Why what doesn’t kill us — right away — still matters
What if the most dangerous thing in your garden isn’t the pest — but the residue left behind after the pest is gone?
And what if those residues aren’t just lingering in your backyard, but showing up across our food, water, soil, and even the air we breathe?
A new study published in Environment International (2024) by van den Berg et al. takes a sweeping look at pesticide residues and matches them against known hazard classifications — not just for humans, but for the entire web of life that doesn’t get a say in what we spray.
It paints a picture far more disturbing than a few rogue chemicals overstaying their welcome — with 346 active substances detected across water, soil, and food. It suggests that our regulatory frameworks, corporate assurances, and tidy labels like “low-risk” or “non-target” are built on shifting sands.
It’s Not One Pesticide. It’s Hundreds.
The study didn’t just spotlight glyphosate or chlorpyrifos. It identified 346 active pesticide substances found as residues across water, soil, and food.
Researchers then mapped these against hazard classifications from multiple global sources, including the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and classifications from the World Health Organization (WHO), looking at what damage they could cause to:
- Humans (carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption)
- Aquatic organisms
- Pollinators like bees
- Birds, mammals, and soil life
The verdict? A shocking number of these residues are associated with serious risks — despite being widely used, loosely monitored, and, in many cases, still legally approved.
Critical Mindshift #1: Hazard Is Not the Same as Risk — But It Should Be
Regulators love to say: “A little bit won’t hurt.” For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains that pesticide residues below the established tolerance levels are “not of concern for public health,” even though these limits don’t always account for cumulative exposure or chemical interactions.
They call it risk assessment. But what they’re really doing is isolating a single chemical, testing it in a vacuum, and then declaring a “safe” level. What they’re not doing is evaluating the real-world, cumulative exposure to multiple residues over time. In water. In soil. In food. In us.
And let’s not forget what happens when these chemicals mix. Synergistic toxicity is a real phenomenon — but conveniently ignored.
What if it’s not the dose that makes the poison, but the context?
Critical Mindshift #2: Non-Target Doesn’t Mean Non-Impacted
Industry language has taught us to accept “non-target organisms” as collateral damage. But these “non-targets” include bees. Birds. Soil microbes. Amphibians. Fish. And us.
We are not the target of pesticides. But we are undeniably affected by them. Our gut bacteria. Our hormone balance. Our children’s neurodevelopment. Our soil’s ability to grow nutritious food.
What if we’re all non-targets — until we become statistics?
Critical Mindshift #3: Safety Assessments Rely on Industry Data
Let’s call it what it is: regulatory capture. For example, in 2015, a series of internal emails revealed that Monsanto had ghostwritten scientific reviews of glyphosate’s safety, which were later used by the EPA in its assessment. This is not an isolated case. The revolving door between industry and regulators — where former chemical company employees land senior roles in oversight agencies — only deepens the conflict of interest.
Most safety evaluations are built on data submitted by the companies that manufacture the chemicals. Independent, long-term studies are underfunded, underused, and underrepresented in decision-making.
If a chemical doesn’t immediately cause tumors in lab rats, it gets a pass. But what about endocrine disruption at parts-per-trillion? What about epigenetic changes passed on for generations?
When the system is built on trust in the untrustworthy, is it any wonder the risks are underestimated?
Glyphosate Was Just the Beginning
If you’ve been following our previous work on glyphosate — here, here, and here — you’ll recognize the pattern:
- Industry defends its products with selective science
- Regulators echo the talking points
- Consumers are left to deal with the fallout
This new study widens the lens. Glyphosate is one chapter. But the book is much longer, with this study alone identifying over 300 pesticide residues present across environmental systems.. And the plot is the same.
The Safe Level Myth
“Safe levels” are based on short-term exposure in healthy adults under controlled lab conditions. Real life looks more like this:
- A child with developing organs
- A pregnant woman with cumulative exposures
- A family living near farmland
- An elderly person with a compromised immune system
- An ecosystem already on the edge
And yet, we’re told not to worry.
