Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need

News Feed
Wednesday, October 30, 2024

What Our Investigation Revealed Nearly all commodity corn farmers receive seed coated with neonics each season. Many cannot identify the chemical coating on their seeds and only opt for it because a seed salesperson recommends it. Companies have made it nearly impossible for farmers to find corn seed that isn’t coated with neonics. Farmers often feel peer pressure not to ask questions or change their practices in the face of concerns about neonics’ safety. Like so many people whose lives were upended during the pandemic, Sean Dengler returned to his roots. In 2020, he went back to northern Iowa and joined his father in farming 500 acres of corn and soybeans. As he learned the ropes, he began engaging with Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), a unique organization that attracts out-of-the-box thinkers and tinkerers across a wide spectrum of sustainable agriculture in the Midwest. Soon, he was reading about neonicotinoids—“neonics” for short—now the most common chemicals used to kill bugs in American agriculture. Why It Matters Neonic-treated seeds are planted on approximately 90 million acres of corn fields and more than 40 million acres of soybean fields each year. Research shows neonics threaten pollinators, birds, aquatic organisms, and mammals, and may pose risks to humans. Evidence shows there are no significant yield losses from planting seeds without neonic coatings. Farmers are paying extra for insecticide seed coatings they may not need. Farmers can spray them on fields, but these insecticides are also attached to seeds as an outer coating, called a seed treatment. As the seeds germinate and grow, the plant’s tissues become toxic to certain pests. However, neonics impact beneficial insects, too, like bees and other pollinators. Newer research also shows neonics threaten birds and some mammals, suggesting potential human health impacts. In 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the three most common neonics were each likely to harm more than 1,000 endangered species. Also, neonics move through soil into groundwater, contaminating rivers and streams in the Midwest and beyond. Data from 2015 to 2016 showed about half of Americans over three years old were recently exposed to a neonic. Dengler suspected he had been planting neonic-treated seed, but he wasn’t sure exactly which chemicals the colorful coating was meant to warn him of. He also had no idea if it would be possible for him to order seeds without the treatment. “The corn is usually either red or purple when it comes,” he said. “That’s how it’s always been. You just get it that way.” In numerous interviews over the past year, other farmers, researchers, and industry insiders described the same scenario to Civil Eats. While the agrichemical industry claims farmers “carefully select the right pesticide for each pest and crop at issue” and “only use pesticides as a last resort,” when it comes to neonics, that is false in most cases. Nearly all commodity corn farmers receive seed coated with neonics at the start of each season; many cannot identify the chemical that’s in the coating and don’t even know if another option exists. These findings are significant for a few key reasons. First, the pesticide industry often calls seed treatment environmentally beneficial because it reduces the amount of insecticide applied per acre compared to spraying. This is true. But research shows that the preemptive coating of seed with neonics has resulted in farmers using insecticides, overall, on significantly more total acres than they were a few decades ago. A 2015 study published by researchers Maggie Douglas and John Tooker at Penn State University found that neonic seed treatments are now used on almost triple the area that had once been sprayed with insecticides, indicating their negative impacts could be more widely distributed. Chart showing the rise in the use of neonicotinoid pesticides between 1995 and 2011. The majority of neonics are used in corn and soybeans. (Source: Douglas and Tooker, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 8, 5088–5097) Second, a significant portion of that use may be for nothing. In corn and soy fields, new research and evidence accumulated over the last few years suggest that widespread use of neonic-treated seeds provide minimal benefit to farmers. One study from Quebec helped convince the Canadian province to change its laws to restrict the use of neonic seed treatments. After five years and a 95 percent drop in the use of neonic-coated seeds, there have been no reported impacts on crop yields. But based on conversations with farmers and other industry insiders, agrichemical companies that sell seeds and pesticides continue to steer farmers toward using neonics on their seeds—and sometimes, there are no other options available. “They scare the farmers and say that you’re going to lose your yield, that you’re going to have crop failure, and the whole grain sector will just collapse,” said Louis Robert, a Canadian agronomist who previously worked for the Quebec government, where he revealed pesticide-industry meddling in research on neonics’ environmental harms. “They go very far in terms of misleading people.” Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide IndustryRead all the stories in our series: Overview: Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide Industry How the agrichemical industry is shaping public information about the toxicity of pesticides, how they’re being used, and the policies that impact the health of all Americans. Inside Bayer’s State-by-State Efforts to Stop Pesticide Lawsuits As the agrichemical giant lays groundwork to fend off Roundup litigation, its use of a playbook for building influence in farm state legislatures has the potential to benefit pesticide companies nationwide. Are Companies Using Carbon Markets to Sell More Pesticides? Many programs meant to help farmers address climate change are now owned by companies that sell chemicals, which could boost practices that depend on pesticides rather than those that reduce their use. Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need Neonicotinoids coat nearly all the corn and soybean seeds available for planting. Agrichemical companies have designed it that way. At the same time, the industry has engaged in a broad, sophisticated lobbying and public relations effort to block regulation in the U.S., muddy the research waters, and even influence Google search results for neonics, all of which has been documented in depth by The Intercept. So, while Europe and Canada have been moving away from the widespread use of neonics, the U.S. has barely budged in its approach. Neonic-treated seeds are planted on nearly 90 million acres of corn fields and more than 40 million acres of soybean fields each year. Only New York has passed a ban that includes eliminating them as coatings on corn and soy seeds—and that law does not go into effect until 2029. (Neonic treatments are common on many other seeds, including wheat, cotton, and vegetables, and farmers’ reliance on them varies across different crops. This investigation focused only on corn and soy, by far the two most widely planted crops in the country.) Over the course of three weeks in October, Civil Eats sent at least four interview requests and detailed questions to CropLife America, which represents the pesticide industry, but did not receive a response. We also sent emails to press contacts at the companies that make or sell pesticide and seed products mentioned in this story: Corteva (which owns Pioneer) and Winfield United (owned by Land O’Lakes) did not respond. A spokesperson for Syngenta directed Civil Eats to “Growing Matters,” an initiative of the American Seed Trade Association, and sent a statement that reads, “Planting seeds treated with crop-protection products is a more precise way for farmers to protect their crops from early season pests and diseases. As you can see from our global Seedcare Institute website, Syngenta is a leader in providing treated seeds of the highest quality and committed to helping farmers achieve their yield goals sustainably.” No Knowledge, No Choice For many years, Kynetec, a global data company, asked farmers to share which insecticides were on their seeds and then provided the federal government with estimates of how many acres were being planted with the chemicals included. But because farmers were so often unable to name the specific chemicals, it was impossible to warrant a reliable data set. They stopped in 2014. A few years later, in a 2020 paper, researchers reported in the journal Bioscience that only 65 percent of corn growers and 62 percent of soybean growers could name the seed treatment product they were using. Even if they did know the product, that didn’t mean they knew what was in it. In fact, in 15 to 35 percent of cases, corn growers incorrectly identified the pesticides included in the treatment. It speaks to why Damon Smith’s colleagues at the University of Wisconsin’s Nutrient and Pest Management Program dreamed up a resource dubbed “What’s on your seed?” When Smith, a biologist who studies field crop diseases, started