July, 19 2016, 11:45am EDT

Investigation: EPA Approved Nearly 100 Pesticide Products Without Accounting for Dangers of Chemical Mixtures
Synergistic Effects Found for More Than Two Thirds of Recently Approved Multi-ingredient Products
PORTLAND, Ore.
The Environmental Protection Agency has approved nearly 100 pesticide products over the past six years that contain mixtures that make them more poisonous and increase the dangers to imperiled pollinators and rare plants, according to an investigation by the Center for Biological Diversity. These "synergistic" combinations have been widely overlooked by the EPA in its approval of pesticides for food, lawns and other uses.
The Center's new report,Toxic Concoctions: How the EPA Ignores the Dangers of Pesticide Cocktails, involved an intensive search of patent applications for pesticide products containing two or more active ingredients recently approved by the EPA for four major agrochemical companies (Bayer, Dow, Monsanto and Syngenta).
"The EPA is supposed to be the cop on the beat, protecting people and the environment from the dangers of pesticides," said Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center and author of the report. "With these synergistic pesticides, the EPA has decided to look the other way, and guess who's left paying the price?"
Synergy occurs when two or more chemicals interact to enhance their toxic effects. It can turn what would normally be considered a safe level of exposure into one that results in considerable harm. Pesticide mixtures are ubiquitous in the environment and also present in many products for sale on store shelves.
In late 2015, in preparing to defend itself against litigation on the registration of a pesticide product called Enlist Duo, the EPA discovered a new source of information on the product: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Database, which contained a patent application indicating the two ingredients in this product, glyphosate and 2,4-D, resulted in synergistic toxicity to plants. This discovery ultimately led the agency to ask the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate its approval of Enlist Duo because it had not properly considered the potential adverse effects of this synergy on nontarget plants. It also highlighted a previously unknown source of much-needed mixture toxicity data: patent applications.
For this latest analysis, a Center scientist analyzed the patent database for other pesticide products approved in a similar manner.
Among the key findings in the examination of approvals for the four companies:
- 69 percent of these products (96 out of 140) had at least one patent application that claimed or demonstrated synergy between the active ingredients in the product;
- 72 percent of the identified patent applications that claimed or demonstrated synergy involved some of the most highly used pesticides in the United States, including glyphosate, atrazine, 2,4-D, dicamba and the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam, imidacloprid and clothianidin, among others.
"It's alarming to see just how common it's been for the EPA to ignore how these chemical mixtures might endanger the health of our environment," Donley said. "It's pretty clear that chemical companies knew about these potential dangers, but the EPA never bothered to demand this information from them or dig a little deeper to find it for themselves."
The EPA can only approve a pesticide if it will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. When a chemical company develops a new product, in addition to seeking approval for that product from the EPA, it will often apply for patent protection on the mixture. Such an application is typically accompanied by data that demonstrate synergistic toxicity to the organisms that are going to be targeted by the chemicals. The EPA frequently claims it cannot evaluate potential synergistic impacts because it lacks data. But this report finds that the patent database contains substantial data on synergistic effects that can be used to fill some of the data gaps that exist on mixture toxicity to plants and animals. The fact that the EPA claims it just recently became aware of this data source indicates that pesticide companies are collecting information about the synergistic effects of products for submission to the U.S Patent and Trademark office that they are choosing not to share with the EPA.
"The EPA has turned a blind eye for far too long to the reality that pesticide blends can have dangerous synergistic effects," said Donley. "Now that we know about all the data that are out there, the EPA must take action to ensure that wildlife and the environment are protected from these chemical cocktails."
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
'Win for Government Ethics' as George Santos Sentenced to 7 Years for Fraud
"Now more than ever, a commitment to transparency and accountability is key to ensuring that candidates and elected officials serve the public, not their own interests," said one campaign finance reform advocate.
Apr 25, 2025
Government ethics watchdogs on Friday said the sentencing of former Republican congressman George Santos to more than seven years in prison for fraud was a victory for "the many voters and donors who were deceived" by the disgraced lawmaker.
