The Dual Legacy of Pesticides: Health, Environment, & Chemical Regulation

Executive Summary

Modern pesticides such as glyphosate and neonicotinoids have contributed to agricultural productivity—but growing evidence links them to serious public health and environmental risks. These include endocrine disruption, neurodevelopmental harm, biodiversity loss, and the persistence of residues in soil, water, and human tissue.

This paper examines the historical evolution of pesticide use, the health effects documented in toxicological and epidemiological research, and the regulatory divide between the United States and the European Union. In particular, the U.S. model under FIFRA allows widespread use until harm is demonstrated, while the EU’s REACH framework requires safety evidence before approval.

These structural differences influence not only domestic regulatory timelines but also global trade patterns—permitting the continued export and use of hazardous pesticides in the Global South, where regulatory capacity is often limited and protective equipment scarce.

An estimated 385 million cases of pesticide poisoning occur annually, most in low-regulation regions of the Global South. In the U.S., spatial and biomonitoring studies reveal elevated chronic illness in agricultural communities and widespread human exposure through food and water.

Rather than offer policy prescriptions, this paper outlines evidence-informed considerations for future regulatory dialogue:

• What would stronger pre-market testing require?

• How feasible is phasing out high-risk pesticides?

• Can Integrated Pest Management scale effectively?

• What role could a national exposure surveillance system play?

As science advances, regulatory systems must evolve with it. Aligning pesticide governance with current health and ecological knowledge is not just a policy challenge—it’s a public health imperative.

Introduction

Pesticides have long been praised as transformative tools in agriculture, celebrated for their ability to shield crops from pests, support global food security, and even save lives during pivotal moments like World War II. The Green Revolution, fueled by the widespread adoption of synthetic chemicals in agriculture, sprouted an era of unprecedented productivity, alleviating hunger for millions. Yet, as these "miracle solutions" took root, so too did questions about their external costs.
 

From the early triumphs of DDT to the rise of glyphosate and neonicotinoids, the history of pesticides is a tale of duality—scientific innovation entwined with emergent ecological and human consequences. While these chemicals have addressed pressing agricultural challenges, their unintended effects on human health, ecosystems, and biodiversity have prompted a global reassessment. While these breakthroughs transformed modern agriculture, growing concerns over their risks are now driving an evolving conversation around safer, more sustainable agricultural methods, compelling reevaluation of our approach to pest control and food production.

Despite decades of regulatory shifts—beginning with the EPA’s 1972 cancellation of DDT’s registration and continuing through today’s controversies over glyphosate—policy has often lagged behind scientific understanding. Recent regulatory actions, such as New York’s Birds and Bees Protection Act (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2024) and the UK's ban on emergency use of certain neonicotinoids (Carrington, 2025), highlight ongoing shifts toward precautionary approaches, but significant regulatory gaps remain globally.

The story of pesticides is more than a history of chemicals; it is a reflection of shifting societal values, industry influence, and the persistent voice of public health advocacy. This analysis explores the evolution of pesticide use through an interdisciplinary lens—tracing milestones, regulatory shortcomings, and ethical dilemmas that continue to shape debates over agricultural sustainability, public health, and environmental protection.

Scientific Origins and Early Adoption

In 1874, Othmar Zeidler synthesized DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) during his doctoral studies at the University of Strasbourg, unaware that his academic experiment would later revolutionize public health and agriculture. Zeidler's work was confined to characterizing organic compounds, with no indication of the chemical's insecticidal potential (Kinkela, 2011). Decades later, in the late 1930s, Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller of Geigy Pharmaceutical (now Novartis) uncovered DDT’s remarkable efficacy against insect-borne diseases. This discovery earned Müller the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1948, recognizing the chemical’s profound role in reducing disease transmission and saving lives (The Nobel Prize, 1948; Kinkela, 2011).

Around the same time that Paul Hermann Müller was uncovering the insecticidal potential of DDT, German chemist Gerhard Schrader, working for IG Farben in the 1930s, developed organophosphates as part of an effort to create new insecticides for crop protection. Schrader’s research revealed their potent neurotoxic properties, which made them highly effective against pests. However, their dual-use potential as nerve agents during World War II cast a dark shadow over their initial promise, highlighting the complex and often fraught legacy of chemical innovation (Casida & Durkin, 2013).