working on it around 2010, the document was a page or two long, and they updated it every few years. Today, it’s a six-page PDF that the team updates at least once a year to keep up with new seed treatments hitting the market. Very few of those are new chemicals entirely. Most are new combinations of a neonic (or another insecticide) paired with anywhere from one to four fungicides, and maybe a nematicide, a chemical that targets pests called nematodes. Illustration by Civil Eats (click for a larger version) “There’s quite a few products out there, and it’s gotten increasingly complicated,” Smith said. Sales agronomists who work for seed companies, farmers said, sell product packages based mainly on their marketed “yield potential” and are unlikely to talk up the names of pesticides included in the coating. And they emphasize the need for seed coatings as insurance against crop loss. “The way it often gets marketed to [farmers] is, they get one chance a year to get it right,” explained Mac Erhardt, co-owner of Albert Lea Seed, a small, family-owned seed company based in Minnesota and Iowa. “The big chemical companies have been pretty successful at distributing counter-information where they show, ‘Well, if you plant naked seed, you’re giving up five bushels an acre.’” Six or seven years ago, before his company made a full switch to selling non-GMO and organic seeds, Erhardt said his contracts with big seed companies required him to treat corn seed with neonics before selling it. With soybeans, the system works a little differently, and farmers are able to select seed treatments at the time of sale. One Iowa farmer compared soybean seed selection to a car wash. Instead of exterior, interior, and a wax, it’s neonicotinoid, fungicide, and a nematicide. One Iowa farmer, who asked not to be named, compared the process to a car wash. “You can pick what you want on the screen, and then it formulates it and puts it through,” she said. Instead of exterior, interior, and a wax, it’s neonicotinoid, fungicide, and a nematicide. Still, farmers said they almost always defer to the seed dealers and are often unaware of what the treatments they’re selecting consist of. “From a farmer’s perspective, we want a seed to be protected, so we just trust that whatever potion they put on the seed, it’s going to be okay. They’re not in the business of selling seed that will yield less, so we just put our trust in them,” she said. “If we had real choices, those that know insecticides like neonics are harmful, we’re not going to push that button.” Fears About Speaking Out Against Treated Seeds Pesticide companies are so entrenched in the culture of agricultural communities, asking questions about insecticides and their merits or detriments also can feel taboo. One reason this farmer did not want to be named was because she thought, with all of the seed contracts she’d signed over the years, that it was possible she had signed a non-disclosure agreement without realizing it. For others, it’s much more personal. After Frank Rademacher, who has been farming corn and soybeans with his dad in east-central Illinois since 2018, talked about neonics to a reporter at a farming publication, another farmer yelled at him in public and accused him of hurting agriculture. Estimated agricultural use of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, by year and crop, between 1992 and 2019. 2014 was the last year that Kynetec provided USGS with data that included seed treatment, so the 2015 drop-off shows how much use is in seed coatings. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey data) Rademacher said that many farmers he encounters have a vague, visceral sense that there may be risks associated with the colorful dust that blows into the air as the high-powered vacuum system shoots seeds into the ground and the tractor shakes and bumps around. But pesticides are so commonplace that at a forum he attended, farmers laughed about which ones cause rashes and which lead to headaches. With neonics, he said, they’re grateful to have insecticides that are not as acutely toxic as the ones their parents handled. If they try not to touch the seeds with their bare hands or breathe too much of the dust in, it feels like enough. “The products that they were using growing up, they were just horrible,” he said of farmers in their 50s and older like his dad, who might have been exposed to insecticides like DDT, malathion, and chlorpyrifos that have now been banned or phased out. “This is kind of an invisible issue. It takes away a lot of the acute exposure, and what you trade is the long-term personal and environmental