What If This Isn’t About Safety At All?
What if the residue problem isn’t a scientific oversight, but a business model? A profitable cycle of dependency:
- Kill the bugs
- Kill the soil
- Sell the fertilizer
- Sell the seed
- Sell the pesticide to fix the next problem
A cycle that requires silence around residues. Residue data is often fragmented across agencies, with voluntary reporting systems and inconsistent monitoring thresholds. Many countries lack independent, real-time testing, and corporations are not required to disclose full breakdowns of where, how, and how much residue remains. In some cases, studies showing harm are downplayed, delayed, or dismissed — especially when they threaten market interests.
So What Now?
We can’t rely on the same institutions that created the problem to fix it. But we can:
- Demand independent residue testing
- Support regenerative agriculture
- Avoid ultra-processed foods
- Ask better questions about “safety”
- Refuse to be the non-targets anymore
Because what doesn’t kill us… May still be rewriting our biology.
Further Reading: Peeling Back the Layers
If you’re ready to dig deeper than the headlines:
Health and Pesticides – NRDC
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) offers comprehensive information on the health impacts of pesticides, focusing on vulnerable populations such as children and farmworkers. Their resources include analyses of pesticide-induced diseases and advocacy for safer agricultural practices.
Toxic Chemicals in Agriculture – Center for Food Safety
A detailed resource hub exploring the risks and policies surrounding pesticide use in U.S. agriculture, including chemical drift, residue data, and alternatives.
Pesticide Cocktails Are Everywhere – Pesticide Action Network UK
This article explains the “cocktail effect,” where multiple pesticide residues combine to pose greater risks than individual chemicals alone. It emphasizes the need for regulatory frameworks to consider these combined effects.
Pesticide Residues in Food – FAO/WHO
The FAO and WHO collaborate to assess the risks of pesticide residues in food. Their joint efforts aim to establish international standards and guidelines to ensure food safety and protect public health.
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals – WHO
This publication discusses the dangers of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which can interfere with hormonal systems even at low doses. It underscores the outdated nature of the “low dose makes no difference” argument and the importance of minimizing exposure.
Glossary of Terms
Active Substance / Active Ingredient
The primary chemical in a pesticide responsible for its intended effect, such as killing pests or inhibiting growth.
Carcinogenicity
The potential of a substance to cause cancer in living tissue.
Cumulative Exposure
The total exposure to multiple chemicals over time, from various sources such as food, water, and air.
Endocrine Disruption
Interference with the body’s hormonal system by synthetic or natural chemicals, which can lead to developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune issues.
Epigenetic Change
Biological changes that affect gene expression without altering the DNA sequence, often influenced by environmental exposures and potentially heritable.
Hazard Classification
A system used by regulatory agencies to categorize chemicals based on the type and severity of harm they may cause.
Neurotoxicity
The degree to which a substance can harm the nervous system, including the brain and peripheral nerves.
Non-Target Organisms
Species that a pesticide is not intended to affect but which may still be harmed by exposure — including bees, birds, aquatic life, and humans.
Persistence (Environmental Persistence)
How long a chemical remains active in the environment before breaking down. Persistent chemicals can accumulate and spread widely.
Pesticide Residue
Trace amounts of pesticides that remain on or in food, water, or soil after application.
Regulatory Capture
A situation where regulatory agencies are dominated or unduly influenced by the industries they are supposed to regulate.
Revolving Door (Policy)
The movement of personnel between roles as regulators and roles in the industries being regulated, raising concerns about bias and conflicts of interest.
Risk Assessment
The process of evaluating the likelihood and severity of harm from exposure to a chemical under specific conditions.
Safe Level Myth
The belief that chemicals are harmless below a certain threshold — often challenged by evidence of harm from low-dose or cumulative exposures.
Synergistic Toxicity
When the combined effect of multiple chemicals is greater than the sum of their individual effects, creating unexpected and amplified risks.
Image acknowledgment
The featured image on this page was created using Canva.com.