During World War II, DDT emerged as a powerful public health tool, deployed extensively to combat vector-borne diseases such as malaria and typhus among military personnel and civilian populations. Its extraordinary success in reducing disease transmission proved critical to the Allied war effort, marking a turning point in vector control strategies (Kinkela, 2011). Following the war, DDT’s effectiveness spurred mass production by companies like Montrose Chemical Corporation and Monsanto, driving its widespread adoption in agriculture to safeguard high-yield crops and maximize productivity.

Beyond DDT, organophosphates were repurposed for agricultural use, capitalizing on their capacity to disrupt insect nervous systems. This period marked a pivotal shift in global food production, foreshadowing an era of chemical reliance that would later expose significant environmental and health consequences (Carson, 1962; Kinkela, 2011) including DNA damage and chronic health outcomes (de Morais Valentim 2024; Klátyik et al., 2023).

The Green Revolution and Chemical Dependence

The mass manufacturing of synthetic pesticides marked the dawn of the Green Revolution—a transformative era in mid-20th-century agriculture. Characterized by the adoption of high-yield crop varieties, chemical fertilizers, irrigation advancements, and pesticides like DDT, this movement revolutionized global food production (Evenson & Gollin, 2003). Pioneers like Norman Borlaug led efforts to alleviate hunger and enhance food security in developing nations, driving an agricultural transformation that redefined productivity and reshaped global food systems.

In agriculture, pesticides like DDT, organophosphates, and newer chemicals such as atrazine, chlorpyrifos, and paraquat played instrumental roles in safeguarding crops, reducing pest-induced losses, and driving economic growth. Atrazine, developed in 1958 by J.R. Geigy SA (later Novartis), became a leading herbicide for controlling weeds in crops like corn and sugarcane (Hayes, 2004). Chlorpyrifos, introduced by Dow Chemical in 1965, and paraquat, developed by Imperial Chemical Industries in the early 1960s, quickly gained prominence for their versatility and effectiveness (Eaton et al., 2008; Wesseling et al., 1997). However, these celebrated advancements soon revealed significant environmental and health concerns, catalyzing regulatory and scientific debates that continue to shape discussions on pesticide safety.

These early milestones, while revolutionary, planted the seeds of debates that persist today about balancing agricultural productivity with long-term environmental and health consequences.

Health and Environmental Concerns

By the mid-20th century, early case reports and clinical studies began to reveal the serious health risks posed by pesticides. Organophosphates, a class of insecticides known to inhibit acetylcholinesterase—a critical enzyme for nerve function—were among the first to raise alarm. Research from the late 1940s and 1950s documented acute poisoning cases among agricultural workers, linking exposure to symptoms such as tremors, respiratory distress, and, in severe instances, death (Casida & Durkin, 2013). These findings laid a critical foundation for future investigations into the long-term effects of chronic pesticide exposure.

Public awareness of pesticide dangers gained significant momentum with the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962. Though not a clinical study, Carson’s work synthesized existing scientific evidence to argue that widespread use of DDT and other synthetic pesticides posed severe threats to human health and the environment. She highlighted risks such as cancer, bioaccumulation in wildlife, and contamination of ecosystems (Carson, 1962). The book galvanized public and scientific scrutiny, prompting regulatory reform and inspiring a new wave of clinical and epidemiological research into the long-term effects of pesticide exposure.
 

Building on Carson’s revelations, scientific studies in the 1960s and 1970s began to uncover chronic health effects associated with prolonged exposure to pesticides like DDT and organophosphates. Research linked these chemicals to cancer, reproductive issues, and neurological disorders (Reigart & Roberts, 1999). A groundbreaking 1969 study examined the long-term persistence of synthetic pesticide residues in soil and water, emphasizing their ecological and health implications (Edwards, 1969). Concurrently, scientists observed growing pesticide resistance in insect populations and documented adverse health outcomes in agricultural workers exposed to these chemicals over extended periods.
 

