The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The USA lags behind other agricultural nations in banning harmful pesticides
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The United States of America (USA), European Union (EU), Brazil and China are four of the largest agricultural producers and users of agricultural pesticides in the world. Comparing the inclination and ability of different regulatory agencies to ban or eliminate pesticides that have the most potential for harm to humans and the environment can provide a glimpse into the effectiveness of each nation's pesticide regulatory laws and oversight. METHODS: The approval status of more than 500 agricultural pesticides was identified in the USA, EU, Brazil and China and compared between nations. The amount of pesticides that were used in the USA and banned in these other nations was compiled and linear regression was used to identify trends in use. RESULTS: There are 72, 17, and 11 pesticides approved for outdoor agricultural applications in the USA that are banned or in the process of complete phase out in the EU, Brazil, and China, respectively. Of the pesticides used in USA agriculture in 2016, 322 million pounds were of pesticides banned in the EU, 26 million pounds were of pesticides banned in Brazil and 40 million pounds were of pesticides banned in China. Pesticides banned in the EU account for more than a quarter of all agricultural pesticide use in the USA. The majority of pesticides banned in at least two of these three nations have not appreciably decreased in the USA over the last 25 years and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the last 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Many pesticides still widely used in the USA, at the level of tens to hundreds of millions of pounds annually, have been banned or are being phased out in the EU, China and Brazil. Of the pesticides banned in at least two of these nations, many have been implicated in acute pesticide poisonings in the USA and some are further restricted by individual states. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has all but abandoned its use of non-voluntary cancellations in recent years, making pesticide cancellation in the USA largely an exercise that requires consent by the regulated industry.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
US Environmental Protection Agency
(1998) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.35-4455 · Cited by 5,897
Mowry, J. B., Spyker, D. A., Cantilena, L. R., McMillan, N., & Ford, M. (2014) · Clinical Toxicology · doi:10.3109/15563650.2014.987397 · Cited by 849
Environmental and Economic Costs of the Application of Pesticides Primarily in the United States
Pimentel, D. (2009) · Integrated Pest Management: Innovation-Development Process · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8992-3_4 · Cited by 736
Gummin, D. D., Mowry, J. B., Spyker, D. A., Brooks, D. E., Fraser, M. O., & Banner, W. (2017) · Clinical Toxicology · doi:10.1080/15563650.2017.1388087 · Cited by 553
Mowry, J. B., Spyker, D. A., Brooks, D. E., McMillan, N., & Schauben, J. L. (2015) · Clinical Toxicology · doi:10.3109/15563650.2015.1102927 · Cited by 507
Mowry, J. B., Spyker, D. A., Cantilena, L. R., Bailey, J. E., & Ford, M. (2013) · Clinical Toxicology · doi:10.3109/15563650.2013.863906 · Cited by 456
Mowry, J. B., Spyker, D. A., Brooks, D. E., Zimmerman, A., & Schauben, J. L. (2016) · Clinical Toxicology · doi:10.1080/15563650.2016.1245421 · Cited by 381
Pesticide exposure in children
Roberts, J. R., Karr, C. J., COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, Paulson, J. A., Brock-Utne, A. C., Brumberg, H. L., Campbell, C. C., Lanphear, B. P., Osterhoudt, K. C., Sandel, M. T., et al. (2012) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2758 · Cited by 351
Gunnell, D., Knipe, D., Chang, S.-S., Pearson, M., Konradsen, F., Lee, W. J., & Eddleston, M. (2017) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(17)30299-1 · Cited by 246
Hertz-Picciotto, I., Sass, J. B., Engel, S., Bennett, D. H., Bradman, A., Eskenazi, B., Lanphear, B., & Whyatt, R. (2018) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002671 · Cited by 237
Cited by
Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment
Donley, N., Cox, C., Bennett, K., Temkin, A. M., Andrews, D. Q., & Naidenko, O. V. (2024) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp13954 · Cited by 140
Self-citationAgrochemical pesticide production, trade, and hazard: Narrowing the information gap in Colombia
Valbuena, D., Cely-Santos, M., & Obregón, D. (2021) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112141 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Donley, N.
- Venue
- Environmental Health
- Published
- 2019-06-07
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 44-44
- ISSN
- 1476-069X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2948324484
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 26.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The USA lags behind other agricultural nations in banning harmful pesticides. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12940-019-0488-0
- The paper
- Donley, N. (2019). The USA lags behind other agricultural nations in banning harmful pesticides. Environmental Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-019-0488-0
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.