low-level exposure.” Illustration by Civil Eats Sean Dengler worried that even asking questions about neonics when buying his seed would upset others in his small farming community, some of whom he had known since childhood and considered friends. “My dad’s very conventional, and I don’t wanna make him feel uncomfortable in that way. It’s kind of like a peer pressure type of thing,” he said. But Dengler  recognized the power that gave the industry. “It’s a good thing for big business. You get everyone on one side, and you can’t have people think differently.” With the name of Dengler’s product in hand, Civil Eats tried to find out for him if the soybean treatment he had used contained a neonic. Because it was a newer product and wasn’t yet listed in Damon Smith’s resource, it took significant searching and emailing to track down the chemicals included. The insecticide was thiamethoxam—one of the most common neonics. Later, Dengler got his chance to ask about what was included in his corn seed treatments. Attending a plot tour hosted by Pioneer, one of the major seed companies, he learned that the corn seed had “seven fungicide treatments and two insecticide treatments on it. That’s the first time during my farming career I heard anything about it,” he explained by email to Civil Eats. Leaving Neonic-Coated Seeds Behind For those who do decide to swim upstream, the current encouraging them to stay the usual course is strong. “Even though there’s data showing that, ‘Hey, with a few tweaks, you can change your farming practices and you don’t need to use insecticides on your seed,’ [farmers] still want that protection. They don’t want that one-out-of-every-10-years problem,” said Erhardt, from Albert Lea Seed. That rare issue is the sticking point: Neonics are very good at killing some pests that can cause serious damage to crops, and companies are quick to point to that. One industry document created by CropLife to promote neonics on seeds highlights a study that found the number of plants that survived the season increased 18 percent, and crop yield increased by 12 percent, “when neonicotinoid-treated corn seed was planted into corn fields with high wireworm populations.” “Even though there’s data showing that, ‘Hey, with a few tweaks, you can change your farming practices and you don’t need to use insecticides on your seed,’ [farmers] still want that protection.” In other words, if you use neonics in a field infested with wireworm, it really helps. But using it on every field preventatively is like taking an antibiotic every day in case an infection pops up at some point. “Most of the pests that neonics really work well on are highly sporadic,” said Maggie Douglas, who is now an assistant professor of environmental studies at Dickinson College. “The question is: How many farmers are having a seedcorn maggot infestation in their field in a given year?” Seedcorn maggots are dreaded for their ability to burrow into seeds and kill a crop off the bat. But in New York, at least, there’s a clear answer. As the campaign to pass a law banning the use of neonicotinoid coatings on corn and soybean seeds heated up, farm groups were concerned, specifically, about how they’d control the pest. So, researchers at Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences set out to quantify how big the problem was. They set up ten one-year trials in four different locations across the state, comparing neonic-treated fields to fields planted with alternative seed treatments. After they pooled and analyzed the data, their preliminary conclusions were that there were no significant differences and that overall, “seedcorn maggots were not a factor in establishing corn” in any of their trials. (They expect to release final results from three years of trials this winter.) In Quebec, researchers did find seedcorn maggot infestations that caused damage to young corn plants, but at the end of the day, the infestations still didn’t result in yield losses. Another big hurdle facing farmers who want to move away from neonics is that they would also likely have to switch to non-genetically modified seed, said Rademacher. “I’m not aware of any seed company that that offers untreated seed in a GMO variety,” he said. If it was available, he would likely know. Not only does Rademacher have a degree in crop science with a focus on pest management, he also has an off-farm job as a conservation agronomist for The Nature Conservancy. In his own fields, he began implementing all kinds of conservation practices and, to ditch neonic coatings on his corn, was able to navigate the accompanying switch to planting