A new study exposes how pesticide-laden foods are building up toxins in our bodies—just as Congress considers a measure that would lock in outdated science and shield Big Ag from accountability. Tell Congress to reject pesticide immunity now! Action Alert!
THE TOPLINE
- A new study from scientists at the Environmental Working Group and Brown University shows a clear link between pesticide-contaminated foods and pesticide buildup in the human body—and that switching to organic foods can dramatically reduce exposure.
- The research exposes major flaws in the EPA’s outdated pesticide review system, which evaluates chemicals individually rather than accounting for the combined effects of multiple pesticides, leaving the public—especially children, pregnant women and the chemically hypersensitive—at greater risk.
- Despite mounting evidence of harm, Congress is considering a “pesticide immunity” measure that would bar the EPA from updating pesticide labels or safety warnings based on new science, effectively granting chemical companies legal protection at the expense of public health.
A new study from scientists at the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Brown University’s School of Public Health should be ringing alarm bells in Congress: our current pesticide oversight system is dangerously outdated, and a new “pesticide immunity” proposal being considered on Capitol Hill would make it even worse.
The research, published in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, introduces the Dietary Pesticide Exposure Score (DPES)—a tool designed to estimate a person’s cumulative dietary exposure to mixtures of pesticides. Using US government data on food consumption and pesticide residues, the study found that higher DPES scores were significantly associated with higher levels of pesticide biomarkers in people’s urine.
In plain terms: the more pesticide-contaminated foods you eat, the more pesticides end up in your body, and the greater the risk they will cause you harm.
The Study’s Findings
Researchers identified the foods most heavily contaminated with pesticides—spinach, kale, strawberries, potatoes, nectarines, peaches, apples, and raisins—and found a clear correlation between eating these foods and increased pesticide load in the body. Importantly, the study confirmed that switching from conventional to organic foods substantially reduces pesticide exposure.
The findings show that the EPA’s procedures for evaluating pesticide safety have major flaws. According to the study, federal risk assessments and legal limits for pesticide residues focus on individual chemicals, failing to account for the cumulative toxic effects that occur when multiple pesticides interact in the human body. Yet this is exactly how real-world exposure happens—people don’t eat one pesticide at a time.
The authors warn that this gap could underestimate risks for millions of Americans, especially children and pregnant women, whose developing systems are particularly vulnerable. Citing decades of toxicology research, the study links pesticide exposure to cancer, birth defects, neurological and reproductive harm, hormonal disruption, respiratory toxicity, and metabolic disorders.
A Broken Regulatory System Poised to Get Worse
Under current law, the EPA sets “tolerance limits” for pesticide residues in foods. But these limits are based largely on industry-funded studies and are rarely updated. Glyphosate, the world’s most heavily used herbicide, hasn’t had its health review updated since 1993—more than 30 years ago.
Even when the science is clear, the process for revising labels or limits can take decades. Meanwhile, new research continues to document the harmful effects of chronic, low-level pesticide exposure.
Yet instead of strengthening oversight, Congress is now considering legislation that would freeze pesticide science in time. Section 453 of the House’s Fiscal Year 2026 Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill (H.R. 4754) would prohibit the EPA from taking any action that differs from its most recent human health assessment of a pesticide—no matter how outdated that assessment is. The provision would make it nearly impossible for EPA to update a pesticide label to reflect new findings on cancer, birth defects, endocrine disruption, or neurotoxicity.
That means no cancer warning on glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup. No birth-defect warnings on neonicotinoids. No Parkinson’s warnings on paraquat. Even if new evidence emerges—or even if a company wants to add a warning—it couldn’t be done without restarting the EPA’s full review process, which can take decades.
Section 453 is designed to shield chemical companies from liability and prevent consumers from learning the truth about the risks their products pose.
A “Get Out of Jail Free” Card for Big Ag
The timing of this proposal is no accident. Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018 and inherited more than 100,000 cancer lawsuits tied to Roundup, has been lobbying to block future lawsuits. Similar “pesticide immunity” laws have already passed in Georgia and North Dakota, and the company’s allies in Congress are trying to take the same policy national through Section 453.
There is still time to stop this. The House version of the appropriations bill includes Section 453, but the Senate’s version does not. The two chambers must now reconcile their bills in a conference committee, which means there’s still time to make a difference.
Congress should be using the latest science to protect the public, not bury it to protect corporations. Americans deserve food that’s safe, regulators that respond to new evidence, and the right to hold chemical companies accountable when their products cause harm.
Action Alert!
