Gabriel said, because the latter are primarily nocturnal and eagles do most of their hunting during the day. “The raccoons probably succumbed to the carbofuran and they were out there decomposing and the bald eagles capitalized on the tainted meat.”

Although carbofuran can no longer be purchased, there is probably plenty of it still out there, Bischoff said.

“A lot of people have an old shed somewhere that’s got all this stuff in it that has been sitting there for 40 years,” Bischoff said. “They may or may not know it’s there.”

Edgell, who grows soybeans and wheat on about 70 acres of his property, said he appeared before a grand jury in U.S. District Court in Baltimore, where he was questioned about the eagle deaths. Fish and Wildlife investigators also questioned him and his farm managers, including about chemicals used on the farm. Edgell said this week that neither he nor his employees had ever used carbofuran.

LaCorte said he believes Edgell did not use the chemical on his property. It’s possible, he said, that one eagle picked up the raccoon carcass elsewhere and then carried it to Edgell’s property, where other eagles also consumed it.

But even if eagles weren’t the targets, someone illegally used the carbofuran, and in doing so added a particularly egregious case to what LaCorte called an “epidemic on the Eastern Shore” of wildlife-poisoning crimes. A 2016 case in which five bald eagles were poisoned in Delaware remains under investigation, officials said.

“It’s every year where we get a couple of poisonings,” LaCorte said. Poisoning a nuisance animal or predator, rather than trapping it or building a fence, is “the cheaper and easier way out,” he said. The cases are hard to solve, LaCorte said, because there are usually few to no witnesses — or none willing to talk. “If anyone wants to see things get done about this, they need to be courageous and come forward,” he said.

Edgell said the eagles’ deaths disturbed his friends, and he assured them he was upset, too.

“It was certainly nothing done on the farm that killed them. It’s something else,” he said. “I love to see eagles flying. They’re a beautiful bird.”

Read more:

Mystery remains in case of 13 dead bald eagles on Maryland’s Eastern Shore

How officials will try to figure out what killed 13 bald eagles on a Maryland farm

People love watching nature on nest cams — until it gets grisly

Nest cam live-streams bald-eagle parents feeding a cat to their eaglets

Petition · Senator Derryn Hinch: Ban 1080 ·

Ban 1080
Coalition of Australians Against 1080 Poison started this petition to Senator Derryn Hinch

1080 poison is a slow killer. When ingested (usually through baited food) the animal suffers a prolonged and horrific death. Herbivores take the longest to die – up to 44hrs, while carnivores can take up to 21hrs before finally succumbing to final effects of the poison. The speed of death is dependent on the rate of the animal’s metabolism.

My name is Paul Anderson and I am trying to spread awareness about this horrifically cruel poison in memory of so many dogs I have lost to the gruesomely horrific death that 1080 causes. Here is my beautiful Ben before and after 1080 got him. His death and those of my other dogs will haunt me until the day I die.

I have lost a large number of dogs and puppies over the years to slow and terrible deaths because of 1080 poison. I live nowhere near a vet and had no way of putting my dogs out of their misery which lasted for hours and hours. The only thing I could do was film them to show the world the agonising pain that death by 1080 causes. Even if I had been near a vet there is no antidote to 1080 poisoning.

My dogs were effectively tortured to death. As veterinarian Ralph Howard says, “1080 poison – it is like being electrocuted for 2 plus days”.

1080 (Sodium monofluoroacetate) is a cruel and indiscriminate poison used to ‘remove’ unwanted populations of animals. Banned in most countries, 1080 is still used liberally throughout Australia to control so-called ‘pest’ species.

Help me stop this indiscriminate killer of companion and native animals. Please sign this petition to get 1080 banned in Australia.

Dear supporters, Without your time, effort, and compassion, we would not be where we are today. With less than one…
Coalition of Australians Against 1080 Poison
1080 is banned in many countries, cruel toxic and non selective it kills many animals native and domestic it must be banned.

© 2018,, Inc.Certified B Corporation

Pesticide-Laden Produce List 2018 – Chemical Free Life
Pesticide-Laden Produce List 2018 – Chemical Free Life
Published by
2-3 minutes

The 2018 version of the Dirty Dozen List is out and not surprisingly at least twelve varieties of conventional (non-organic) produce tested high in contamination from synthetic pesticides. “In fact, nearly 70% of conventionally grown — non-organic — produce samples were contaminated, the tests indicated.”

A single sample of strawberries showed 20 pesticides, the report indicated. More than 98% of strawberries, spinach, peaches, nectarines, cherries and apples tested positive for at least one pesticide residue. And, on average, spinach samples had 1.8 times as much pesticide residue by weight than any other crop.

This year, the Dirty Dozen list is actually a “baker’s dozen” and includes a 13th suspect: hot peppers. These were found to be contaminated with insecticides toxic to the human nervous system, according to the report authors. Anyone who frequently eats hot peppers should buy organic…

Should you be concerned about synthetic pesticides on your produce?

Research “suggests that pesticides may induce chronic health complications. In children, pesticide exposure may trigger neurodevelopmental or behavioral problems, birth defects, asthma, and cancer,” noted the authors of a 2012 American Academy of Pediatricians report quoted by the Environmental Working Group.


If you are able to choose organic versions of the produce testing high for synthetic pesticides, that is the best solution. If not, then be sure to wash the produce well under running water before eating it. And to really remove the pesticides, give your produce a pre-soak in some water with baking soda. According to the results of a recent study we posted on this blog not long ago, soaking produce in a solution of baking soda and water is a more effective way to rid fruits and veggies of pesticides.

Tell The EPA: Ban Bee-Killing Pesticides

The science is clear : Neonicotinoid pesticides are harmful to birds and aquatic life, and deadly to bees.

Analysis: 60 Million Acres of Monarch Habitat to Be Doused With Toxic Weed Killer | Global Justice Ecology Project

Posted on March 2, 2018 by GJEP staff

PORTLAND, Ore.— Within the next two years, more than 60 million acres of monarch habitat will be sprayed with a pesticide that’s extremely harmful to milkweed, the only food for monarch caterpillars, according to a new analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity.

Monarch populations have already fallen by 80 percent in the past two decades due to escalating pesticide use and other human activities. Now the Center’s report A Menace to Monarchs shows that the butterfly faces a dangerous new threat from accelerating use of the notoriously drift-prone and highly toxic weed killer dicamba across an area larger than the state of Minnesota.

“America’s monarchs are already in serious trouble, and this will push them into absolute crisis,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center. “It’s appalling that the EPA approved this spraying without bothering to consider the permanent damage it will do to these butterflies and their migration routes.”

Today’s report found that by 2019, use of dicamba will increase by nearly 100-fold on cotton and soybean fields within the monarch’s migratory habitat across the heart of the United States.

Other key findings include:

Accelerating harm: In addition to 61 million acres of monarch habitat being directly sprayed with dicamba, an additional 9 million acres could be harmed by drift of the pesticide.
Deadly timing: The timing and geographical distribution of dicamba use coincides precisely with the presence of monarch eggs and larva on milkweed.
Double trouble: Dicamba degrades monarch habitat both by harming flowering of plants that provide nectar for adults as they travel south for the winter and by harming milkweed that provides an essential resource for reproduction.
Greater menace to milkweed: Research has shown that just 1 percent of the minimum dicamba application rate is sufficient to reduce the size of milkweed by 50 percent, indicating it may have a greater impact on milkweed growth than the already widely used pesticide glyphosate.

The Environmental Protection Agency in 2016 approved new dicamba products for use on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans. In 2017 there were reports of at least 3.6 million acres of off-target, dicamba-induced damage to agricultural crops and an unknown amount of damage to native plants and habitats, including forests. The EPA has refused to take necessary action to address the harms caused by the chemical.

“There’s no question that use of dicamba across tens of millions of acres will deepen risks to our dangerously imperiled monarch populations,” said Donley. “When dicamba’s use on GE cotton and soybeans comes up for reapproval later this year, the only responsible thing for the EPA to do is allow that approval to expire.”