"Santos' brazen fraud and misconduct, which included serious violations of federal campaign finance laws, was an affront to his constituents, his donors, and the integrity of our democracy," said Saurav Ghosh, director of campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center. "The fact that he was held accountable should speak loudly to anyone contemplating similar actions aimed at exploiting the democratic process for personal gain."
Santos received his 87-month sentence from U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert in the Eastern District of New York eight months after he pleaded guilty to two felony counts and admitted to using his campaign fundraising operation for personal gain.
The former New York congressman, who flipped a blue seat in a Long Island district in 2022 and was charged by prosecutors just months later, admitted to submitting false reports to the Federal Election Commission, stealing financial and personal information from elderly and cognitively impaired donors to fraudulently charge their credit cards, and using campaign contributions for luxury shopping and a hotel room in Las Vegas.
"The robust enforcement of campaign finance and ethics laws is critical to ensuring that our democracy works for everyday Americans, not politicians' personal interests."
Seybert said during the sentencing that Santos had committed "flagrant thievery" during his brief political career.
He is required to report to prison by July 25 and was also ordered to pay more than $373,000 in restitution.
"This accountability for his pattern of unethical and illegal conduct is a win for government ethics," said Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Ghosh praised "the diligent enforcement efforts of the Office of Congressional Ethics, which helped bring about this result."
"Now more than ever, a commitment to transparency and accountability is key to ensuring that candidates and elected officials serve the public, not their own interests," said Ghosh. "The robust enforcement of campaign finance and ethics laws is critical to ensuring that our democracy works for everyday Americans, not politicians' personal interests."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Uproar, Trump Reverses on Mass Suspension of Student Visas
While the backtracking by the administration was welcome, one immigration expert warned people to "stay tuned for a round 2.0 of this."
Apr 25, 2025
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
A U.S. Department of Justice attorney told a federal court on Friday that the Trump administration will restore the visa status of thousands of foreign students after removing their information from a nationwide database, which led some universities to inform students that they must immediately self-deport and sparked numerous legal battles.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) terminated over 4,700 international students' records on the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System (SEVIS), which "sparked more than 100 lawsuits, with judges in more than 50 of the cases—spanning at least 23 states—ordering the administration to temporarily undo the actions," according toPolitco. "Dozens more judges seemed prepared to follow suit before Friday's reversal."
In a statement read aloud during a federal court hearing on Friday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Carilli explained that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) "is developing a policy that will provide a framework for SEVIS record terminations."
"Until such a policy is issued, the SEVIS records for plaintiff(s) in this case (and other similarly situated plaintiffs) will remain active or shall be reactivated if not currently active and ICE will not modify the record solely based on the NCIC finding that resulted in the recent SEVIS record termination," Carilli added, referring to the National Crime Information Center.
According toWUSA9's Jordan Fisher, Carilli also said the Department of Justice intends to file a similar statement in the other cases, but ICE reserves the right to terminate SEVIS records in the future based on student behavior.
The journalist added on social media that "I spoke with an attorney last night who said he's already talked to foreign students who left the U.S.—fearing they would be deported otherwise. This decision does not restore any canceled visas, and now they may face real difficulties returning."
Responding to the news on social media, American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said that "this is massive," but added this is "not the end" of the issue.
"ICE says it is going to develop a new policy to terminate SEVIS records legally in a way that aligns with their plans," he stressed. "So stay tuned for a round 2.0 of this—which would presumably be less chaotic, at the minimum."
Despite the development in the Washington, D.C. court, and the Justice Department's supposed plan to share its update with other courts across the country, some cases seem to be proceeding, at least for now.
Boston Globe reporter Steven Porter said on social media that he asked the ACLU of New Hampshire about the Friday statement, "(since they represent multiple plaintiffs whose SEVIS records were terminated), and legal director Gilles Bissonnette said they still don't know the nature or extent of these reversals."
"Bissonnette said the government hasn't given any indication that it intends to restore Dartmouth doctoral student Xiaotian Liu's student status absent an order from the court," so Liu still has 'an urgent and critical need' for immediate relief," Porter reported. "A federal judge in New Hampshire is likely to rule today on whether to grant a preliminary injunction in Liu's case. There is currently a temporary restraining order in place."