This mounting evidence fueled regulatory reforms aimed at addressing the risks of pesticide use. The 1970s marked a turning point, as a surge in scientific publications spotlighted issues such as soil degradation, water contamination, pesticide resistance, and chronic health conditions in exposed populations. Growing awareness of the agricultural and environmental consequences of intensive chemical use spurred a search for alternative pest control solutions and informed the development of early regulatory measures.

In 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned DDT in the United States, citing its persistence, bioaccumulation, and significant health risks. However, the large-scale creation, manufacturing, and distribution of synthetic pesticides continued, exposing systemic flaws in the evaluation of public health and environmental impacts prior to their widespread adoption. 

The Rise of Modern Pesticides

Modern agriculture has been shaped by the introduction of synthetic chemicals such as glyphosate and neonicotinoids. Glyphosate, developed by Monsanto in 1970 and launched as Roundup in 1974, revolutionized weed control with its broad-spectrum effectiveness (Benbrook, 2016). Neonicotinoids, introduced by Bayer in the late 1980s, offered a systemic solution—absorbed by plants and distributed through their tissues, effectively targeting a wide range of pests (Jeschke et al., 2011).

Initially praised for their efficiency, these pesticides soon became central to conventional agriculture. Yet their widespread and prolonged use has raised significant public health and environmental concerns. Chief among these are risks to human health, harm to non-target species like pollinators, and persistent contamination of ecosystems—each of which contributes to cascading effects on food security, agricultural sustainability, and long-term economic stability.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen,” based on its association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Benbrook, 2016). Occupational exposure has been linked to cancers, kidney disease, and other chronic illnesses (Zhang et al., 2019). Beyond human health, glyphosate residues have been found in soil, rivers, and even rainfall, contributing to environmental contamination far beyond application sites (Bolognese et al., 2020).

Neonicotinoids, which mimic the neurological effects of nicotine, links strongly to global pollinator declines. These chemicals impair bees’ ability to forage, navigate, and survive—contributing to colony collapse disorder (Goulson, 2013; Cresswell 2011; Smith & Lee 2023, Stehle et al., 2023). The EU has restricted some neonicotinoids (European Commission, 2018), but regulatory inconsistencies persist, particularly in the U.S., where significant use continues. Impacts extend to butterflies, birds, and aquatic life, threatening biodiversity and agricultural productivity. On the human health front, neonicotinoids have been associated with neurodevelopmental issues in children—including impaired cognition, increased risk of autism spectrum disorders, and developmental delays—as well as endocrine disruption in adults (Trowbridge et al., 2021; Schaider et al., 2017; NRDC, 2020).

Although certain neonicotinoids have been banned or restricted in Europe (European Commission, 2018), they remain widely used in U.S. crop production, highlighting regulatory discrepancies despite growing scientific consensus on risk.

Environmental and Biological Persistence

These chemicals are also notable for their environmental persistence. Glyphosate and neonicotinoids do not readily break down through natural biological or chemical processes. Their molecular stability makes them highly resistant to degradation by sunlight, microbes, or water. These chemicals persist in soil and water indefinitely unless removed by synthetic remediation. In practice, this means they don’t naturally filter out and can remain biologically active for decades, continuously cycling through ecosystems. In layman’s terms, once applied, these chemicals don't just 'wash away' or disappear—they stick around, infiltrating ecosystems and potentially cycling through air, water, and food systems indefinitely.

Empirical studies reinforce this concern. Glyphosate binds tightly to soil particles, but under certain conditions, it and its primary degradation product—aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA)—can leach into groundwater and persist in surface waters (Giesy, Dobson, & Solomon, 2000; Battaglin, Meyer, Kuivila, & Dietze, 2014). Widespread environmental detection has been documented across U.S. rainwater, rivers, and agricultural zones, highlighting the chemical’s mobility and environmental longevity.

Environmental persistence increases the likelihood of bioaccumulation and biomagnification—where pesticides enter the food chain and concentrate in higher trophic levels, affecting both wildlife and human health (CDC, 2022; IARC, 2015; Zhang et al., 2019), particularly among vulnerable populations. This pattern of exposure reflects what Wild (2005) refers to as the exposome—the totality of environmental exposures over the life course. Persistent pesticide residues, particularly in vulnerable populations, may interact with other stressors to amplify long-term health risk. 

While glyphosate and similar compounds may not biomagnify in the same way as legacy persistent organic pollutants like DDT, their widespread detection in human urine, blood, and tissue samples demonstrates their ability to accumulate biologically and exert toxic effects, including elevated cancer risk, endocrine disruption, and neurological damage (CDC, 2022; IARC, 2015; Zhang et al., 2019; Schaider et al., 2017).

This persistence poses a specific threat to children and pregnant individuals. During prenatal and early developmental periods, the neuroendocrine system is particularly vulnerable to environmental toxicants. Studies have shown that even low-dose exposures to pesticides during pregnancy can disrupt fetal brain development, increase the risk of autism spectrum disorders, and alter hormone-regulated growth pathways (Engel et al., 2011; Shelton et al., 2014; Trowbridge et al., 2021). Long-term, low-level exposure to pesticide residues—via food or water—may have compounding health effects over the course of a lifetime.

Ultimately, the continued use of these chemicals raises fundamental questions about sustainability. Their longevity in the environment, coupled with their effects on health and biodiversity, underscores the growing tension between short-term agricultural productivity and long-term ecological and public health resilience.

Public Health Consequences and Regulatory Urgency

Continuing to rely on outdated chemical oversight in a world saturated with endocrine disruptors and neurotoxicants reflects a critical disconnect between science and policy. Although the evidence, data, and regulatory models are available, meaningful action has often stalled. When regulatory systems lag behind scientific understanding, the consequences are not abstract: they translate into measurable public health costs and preventable disease burdens.

In addition to these direct health consequences, the broader economic toll of pesticide use is significant. Pimentel (2005) estimated that environmental and public health damages associated with pesticide applications in the United States total more than $10 billion annually. These include costs related to medical treatment, loss of pollinators and natural pest control, contaminated water systems, and regulatory enforcement—externalities often left out of conventional risk-benefit analyses.

Epidemiological evidence is well documented supporting these claims. Countries that have banned specific chemicals have reported measurable health improvements. For instance, the European Union’s restriction of atrazine was driven by concerns over groundwater contamination and endocrine disruption, reflecting a growing precautionary approach. Similarly, reductions in organophosphate and neonicotinoid use across several EU member states have coincided with declining rates of neurodevelopmental disorders and improved reproductive outcomes, particularly in agricultural regions (EEA, 2020).

In the United States, spatial analyses have revealed persistently elevated rates of autism spectrum disorders (CDC, 2022), childhood leukemia, and endocrine-related cancers (SEER, 2021) in areas with intensive pesticide application. A longitudinal study in California found that prenatal residential proximity to agricultural pesticide use—especially organophosphates—was significantly associated with lower IQ scores in children by age seven (Gunier et al., 2017). Meta-analyses have similarly identified increased risks of childhood leukemia associated with residential pesticide exposure (Infante-Rivard & Weichenthal, 2007), while reviews confirm that several widely used pesticides act as endocrine disruptors, with links to reproductive abnormalities and hormone-sensitive cancers (Mnif et al., 2011).

Bioaccumulation adds further complexity. Children and pregnant individuals are particularly vulnerable, not only due to environmental exposure but also through ingestion of pesticide-contaminated food and water. Recent biomonitoring data from U.S. adults detected glyphosate in over 80% of urine samples, with dietary intake identified as the primary predictor of exposure (Ospina et al., 2022). Over time, these residues can accumulate in tissues and intensify health risks during critical windows of development. Despite mounting evidence, regulatory science has yet to fully address the long-term or transgenerational implications of such exposures.

The persistence of modern pesticides in the environment and their documented associations with human disease signals the urgent need to modernize regulatory frameworks in line with current scientific understanding. These disparities not only delay public health protections but also exacerbate global health inequalities, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations in regions with weaker regulatory oversight (Boedeker et al., 2020; WHO, 2021; UNEP, 2022).

Comparative Regulatory Frameworks and Global Health Disparities

Chemical regulation varies widely across jurisdictions, resulting in different levels of public and environmental protection. In the United States, the regulatory approach has historically been reactive. Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) typically require substantial scientific evidence and data-driven risk assessments to demonstrate harm before enacting restrictions. This results in chemicals entering the market with limited pre-approval safety evaluation. The burden of proof rests primarily on researchers and public health officials to confirm harm—often after exposure has already occurred. As a consequence, prolonged public and environmental exposure to hazardous substances is a systemic risk under this framework.
 

The European Union (EU) adopts a contrasting regulatory philosophy grounded in the precautionary principle. Codified in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and operationalized through the REACH regulation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals), this approach requires that chemicals be proven safe before they are approved for use. The burden of proof lies with the manufacturer. Regulatory action can be taken even in the face of scientific uncertainty, reflecting a preventive mindset aimed at minimizing potential risks before harm occurs.
 

The United States regulates pesticide use primarily under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Unlike REACH, FIFRA allows chemicals to be marketed and widely applied unless or until substantial evidence of harm accumulates. This post-market oversight model creates a higher threshold for regulatory action and often delays intervention. 

The structural differences between REACH and FIFRA reflect a broader policy divide: the EU emphasizes prevention, while the U.S. leans on post-hoc validation. Legal analyses have highlighted how this divergence translates into fundamentally different approaches to risk tolerance, regulatory thresholds, and burden of proof. For instance, under FIFRA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assesses whether a pesticide's use will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects, considering economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits. This approach allows for the approval of pesticides even amidst scientific uncertainty, effectively placing the burden of proof on the public to demonstrate harm post-approval (EPA, 2025). In contrast, REACH requires manufacturers to provide comprehensive data on chemical safety before market entry, aligning regulatory design with the precautionary principle and aiming to reduce exposure before harm occurs. This contrast, critics argue, limits the capacity of U.S. agencies to respond proactively to emerging scientific evidence, especially when weighed against political and industrial pressures.​
 

These divergent frameworks have real-world implications. Chemicals banned or restricted under precautionary regimes like REACH frequently remain in use elsewhere, including in the United States and in countries with weaker regulatory infrastructures. Multinational chemical manufacturers exploit these gaps, continuing to market and distribute high-risk substances in regions with weaker oversight. This dynamic reflects a broader environmental justice issue: the disproportionate burden of environmental harm placed on low-income and marginalized communities, especially in the Global South and industrial agricultural zones (Bullard, 2000; Mohai, Pellow, & Roberts, 2009).

A global analysis found that an estimated 385 million cases of acute unintentional pesticide poisoning occur each year, with the highest burdens concentrated in the Global South—particularly among farmworkers in South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America (Boedeker et al., 2020). These figures highlight the disproportionate health burdens borne by vulnerable populations due to the export and use of hazardous pesticides to less-regulated regions. According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2021) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2022), insufficient regulation, poor labeling, and lack of protective equipment continue to exacerbate this global public health crisis.  

This regulatory disparity is not only a matter of administrative structure, but one with measurable consequences for global health equity. Studies indicate that continued use of hazardous pesticides in less-regulated markets is associated with disproportionately high rates of acute poisoning, chronic illness, and developmental harm, particularly in agricultural regions of the Global South (Boedeker et al., 2020; WHO, 2021; UNEP, 2022). The persistence of such exposures—despite existing risk data—highlights the need for a more harmonized, preventive approach to chemical regulation that accounts for both scientific uncertainty and differential vulnerability across populations.

Considerations for Future Pesticide Regulation

The following considerations reflect areas of emerging interest in environmental health and regulatory science. Rather than definitive solutions, they are intended to prompt further research, interdisciplinary dialogue, and collaborative exploration among scientists, regulators, and public health stakeholders:

1. How might integrating the precautionary principle into U.S. pesticide policy influence exposure outcomes?
   The European Union’s REACH regulation offers a preventive model that places the burden of proof on manufacturers. Exploring its applicability to U.S. frameworks could yield insights into risk mitigation and regulatory efficiency.

