Serious Deficiencies in the Regulation of Toxic Chemicals

Introduction

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there is a global epidemic of noncommunicable chronic diseases (NCDs), which include heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes. WHO states that NCDs are the leading cause of mortality worldwide. “This invisible epidemic is an under-appreciated cause of poverty and hinders the economic development of many countries. The burden is growing — the number of people, families and communities afflicted is increasing” [1].

You cannot contract these diseases from others. Sitting next to individuals with these conditions will not cause you to develop cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. The primary causes are environmental factors and lifestyle choices.

This means we can prevent them by altering our habits, food choices, and farming practices; reducing industrial pollution; and avoiding environmental exposures and lifestyle factors that contribute to them.

Pesticides and chemicals are strongly implicated in this global epidemic; however, researchers and health professionals largely overlook the extent of their role.

Serious Deficiencies in the Regulation of Toxic Chemicals

There are numerous serious deficiencies in the regulation of toxic chemicals used in our food supply, and much of the criteria supporting the current usage patterns relies on outdated assumptions instead of the latest published science [2].

The scientific credibility of pesticide regulatory authorities must be seriously questioned when they approve pesticides based on assumptions lacking data.

A good example of this is the approval of formulated pesticide products as safe based solely on testing one of the ingredients without evaluating the entire formulation. Since the other chemical ingredients are active and added to enhance the effectiveness of the primary ingredient, the assumption that they are inert and will not increase the overall toxicity of the formulation lacks scientific credibility. Limited scientific testing of formulated pesticide products indicates that they can be hundreds of times more toxic to humans than the pure, single active ingredient. There are no requirements to test the toxicity of the entire formulation to establish its safety in preventing NCDs such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes. There is no requirement to produce credible, evidence-based scientific data [2] to demonstrate that formulated pesticide residues in our food are safe.

The study by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini et al.  (image above) found that small amounts of GMO maize and Roundup, at daily levels to which most people are exposed over a lifetime, damaged kidneys and livers and caused tumors. This study is the only credible, peer-reviewed, published research conducted by a highly reputable team of independent scientists examining lifetime exposure to realistically small amounts of a formulated pesticide (Roundup). [3] The few other studies are invalid as they were conducted by researchers with financial and other conflicts of interest with pesticide corporations.

The Lack of Testing Chemical Cocktails and their Byproducts

Regulatory authorities approve various pesticides for crops—such as herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides—based on the premise that all can be used in normal crop production. Consequently, multiple residues are found in crops; residue testing revealed that 47.4% of food in the United States contained two or more pesticide residues. The current approval process, which tests each pesticide separately, relies on the assumption that if each chemical is safe on its own, then combinations of these chemicals are also safe. Numerous published scientific studies indicate that combinations of pesticide residues can lead to serious adverse health outcomes due to additive or synergistic effects. The failure to test combinations of approved pesticides for potential health risks means that regulatory authorities lack evidence-based data showing that these residue combinations are safe [2].

The absence of testing for the metabolites generated as pesticides break down represents another significant data gap, particularly given that limited research indicates many of these metabolites are more toxic and longer-lasting than the pesticides themselves. Later in this article, I provide the example of aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), one of the breakdown products of glyphosate, and its contribution to adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in children, with effects becoming more pronounced at 24 months.

Research shows that breakdown products of neurotoxic pesticides, like neonicotinoids and organophosphates, are significantly more toxic and persistent than their parent chemicals. This should dispel the dangerous and irresponsible myth that modern pesticides break down quickly and become harmless. The reality is that the residues on our food become more toxic over time.

The consideration of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) provides another example. Numerous studies show that over 600 chemicals can act as endocrine disruptors and are more toxic at lower doses. Therefore, establishing the ADI by extrapolating results from higher dose testing involves an assumption that lacks supporting data. The only way to ensure the ADI is safe and does not act as an endocrine disruptor is to conduct tests at the actual residue levels defined for the ADI. This has never been done by the US EPA or the EFSA, despite being a legal requirement since the early 1990s—over 30 years ago.

The special requirements of the fetus, newborn, and growing child concerning developmental neurotoxicity also rely on data-free assumptions. Currently, the pesticide testing involved in the regulatory approval processes does not specifically assess any risks unique to these age groups, and the ADIs are established based on the testing of adolescent animals.