For this analysis the Center examined monarch habitat and projected usage rates for dicamba, with a particular emphasis on examining the effects of increased use of dicamba in the coming years, which is expected to reach about 57 million pounds annually.

The decline in monarchs in recent decades has coincided with the surge in use of glyphosate, which is sprayed on crops genetically altered to survive being sprayed by the pesticide. Around 300 million pounds of glyphosate are sprayed in fields each year in the United States. The massive overuse of glyphosate triggered the large-scale decline of milkweed and the proliferation of glyphosate-resistant weeds across millions of acres. In response to the proliferation of resistant weeds, farmers have turned to dicamba — compounding the danger to monarchs and their habitat.

Via Center for Biological Diversity
Category: Climate Justice, Featured, Social Media News Tags: Butterfly, Center for Biological Diversity, monarch, Monarch Butterfly, neonic
Copyright © 2018 · All Rights Reserved · Global Justice Ecology Project

NonProfit Theme v4 by Organic Themes · WordPress Hosting · RSS Feed · Log in

Stop Monsanto Soy! – Rainforest Rescue

South America’s tropical forests are being cleared to make room for soy plantations. Monocultures of Monsanto GMO soybeans are taking up even more space – and are being sprayed with highly toxic herbicides. Millions of tons of the soybeans are fed to livestock in Europe. Please the man and import ban for soybeans now.

Petition · Governor Brown: Ban Glyphosate in California! ·

Did you know that one of the most widely used herbicides in history, sprayed on our food crops streets playgrounds and Parks have been proven to cause serious harm to our  health?  I‘m concerned about my children’s health and safety,and Monsanto’s Glyphosate weed killer ( Roundup) is putting all of us at risk.

Add your name to demand the EPA stop Dow Chemical from poisoning our children!

88,157 signatures
88% Complete
Partners: Chispa Daily Kos

Environmental Working Group
Friends of the Earth
League of Conservation Voters
Organic Consumers Association
Sierra Club
The Nation

Public health advocates and the EPA have been pushing to ban the use of the harmful pesticide chlorpyrifos for years. But even with substantial evidence that chlorpyrifos can interfere with children’s brain development and expose farmworkers to serious health risks, Dow Chemical – a company that sells these harmful pesticides regardless of the dangerous consequences – has been pushing the Trump administration to ignore the facts and let this poisoning continue unchecked.

Now, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is siding with Dow instead of the American people, reversing a proposed ban to prevent the use of this hazardous chemical on our food. We can’t stand idly by as Dow Chemical buys its way into the ear of Donald Trump to keep destroying our people and our planet with these highly toxic chemicals.

Scientists agree this pesticide shouldn’t be anywhere near the foods we eat, and even doctors are speaking out against this dangerous decision. The EPA exists to protect Americans – but under Scott Pruitt, all it’s doing is protecting the profits of corporations like Dow at the expense of everyone else. We need 100,000 people to speak out and show the EPA that we won’t stand for this dangerous scheme.

Add your name to demand the EPA stop Dow Chemical from poisoning our children!
© 2017 | Paid for by the Sierra Club.
Privacy Policy
ShareThis Copy and Paste

Pesticide-Related Autism: Possible Solution, say researchers

Finally some hopeful news to mitigate the risk of pesticides for pregnant women.  Researchers studying pesticide-related autism risks have discovered that folic acid just might mitigate the risk of…

Source: Pesticide-Related Autism: Possible Solution, say researchers

Petition: Demand Labels On This Cancerous Product

Petition: Join Us in Urging Global Leaders to Curb the Mosquito Threat!

Petition · City of Los Angeles Department of Public Health: Increase taxes on toxic neonicotinoids, decrease on natural, plant-based insecticides. ·

Protect Wildlife From Deadly Corporate Pesticide – ForceChange

Petition: Assert your right to know if you’re being exposed to toxic chemicals

Petition: A Cyanide Bomb Killed their Family Dog and Threatened their Son: USDA Stop Using Them Now!

Breaking: USDA Kills Little Boy’s Dog and Almost Kills Him Too In Their Own Back Yard | Health Nut News