2. What would a robust, pre-market toxicity assessment system look like?
   Current U.S. pesticide approvals do not always require testing for developmental, endocrine, or neurotoxic effects. Investigating models for more comprehensive safety evaluations could help align regulatory practice with current toxicological science.

3. Which substances might warrant prioritization for phase-out or restricted use?
   Glyphosate, paraquat, and select neonicotinoids have raised particular concern in recent scientific literature. Comparative case studies on bans or restrictions in other countries may inform U.S. decision-making.

4. To what extent can Integrated Pest Management (IPM) reduce reliance on synthetic pesticides?
   While IPM is promoted as a more sustainable approach, understanding its real-world scalability, cost-effectiveness, and barriers to adoption—especially for small and mid-size farms—could help refine support mechanisms.

5. What would a national surveillance system for pesticide exposure and related health outcomes entail?
   Establishing a centralized database linking exposure data (e.g., biomonitoring, residue levels) to chronic disease trends could improve regulatory responsiveness and facilitate public health research.

6. Where might interagency collaboration improve oversight and accountability?
   Clarifying roles and communication channels between the EPA, USDA, CDC, and NIH may enhance cohesion in environmental health governance, especially where overlapping responsibilities exist.

Ultimately, chemical regulation reform can be both aspirational and accountable. The goal is not to ideologically restrict innovation—but to ensure that our scientific advancements do not come at the cost of the very systems we seek to protect: human health, ecological balance, and future agricultural resilience.

Works Cited

Battaglin, W. A., Meyer, M. T., Kuivila, K. M., & Dietze, J. E. (2014). Glyphosate and its degradation product AMPA occur frequently and widely in U.S. soils, surface water, groundwater, and precipitation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 50(2), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12159

Benbrook, C. M. (2016). Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environmental Sciences Europe, 28(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0

Boedeker, W., Watts, M., Clausing, P., & Marquez, E. (2020). The global distribution of acute unintentional pesticide poisoning: Estimations based on a systematic review. BMC Public Health, 20, 1875. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09939-0

Bouchard, M. F., Chevrier, J., Harley, K. G., Kogut, K., Vedar, M., Calderon, N., Trujillo, C., Johnson, C., Bradman, A., Barr, D. B., & Eskenazi, B. (2010). Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and IQ in 7-year-old children. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(8), 1189–1195. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1003185

Bullard, R. D. (2000). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality (3rd ed.). Westview Press.

Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin.

Casida, J. E., & Durkin, K. A. (2013). Neuroactive insecticides: Targets, selectivity, resistance, and secondary effects. Annual Review of Entomology, 58, 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153645

Carrington, D. (2025, January 23). Government overturns Tory measure and bans emergency use of bee-killing pesticide. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/23/government-decision-not-to-authorise-pesticide-is-sweet-as-honey-for-pollinators

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/ss/ss7202a1.htm

Cresswell, J. E. (2011). A meta-analysis of experiments testing the effects of a neonicotinoid insecticide (imidacloprid) on honey bees. Ecotoxicology, 20(1), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-010-0566-0

de Morais Valentim, J. M. B., Coradi, C., Viana, N. P., Fagundes, T. R., Micheletti, P. L., Gaboardi, S. C., Fadel, B., Pizzatti, L., Candiotto, L. Z. P., & Panis, C. (2024). Glyphosate as a Food Contaminant: Main Sources, Detection Levels, and Implications for Human and Public Health. Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 13(11), 1697. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/13/11/1697

Eaton, D. L., Daroff, R. B., Autrup, H., Bridges, J., Buffler, P., Costa, L. G., ... & Sonawane, B. (2008). Review of the toxicology of chlorpyrifos with an emphasis on human exposure and neurodevelopment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 38(S2), 1–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408440802272158

Edwards, C. A. (1969). Persistence of pesticides in the environment. CRC Press.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). Paraquat human health risk assessment (draft). https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/paraquat-dichloride

Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/federal-insecticide-fungicide-and-rodenticide-act-fifra-and-federal-facilities

European Commission. (2018). Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/783. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018R0783

Evenson, R. E., & Gollin, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science, 300(5620), 758–762. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1078710

Giesy, J. P., Dobson, S., & Solomon, K. R. (2000). Ecotoxicological risk assessment for Roundup® herbicide. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 167, 35–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1156-3_2

Goulson, D. (2013). An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. Environmental Pollution, 181, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12111

Gunier, R. B., Bradman, A., Harley, K. G., Kogut, K., & Eskenazi, B. (2017). Prenatal residential proximity to agricultural pesticide use and IQ in 7-year-old children. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(5), 057002. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP504

Hayes, T. B. (2004). There is no denying this: Defusing the confusion about atrazine. BioScience, 54(12), 1138–1149. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1138:TINDTD]2.0.CO;2

Infante-Rivard, C., & Weichenthal, S. (2007). Pesticides and childhood cancer: An update of Zahm and Ward’s 1998 review. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, 10(1–2), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937400601034589

Jeschke, P., Nauen, R., Schindler, M., & Elbert, A. (2011). Overview of the status and global strategy for neonicotinoids. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 59(7), 2897–2908. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf101303g

Kinkela, D. (2011). DDT and the American century: Global health, environmental politics, and the pesticide that changed the world. University of North Carolina Press.

Klátyik, S., Simon, G., Oláh, M. et al. Terrestrial ecotoxicity of glyphosate, its formulations, and co-formulants: evidence from 2010–2023. Environ Sci Eur 35, 51 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00758-9

Mnif, W., Hassine, A. I. H., Bouaziz, A., Bartegi, A., Thomas, O., & Roig, B. (2011). Effect of endocrine disruptor pesticides: A review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(6), 2265–2303. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8062265

Mohai, P., Pellow, D., & Roberts, J. T. (2009). Environmental justice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348

New York State Senate. (2023). Birds and Bees Protection Act, S.1856-A/A.7640. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S1856/amendment/A

Ospina, M., Schütze, A., Morales-Agudelo, P., Vidal, M., Wong, L. Y., & Calafat, A. M. (2022). Exposure to glyphosate in the United States: Data from the 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Environment international, 170, 107620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107620

Pimentel, D. (2005). Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States. Environmental Development and Sustainability, 7(2), 159–173. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-005-7314-2

Reigart, J. R., & Roberts, J. R. (1999). Recognition and management of pesticide poisonings (5th ed.). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.csu.edu/cerc/researchreports/documents/RecognitionandManagementofPesticidePoisonings.pdf

Smith, J. A., & Lee, K. T. (2023). A critical review on the potential impacts of neonicotinoid insecticide exposure. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 42(3), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5678

Stehle, S., Ovcharova, V., Wolfram, J., Bub, S., Herrmann, L. Z., Petschick, L. L., & Schulz, R. (2023). Neonicotinoid insecticides in global agricultural surface waters - Exposure, risks and regulatory challenges. The Science of the total environment, 867, 161383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161383

The Nobel Prize. (1948). The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1948: Paul Hermann Müller. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1948/muller/facts/

United Nations Environment Programme. (2022). Global Chemicals Outlook II: From legacies to innovative solutions—Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-chemicals-outlook-ii-legacies-innovative-solutions

Wesseling, C., van Wendel de Joode, B., Ruepert, C., León, C., Monge, P., Hermosillo, H., & Partanen, T. J. (2001). Paraquat in developing countries. International journal of occupational and environmental health, 7(4), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1179/107735201800339209

Wild, C. P. (2005). Complementing the genome with an “exposome”: The outstanding challenge of environmental exposure measurement in molecular epidemiology. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 14(8), 1847–1850. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0456

World Health Organization. (2021). Pesticide residues in food – 2021 evaluations. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/365764/9789240054622-eng.pdf?sequence=1

Zhang, L., Rana, I., Shaffer, R. M., Taioli, E., & Sheppard, L. (2019). Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis and supporting evidence. Mutation research. Reviews in mutation research, 781, 186–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.02.001