Until testing is specifically designed to evaluate the risks to developing fetuses and young children, there is no evidence-based data applicable to this age group. The fact is, there is not one independent peer-reviewed scientific paper showing that any pesticide is safe for children.

It is the same with intergenerational effects. Unless testing is conducted over several generations, particularly on organs and physiological processes, there is no data to demonstrate that the current ADIs will not result in health problems for future generations. Many scientific studies indicate that exposure to pesticide residues causes adverse health issues in subsequent generations, so neglecting this matter could prove dangerous.

The regulation of pesticides should rely on data obtained from credible scientific studies and testing, rather than on unfounded assumptions, as is currently the case. Additional testing needs to be done for

• Mixtures and cocktails of chemicals
• The actual formulated products, not just the active ingredients
• The toxicity of pesticide metabolites
• The special requirements of fetuses, newborns, and growing children
• Endocrine disruption
• Metabolic disruption
• Intergenerational effects on all organs and physiological systems
• Developmental neurotoxicity.

Until this is completed, regulatory bodies lack credible scientific evidence to support the claim that any level of pesticide residue is safe for humans or the environment.

No Published Evidence of Pesticide Safety in Children

The official requirements set by regulatory authorities for specific testing of pesticide-induced diseases in children are nearly non-existent. The OECD guidelines state that “Young healthy adult animals of commonly used laboratory strains should be employed.” The fetus, infant, and pubertal animals (i.e., children) are not tested [4].

This indicates that there will be no data on the safety of pesticides and other chemicals for children in the experiments that utilize these OECD and similar guidelines, which represent the majority of tests.

The developing fetus, young children, and adolescents undergoing puberty are three critical stages in human development that are completely overlooked in the guidelines for diseases, endocrine disruption, and cancer. There is no published scientific evidence-based testing showing that any of the current chemicals and pesticides are safe for our children, as there is no requirement to specifically evaluate their safety.

The current best practice testing guidelines will fail to detect whether chemicals are causing this massive epidemic in our children. Conversely, there is a substantial body of published, peer-reviewed scientific research demonstrating that exposure to minute levels of chemicals and pesticides in unborn and growing children is linked to

• Autism spectrum disorders
• Lower IQs
• Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
• Cancers
• Thyroid disorders
• Endocrine disruption
• Immune system problems
• Lack of physical coordination
• Loss of temper—anger management issues
• Bipolar/schizophrenia spectrum of illnesses
• Depression
• Digestive system problems
• Cardiovascular disease
• Reproductive problems (as adults)
• Deformities of the genital-urinary systems
• Changes to metabolic systems, including childhood obesity and diabetes [2].

A good example is the autism epidemic in the developed world. According to the U.S. CDC, in 2000, 670 children per 100,000, or 1 child in 150, had autism. By 2014, the rates of autism rose to 1,680 children per 100,000, or 1 child in 59. This reflects a startling 250% increase over 14 years [5].

The most recent data from the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, published in 2025, estimates that 1 in 31 children aged 8 years in the United States were identified with autism in 2022. This marks an increase from 1 in 36 in 2020. For boys, the rate is significantly higher at 1 in 20, while for girls, it’s approximately 1 in 93. About 26.7% of children with autism have profound autism and require constant long-term care. [6]

It is criminal neglect that has permitted this epidemic to expand to the point where it affects such a high percentage of children. Until recently, it was ignored or denied, and the rise in rates was primarily attributed to increased awareness, screening, diagnostic practices, and genetic factors.

The causes of the epidemic were overlooked despite strong scientific studies showing significant links to the rise in neurotoxins, such as glyphosate from GMO foods, and mercury and aluminum due to the rapid increase in the number of childhood vaccines.

Dr. Nancy Swanson, my co-authors Jon Abrahamson and Bradley Wallet, and I published a peer-reviewed paper, “Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America,” demonstrating how glyphosate and GMOs are linked to over 20 chronic diseases in the U.S.

In the chart above, we illustrate the strong correlation between the increase in glyphosate usage and the rise in autism among children. Through a standard statistical analysis, we demonstrated a 10,000 to 1 probability linking the increase in glyphosate use to the rise in autism. [7] When analyzing side effects from a medication, this level of probability of harm is deemed sufficient evidence to withdraw it.

The image above, from Coullery et al., illustrates how glyphosate damages nerve development. The glyphosate-exposed cells exhibited shorter, unbranched axons (the long extended ‘arms’ of the nerve) and less complex dendritic arbors (the smaller ‘fingers’ coming out of the body of the cell). It is evident from the image that the cells exposed to glyphosate do not develop properly and, therefore, cannot function effectively. [8]

The study reveals that gestational exposure to glyphosate leads to neurobehavioral impairments in rat offspring, characterized by motor and cognitive deficits. The scientists identified the mechanism by which glyphosate affects nerve development, specifically by inhibiting the Wnt5a-CaMKII pathway, stating that this effect cannot be reversed. This indicates that the nervous system is a primary target for glyphosate toxicity, raising serious concerns about its effects during critical developmental periods.

The study “Gestational glyphosate exposure and early childhood neurodevelopment in a Puerto Rico birth cohort” by Jenkins et al. examined the relationship between prenatal exposure to glyphosate and its metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), and early childhood neurodevelopment. It found that prenatal AMPA concentrations were significantly associated with reduced communication scores at 12 months. At 24 months, AMPA was linked to declines across multiple domains. The study concluded that gestational glyphosate exposure, particularly through AMPA, is associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, with effects becoming more pronounced at 24 months.[9]

The critical issue is that AMPA results from the degradation of glyphosate and is more persistent and toxic in the environment and in human bodies. Therefore, the argument that glyphosate breaks down rapidly and is harmless is a dangerous myth. In fact, it becomes more harmful and persistent as it breaks down! This is why its widespread use in food production, gardening, roadsides, sidewalks, parks, schools, and playgrounds is dangerously irresponsible.

The primary concern is that the brain is the largest collection of nerves in the human body and continues to develop in unborn, newborn, and growing children. Exposure to small amounts of glyphosate and AMPA in food can adversely affect the brain’s normal development, leading to a range of serious issues observed in children, including autism spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, ADHD, and other developmental and behavioral challenges.

Adult brains continually regenerate brain cells. These nerve cells are also negatively impacted by glyphosate. The graph below is from our paper “Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America.” It illustrates a strong correlation, 10,000 to 1, between the rise in glyphosate usage in GMO crops and deaths from dementia.

The widespread use of glyphosate and other pesticides results in nearly everyone having pesticide residues in their blood and urine. Most individuals are not farmers, and the majority of their exposure comes from food residues. This is why consuming regenerative organic food is essential for our health, especially the health of our children and the overall environment.

References

1. World Health Organization, The Global Health Observatory, Noncommunicable Diseases https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/noncommunicable-diseases/GHO/noncommunicable-diseases, accessed May 12, 2020.

2. Leu, Andre. Poisoning Our Children: The Parents’ Guide to the Myths of Safe Pesticides. Acres U.S.A. Greely, Colorado, USA 2018, ISBN 978-1-601-73140-1.

 

3. Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, and de Vendômois JS, Republished study: Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize, Environmental Sciences Europe (2014, Vol. 26, Article 14)
4. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4, Health Effects, ISSN: 20745788 (online) https://doi.org/10.1787/20745788, accessed May 12, 2020.
5. Data & Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder, Content source: National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html, Page last reviewed: September 3, 2019.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence and Early Identification of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 4 and 8 Years — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 16 Sites, United States, 2022. MMWR Surveill Summ 2025;74(No. SS-2):1–22.
7. Nancy L. Swanson, Andre Leu, Jon Abrahamson, and Bradley Wallet, Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America, Journal of Organic Systems, 9(2), 2014
8. Romina Coullery, Alejandra M. Pacchioni, Silvana B. Rosso, Exposure to glyphosate during pregnancy induces neurobehavioral alterations and downregulation of Wnt5a-CaMKII pathway, Reproductive Toxicology, Volume 96, September 2020, Pages 390–398
9. Jenkins et al., Gestational glyphosate exposure and early childhood neurodevelopment in a Puerto Rico birth cohort, Environmental Research (2024),