non-GMO seed. But even a neonic-skeptical farmer would likely balk at giving up the protection against other pests that genetic modification enables. For example, if corn seed is not genetically modified to withstand glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, farmers would have to stop spraying the widely used weedkiller to avoid killing their corn. “You’re asking people to make not just one big shift but potentially two or more big shifts,” he said. “It’s all or nothing.” One compelling reason to make the switch is cost savings. In Quebec, a group of farmers convened by the University of Vermont last spring all said their seed costs $10–$20 less per bag now that they’re not paying for the neonicotinoid coating. In Iowa, the farmer who paid to have her soybeans coated said she was charged $2/acre—or $1,000 extra for a 500-acre field. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates, seed treatment “may account for around 15 percent of the seed price.” That got Dengler’s attention. With a degree in finance, he was particularly interested in opportunities to cut costs on the farm, and he was intrigued by a PFI farmer who conducted his own field trials on neonics. The results showed that the treatment applied to his soybean seeds might not be necessary: The farmer planted beans without the coating, the plants stayed healthy, and crop yields didn’t drop. “When you tie in the environmental impact of the seed treatment on the soybeans, I was like, ‘I’ll even take a bushel or two less, just because I believe that I’m doing the right thing,’” he said. While he couldn’t see how to do it with corn, he started opting out of neonic treatments on his soybean seeds. After harvest ended, he reported that all but one of his soybean fields yielded better than last year. But a clear takeaway on whether his choice to forgo neonics had an impact would be tough, he said. For one, growing conditions were better this season. Both years were dry, and wet conditions are often what precipitate early-season insect issues. So far, based on the lack of a clear difference, he said adding the neonic treatments “doesn’t seem worth the pay or environmental impacts.” Meanwhile, Rademacher is a few years in. Since planting seeds without neonic coatings, he said his yields might vary a few bushels here or there, but it’s nothing significant. However, he didn’t just change his seeds and continue farming the same way. Instead, he’s investing in an entirely different method of pest control. “As counterintuitive as it seems, our system is to promote insects. We have no tillage, so we don’t destroy their houses every year, and we provide year-round habitat via cover crops,” he said. Each small change adds up, and now, he and his dad are seeing significant numbers of beneficial insects returning, which keeps the bad guys in check. “Today, as we speak in 2024 in Quebec, over half of the corn and soy acreage doesn’t carry any insecticide, and we’re going to have a fantastic year in terms of yield.” In fact, the research that first spurred Douglas’ interest in neonics was on this very topic: In her lab, she accidently discovered that neonics were killing the beneficial beetles that prey on the slugs destroying Pennsylvania farmers’ yields—but not the slugs themselves. The discovery led her to a research trial that ultimately found that in their specific region, neonic treatments could actually reduce yields. Further north, Quebeçois farmers have the biggest head start. During the University of Vermont panel, one said he had learned a simple trick since ditching neonic seed treatments: He waits to see when his neighbor—an organic farmer—is ready to plant, and he follows his lead. That simple adjustment allows him to sidestep early season pest risks. For agronomist Louis Robert, the success of the Quebec government’s decision to move away from neonics on corn and soy seeds is apparent not in what’s being said, but in the silence. After five years, farmers aren’t talking about crop failure at their local meeting places, he said, and he hasn’t seen any media coverage of the neonic ban. Farmers can apply to use neonic-treated seed if they document a need, but almost no one’s doing so, he added. “The most reliable proof is that it’s not even a matter of discussion anymore,” Robert said. “Today, as we speak in 2024 in Quebec, over half of the corn and soy acreage doesn’t carry any insecticide, and we’re going to have a fantastic year in terms of yield. So, the demonstration is right there in front of you.” The post Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need appeared first on Civil Eats.

As he learned the ropes, he began engaging with Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), a unique organization that attracts out-of-the-box thinkers and tinkerers across a wide spectrum of sustainable agriculture in the Midwest. Soon, he was reading about neonicotinoids—“neonics” for short—now the most common chemicals used to kill bugs in American agriculture. Farmers can spray […] The post Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need appeared first on Civil Eats.

What Our Investigation Revealed
  • Nearly all commodity corn farmers receive seed coated with neonics each season.
  • Many cannot identify the chemical coating on their seeds and only opt for it because a seed salesperson recommends it.
  • Companies have made it nearly impossible for farmers to find corn seed that isn’t coated with neonics.
  • Farmers often feel peer pressure not to ask questions or change their practices in the face of concerns about neonics’ safety.

Like so many people whose lives were upended during the pandemic, Sean Dengler returned to his roots. In 2020, he went back to northern Iowa and joined his father in farming 500 acres of corn and soybeans.

As he learned the ropes, he began engaging with Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), a unique organization that attracts out-of-the-box thinkers and tinkerers across a wide spectrum of sustainable agriculture in the Midwest. Soon, he was reading about neonicotinoids—“neonics” for short—now the most common chemicals used to kill bugs in American agriculture.

Why It Matters
  • Neonic-treated seeds are planted on approximately 90 million acres of corn fields and more than 40 million acres of soybean fields each year.
  • Research shows neonics threaten pollinators, birds, aquatic organisms, and mammals, and may pose risks to humans.
  • Evidence shows there are no significant yield losses from planting seeds without neonic coatings.
  • Farmers are paying extra for insecticide seed coatings they may not need.

Farmers can spray them on fields, but these insecticides are also attached to seeds as an outer coating, called a seed treatment. As the seeds germinate and grow, the plant’s tissues become toxic to certain pests.

However, neonics impact beneficial insects, too, like bees and other pollinators. Newer research also shows neonics threaten birds and some mammals, suggesting potential human health impacts. In 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the three most common neonics were each likely to harm more than 1,000 endangered species. Also, neonics move through soil into groundwater, contaminating rivers and streams in the Midwest and beyond. Data from 2015 to 2016 showed about half of Americans over three years old were recently exposed to a neonic.

Dengler suspected he had been planting neonic-treated seed, but he wasn’t sure exactly which chemicals the colorful coating was meant to warn him of. He also had no idea if it would be possible for him to order seeds without the treatment. “The corn is usually either red or purple when it comes,” he said. “That’s how it’s always been. You just get it that way.”

In numerous interviews over the past year, other farmers, researchers, and industry insiders described the same scenario to Civil Eats. While the agrichemical industry claims farmers “carefully select the right pesticide for each pest and crop at issue” and “only use pesticides as a last resort,” when it comes to neonics, that is false in most cases. Nearly all commodity corn farmers receive seed coated with neonics at the start of each season; many cannot identify the chemical that’s in the coating and don’t even know if another option exists.

These findings are significant for a few key reasons.

First, the pesticide industry often calls seed treatment environmentally beneficial because it reduces the amount of insecticide applied per acre compared to spraying. This is true. But research shows that the preemptive coating of seed with neonics has resulted in farmers using insecticides, overall, on significantly more total acres than they were a few decades ago. A 2015 study published by researchers Maggie Douglas and John Tooker at Penn State University found that neonic seed treatments are now used on almost triple the area that had once been sprayed with insecticides, indicating their negative impacts could be more widely distributed.

Chart showing a rapid rise in the use of neonicotinoid pesticides between 1995 and 2011. The majority of neonics are used in corn and soybeans. (Source: Douglas and Tooker, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 8, 5088–5097

Chart showing the rise in the use of neonicotinoid pesticides between 1995 and 2011. The majority of neonics are used in corn and soybeans. (Source: Douglas and Tooker, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 8, 5088–5097)

Second, a significant portion of that use may be for nothing. In corn and soy fields, new research and evidence accumulated over the last few years suggest that widespread use of neonic-treated seeds provide minimal benefit to farmers. One study from Quebec helped convince the Canadian province to change its laws to restrict the use of neonic seed treatments. After five years and a 95 percent drop in the use of neonic-coated seeds, there have been no reported impacts on crop yields.

But based on conversations with farmers and other industry insiders, agrichemical companies that sell seeds and pesticides continue to steer farmers toward using neonics on their seeds—and sometimes, there are no other options available. “They scare the farmers and say that you’re going to lose your yield, that you’re going to have crop failure, and the whole grain sector will just collapse,” said Louis Robert, a Canadian agronomist who previously worked for the Quebec government, where he revealed pesticide-industry meddling in research on neonics’ environmental harms. “They go very far in terms of misleading people.”

Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide Industry

Read all the stories in our series:

  • Overview: Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide Industry
    How the agrichemical industry is shaping public information about the toxicity of pesticides, how they’re being used, and the policies that impact the health of all Americans.
  • Inside Bayer’s State-by-State Efforts to Stop Pesticide Lawsuits
    As the agrichemical giant lays groundwork to fend off Roundup litigation, its use of a playbook for building influence in farm state legislatures has the potential to benefit pesticide companies nationwide.
  • Are Companies Using Carbon Markets to Sell More Pesticides?
    Many programs meant to help farmers address climate change are now owned by companies that sell chemicals, which could boost practices that depend on pesticides rather than those that reduce their use.
  • Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need
    Neonicotinoids coat nearly all the corn and soybean seeds available for planting. Agrichemical companies have designed it that way.

At the same time, the industry has engaged in a broad, sophisticated lobbying and public relations effort to block regulation in the U.S., muddy the research waters, and even influence Google search results for neonics, all of which has been documented in depth by The Intercept.

So, while Europe and Canada have been moving away from the widespread use of neonics, the U.S. has barely budged in its approach. Neonic-treated seeds are planted on nearly 90 million acres of corn fields and more than 40 million acres of soybean fields each year. Only New York has passed a ban that includes eliminating them as coatings on corn and soy seeds—and that law does not go into effect until 2029. (Neonic treatments are common on many other seeds, including wheat, cotton, and vegetables, and farmers’ reliance on them varies across different crops. This investigation focused only on corn and soy, by far the two most widely planted crops in the country.)

Over the course of three weeks in October, Civil Eats sent at least four interview requests and detailed questions to CropLife America, which represents the pesticide industry, but did not receive a response. We also sent emails to press contacts at the companies that make or sell pesticide and seed products mentioned in this story: Corteva (which owns Pioneer) and Winfield United (owned by Land O’Lakes) did not respond. A spokesperson for Syngenta directed Civil Eats to “Growing Matters,” an initiative of the American Seed Trade Association, and sent a statement that reads, “Planting seeds treated with crop-protection products is a more precise way for farmers to protect their crops from early season pests and diseases. As you can see from our global Seedcare Institute website, Syngenta is a leader in providing treated seeds of the highest quality and committed to helping farmers achieve their yield goals sustainably.”

No Knowledge, No Choice

For many years, Kynetec, a global data company, asked farmers to share which insecticides were on their seeds and then provided the federal government with estimates of how many acres were being planted with the chemicals included. But because farmers were so often unable to name the specific chemicals, it was impossible to warrant a reliable data set. They stopped in 2014.

A few years later, in a 2020 paper, researchers reported in the journal Bioscience that only 65 percent of corn growers and 62 percent of soybean growers could name the seed treatment product they were using. Even if they did know the product, that didn’t mean they knew what was in it. In fact, in 15 to 35 percent of cases, corn growers incorrectly identified the pesticides included in the treatment.

It speaks to why Damon Smith’s colleagues at the University of Wisconsin’s Nutrient and Pest Management Program dreamed up a resource dubbed “What’s on your seed?” When Smith, a biologist who studies field crop diseases, started working on it around 2010, the document was a page or two long, and they updated it every few years. Today, it’s a six-page PDF that the team updates at least once a year to keep up with new seed treatments hitting the market.

Very few of those are new chemicals entirely. Most are new combinations of a neonic (or another insecticide) paired with anywhere from one to four fungicides, and maybe a nematicide, a chemical that targets pests called nematodes.

an illustration showing eight of the products that contain the neonicotinoid pesticide thiamethoxam - names include Cruiser 5FS, Avicta Duo 250, Seed Shield MAX Beans, and more. (Illustration by Civil Eats)

Illustration by Civil Eats (click for a larger version)

“There’s quite a few products out there, and it’s gotten increasingly complicated,” Smith said.

Sales agronomists who work for seed companies, farmers said, sell product packages based mainly on their marketed “yield potential” and are unlikely to talk up the names of pesticides included in the coating. And they emphasize the need for seed coatings as insurance against crop loss.