In addition to the SEVIS terminations, the Trump administration is targeting universities' federal funding as well as trying to deport several immigrants involved in campus protests against the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, widely condemned as a genocide against Palestinians.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Slotkin Panned Online After Claiming That Voters Don't Know What 'Oligarchy' Means
"It's condescending to say that the median person doesn't understand what oligarchy is," said one progressive strategist. "They're living it."
Apr 25, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' tour headlined with this word has drawn more than 107,000 Americans in blue and deep-red states alike. Former President Joe Biden's use of it in his farewell speech prompted a spike in Google searches. And one recent poll found that a majority of U.S. voters, including 54% of Democrats and more than two-thirds of Independents, know exactly what it means.
Yet Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) was among the Democratic politicians insisting this week that no one does.
The word is "oligarchy"—a government ruled by a small group of elites—and as experts have warned for years, the U.S. increasingly resembles one. As Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have told huge crowds in places like Nampa, Idaho and Greeley, Colorado in recent weeks, President Donald Trump's alliance with billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk has made the country's shift even more obvious.
But even as evidence mounts that Americans understand that the political system has been captured by corporations and the wealthiest people—and are living their day-to-day lives with the results, including higher healthcare costs and disinvestment in public services—Slotkin toldPolitico on Thursday that Democrats should "stop using the term 'oligarchy,' a phrase she said doesn't resonate beyond coastal institutions."
On Bluesky, The Nation writer John Nichols said that the tens of thousands people who have packed stadiums and parks in recent weeks to hear Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez speak would disagree with Slotkin.
Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin says Democrats should stop using the term "oligarchy" because, she says, no one knows what it means. These people say she’s wrong.
[image or embed]
— John Nichols (@nicholsuprising.bsky.social) April 24, 2025 at 8:00 PM
Slotkin's advice for Democrats, which she dubbed her "war plan" and gave ahead of several speeches she has planned, also included a call for the party to stop being "weak and woke," phrases she said she heard in Michigan focus groups.
Her comments echoed those of former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a longtime Democratic operative who told California Gov. Gavin Newsom on his podcast last week that using terms like "oligarchs" and "special interests" makes Democrats "worse marketers"; Newsom appeared to agree that people don't "understand" what an oligarchy is.
Emanuel also appeared on the political and pop culture podcast "I've Had It," hosted by Jennifer Welch and Angie Sullivan, and seemed caught of guard when Welch took him to task for his suggestion that Democrats should end their advocacy for issues that affect transgender Americans.
"That is total bullshit, that is buying into the right-wing media narrative, and I'm so sick of Democrats like you selling out and saying this," said Welch. "You know who talks about trans people more than anybody? MAGA... We've got to fucking fight. They're the gender-obsessed weirdos, not us. We're the ones who fight for Social Security, we fight for Medicare, and yeah, we're not gonna bully trans people."
Semafor political reporter Dave Weigel said Emanuel's derision of the word "oligarchy" is a clear "shot at Sanders/AOC, who keep saying it."
At one stop on the Fighting Oligarchy Tour recently, Sanders told a crowd that the enthusiasm for his and Ocasio-Cortez's message is "scaring the hell out of" Trump and Musk.
But shortly after Slotkin's comments, Ocasio-Cortez remarked—without naming the senator—that "plenty of politicians on both sides of the aisle feel threatened by rising class consciousness."
Angelo Greco, a progressive strategist who works with grassroots organizations including Our Revolution and One Fair Wage, told Common Dreams on Friday that establishment Democrats' dismissal of the term oligarchy is "out of touch" and "underestimates" voters.
"Tell me that farmers don't understand what the oligarchy is when there's a consolidation of the agribusiness that impacts them. Tell me that workers in Michigan don't understand what it means when trade deals that are written by multinational corporations have led to lower wages and plant closures," said Greco. "It's condescending to say that the median person doesn't understand what oligarchy is. They're living it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular