Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not issue warnings about pesticides linked to cancer, even though the agency has determined that the ingredients in the products are carcinogenic, according to two new analyzes of federal data.
The EPA found that 1.4% (69 of 4,919) of pesticide labels issued cancer warnings for products containing active ingredients that the agency itself designated as “likely” or “likely” to cause cancer. Additionally, only 1.1% (242 of 22,147) of pesticide labels containing ingredients with a “probable” or “suggestive” cancer risk include an EPA cancer warning.
According to the analysis, biodiversity center The Center for Food Safety has joined Bayer AG, one of the world’s top pesticide manufacturers, as it seeks to avoid costly litigation over whether its glyphosate-based herbicides are carcinogenic. The company is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that the EPA should have sole authority over cancer labeling of pesticides, a decision that would have far-reaching implications for pesticide labeling.
Credit: Center for Biological Diversity, “Failure to Warn.”
trump administration standing by bayer It encouraged the Supreme Court to hear the case on this issue. set to start In late April. Bayer maintains that its glyphosate herbicides are not carcinogenic, and has long led a lobbying effort to prevent states from implementing stricter pesticide labeling than the EPA. But a new analysis shows that state laws, specifically California’s Proposition 65, are the only reason some cancer-causing pesticides issue warnings.
Nathan Donley, director of environmental health sciences at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the EPA has “breached its duty” to protect Americans from harmful products and that Bayer’s victory in the Supreme Court would only further the “deadly” consequences of inconsistent and inadequate warnings.
“The EPA has signaled to the court that it has the ability to do this, and we have shown here that the EPA has no ability at all,” he said. “EPA does not require cancer warnings on labels that are absolutely necessary and the public deserves.”
There are no cancer warnings regarding pesticides that “may” cause cancer.
Donley and colleagues at the Center for Biological Diversity examined more than 93,000 historical and currently approved pesticide labels and found that only 311 of them contained cancer warnings. Out of the 125 active carcinogenic pesticide ingredients currently in use, the analysis found that products containing 119 of these ingredients do not have carcinogenic warnings.
“EPA has signaled to the courts that it has the ability to do this, and we have shown here that it simply has no ability.” – Nathan Donley, Center for Biological Diversity
For example, the EPA is considering pesticides. Carbaryl ‘possibly’ carcinogenicHowever, the agency approved language There is no mention of cancer on the carbaryl insecticide label. funded by the US government agricultural health survey last year Found Pesticide applicators in North Carolina and Iowa who frequently sprayed the insecticide carbaryl during their careers are at increased risk of developing stomach, esophageal, tongue and prostate cancer.
“Even if the EPA acknowledges there is a link to cancer, the agency rarely requires warnings on pesticide labels, leaving the agency essentially unable to provide reasonable warning to the public,” Donley said.
The Center for Food Safety’s analysis looked at 570 pesticides that the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs has tested for links to cancer, including some that are no longer registered in the United States. They found that 35% (200) were classified as “probable” or “probable” to be carcinogenic to humans, and for an additional 11%, EPA lacked sufficient data to make a determination. Of these 200 pesticides that are or may be human carcinogens, 125 are still registered for use.
Bill Freese, scientific director at the Center for Food Safety, said it is important to investigate both current and past pesticides because it can take decades for cancer to develop after exposure to a carcinogen.
Out of the 125 active carcinogenic pesticide ingredients currently in use, the analysis found that products containing 119 of these ingredients do not have carcinogenic warnings. (Credit: Getty Images/Unsplash+)
The analysis also found that the EPA often approves pesticides that exceed the agency’s “standards of concern” for cancer risk. This means that 1 out of every 1 million people exposed will develop a new cancer case.
Some examples include fungicides iprodioneis estimated to cause cancer in up to 1.2 people per 10,000 people exposed. fungicide Thiophanate methylis estimated to cause cancer in up to 4.3 out of 10,000 people exposed through drinking water. and herbicide Jiuronis estimated to cause cancer in up to 8 out of 10,000 exposed workers. along with some others.
“The EPA has actually done these evaluations and has said on its own that these particular pesticides have a cancer risk,” Freese said, adding that while the EPA approves pesticides assuming workers wear appropriate protective equipment such as respirators and gloves, studies have shown that this is not always the case.
“Cancer warnings on pesticide labels could significantly increase the use of this personal protective equipment,” he says. “What we’re really talking about are measures that will save lives.”
“What we’re really talking about is measures that will save lives.” -Bill Freese, Center for Food Safety
Wendy Wagner, Richard Dale Endowed Chair in Law and University of Texas professor, said the EPA’s cancer risk determinations already rely on exposure models that are “hypothesis-heavy,” adding that because most of the research produced to inform pesticide registration comes from industry, the information that guides registration decisions is “already very pro-industry.”
“It’s very difficult for the public to challenge improper warnings,” she says. “Industry can much more easily say that EPA is asking for too many warnings.”
EPA did not respond to questions about pesticide labeling or cancer risks.
Bayer labeling lawsuit
An analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity found that 1,250 pesticide labels carry cancer warnings due to California’s Proposition 65, which has stricter requirements for pesticides than federal regulations. “California’s Proposition 65 labeling is starting to pick up some of the slack,” Donley said. “As our analysis shows, requiring cancer warnings solely from the federal Environmental Protection Agency would leave too many holes.”
For example, the pesticide ingredients mancozeb and chlorothalonil are both designated as “probable” human carcinogens by the EPA, but they only contain cancer warnings specific to Proposition 65.
Such state labeling is at the center of both the upcoming Bayer Supreme Court case and state pesticide “preemption” battles across the country. Since acquiring Monsanto, the maker of the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, Bayer has faced tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging that its glyphosate herbicides caused cancer in people, claims the company denies.
The lawsuit was based on the 2015 classification by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. Deemed glyphosate It has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Several other studies have shown a link between glyphosate herbicides and cancer.
Last week, a group of dozens of scientists evaluating the past decade of scientific evidence on glyphosate issued a consensus statement calling on U.S. and European regulators to more tightly regulate the herbicide, given the strong scientific evidence that the pesticide can cause cancer and other health problems.
“Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides can adversely affect human health and cause cancer. Comprehensive evidence supports this conclusion,” the statement said. “Glyphosate is not the only pesticide that has been improperly evaluated or regulated.”
However, the EPA maintains that there is “no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.” in The case was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in December.Bayer claims that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which regulates the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides in the United States, preempts these “failure to warn” claims against the company. The company argues that failure to warn claims should be prohibited because the EPA approves labels containing glyphosate without cancer warnings.
“Congress created the right incentives by giving EPA the authority to balance meeting farmers’ needs with managing unavoidable (but not unreasonable) risks, including labeling that neither under-warns nor over-warns,” the company said in a statement. Introduction overview The case was sent to court in February.
The Department of Justice stands by Bayer. December submission Bayer’s position on pre-emption rights “rightly permits EPA to determine on a national scale what warnings must appear on the labels of particular pesticides to avoid unreasonable risks to human health,” he said. of New Lede reported Bayer executives met with EPA officials last year to discuss “litigation” issues, including a “Supreme Court case” over glyphosate herbicides, just months before the Trump administration took a series of steps to boost Bayer’s case in the high court, the people said. June 13th EPA internal email.
“Congress created the right incentives by giving EPA the authority to balance meeting farmers’ needs with managing unavoidable (but not unreasonable) risks.” – Bayer’s opening brief
For many years, Bayer, together with more than 100 other agricultural organizations, We also carry out lobbying activities. A state law prohibits pesticide manufacturers from being sued for failing to warn of health risks, as long as the product’s label is approved by the EPA. Two states — georgia and north dakota — passed such a law. Furthermore, the house version 2026 Farm Bill; Expected to come up for a floor vote soon, it would mandate uniform pesticide labels across the country and prevent states and local governments from mandating stricter labels that differ from the EPA’s.
“This provision handcuffs states and communities when federal regulators drag their feet or bow to industry pressure, slamming the courthouse door on those who have been poisoned or harmed,” said Democratic Representative Cherry Pingree of Maine. statement.
Freeze said people should have the right to sue companies that release products that don’t warn of cancer risks, and “that’s exactly what Bayer is trying to prevent here.”
“They want to set a precedent for glyphosate that other companies can use,” he says.
Featured image: Getty Images / Unsplash +
-
Brian Bienkowski is the editor-in-chief of The New Lede. He is a veteran journalist with over 15 years of experience covering the environment and human health. Prior to joining TNL, he was a senior editor at Environmental Health News for nearly a decade, overseeing the newsroom and two local bureaus. He was also the founder, producer, and host of the EJ podcast Agents of Change from 2020 to 2024.
Bienkowski has received multiple awards for her editing and reporting, including honors from the Healthcare Journalists Association, Columbia School of Journalism, Hunter College, and the Environmental Journalists Association. He has a master’s degree in environmental journalism from Michigan State University and lives in northern Michigan.