“The way it often gets marketed to [farmers] is, they get one chance a year to get it right,” explained Mac Erhardt, co-owner of Albert Lea Seed, a small, family-owned seed company based in Minnesota and Iowa. “The big chemical companies have been pretty successful at distributing counter-information where they show, ‘Well, if you plant naked seed, you’re giving up five bushels an acre.’” Six or seven years ago, before his company made a full switch to selling non-GMO and organic seeds, Erhardt said his contracts with big seed companies required him to treat corn seed with neonics before selling it.

With soybeans, the system works a little differently, and farmers are able to select seed treatments at the time of sale.

One Iowa farmer compared soybean seed selection to a car wash. Instead of exterior, interior, and a wax, it’s neonicotinoid, fungicide, and a nematicide.

One Iowa farmer, who asked not to be named, compared the process to a car wash. “You can pick what you want on the screen, and then it formulates it and puts it through,” she said. Instead of exterior, interior, and a wax, it’s neonicotinoid, fungicide, and a nematicide.

Still, farmers said they almost always defer to the seed dealers and are often unaware of what the treatments they’re selecting consist of. “From a farmer’s perspective, we want a seed to be protected, so we just trust that whatever potion they put on the seed, it’s going to be okay. They’re not in the business of selling seed that will yield less, so we just put our trust in them,” she said. “If we had real choices, those that know insecticides like neonics are harmful, we’re not going to push that button.”

Fears About Speaking Out Against Treated Seeds

Pesticide companies are so entrenched in the culture of agricultural communities, asking questions about insecticides and their merits or detriments also can feel taboo. One reason this farmer did not want to be named was because she thought, with all of the seed contracts she’d signed over the years, that it was possible she had signed a non-disclosure agreement without realizing it.

For others, it’s much more personal. After Frank Rademacher, who has been farming corn and soybeans with his dad in east-central Illinois since 2018, talked about neonics to a reporter at a farming publication, another farmer yelled at him in public and accused him of hurting agriculture.

Estimated agricultural use of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, by year and crop, between 1992 and 2019. Corn and soybeans are by far the crops with the most thiamethoxam use. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey data)

Estimated agricultural use of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, by year and crop, between 1992 and 2019. 2014 was the last year that Kynetec provided USGS with data that included seed treatment, so the 2015 drop-off shows how much use is in seed coatings.
(Source: U.S. Geological Survey data)

Rademacher said that many farmers he encounters have a vague, visceral sense that there may be risks associated with the colorful dust that blows into the air as the high-powered vacuum system shoots seeds into the ground and the tractor shakes and bumps around. But pesticides are so commonplace that at a forum he attended, farmers laughed about which ones cause rashes and which lead to headaches. With neonics, he said, they’re grateful to have insecticides that are not as acutely toxic as the ones their parents handled. If they try not to touch the seeds with their bare hands or breathe too much of the dust in, it feels like enough.

“The products that they were using growing up, they were just horrible,” he said of farmers in their 50s and older like his dad, who might have been exposed to insecticides like DDT, malathion, and chlorpyrifos that have now been banned or phased out. “This is kind of an invisible issue. It takes away a lot of the acute exposure, and what you trade is the long-term personal and environmental low-level exposure.”

infographic showing how complicated it is to find out what chemicals are included in a treated seed product. (Illustration by Civil Eats)

Illustration by Civil Eats

Sean Dengler worried that even asking questions about neonics when buying his seed would upset others in his small farming community, some of whom he had known since childhood and considered friends. “My dad’s very conventional, and I don’t wanna make him feel uncomfortable in that way. It’s kind of like a peer pressure type of thing,” he said. But Dengler  recognized the power that gave the industry. “It’s a good thing for big business. You get everyone on one side, and you can’t have people think differently.”

With the name of Dengler’s product in hand, Civil Eats tried to find out for him if the soybean treatment he had used contained a neonic. Because it was a newer product and wasn’t yet listed in Damon Smith’s resource, it took significant searching and emailing to track down the chemicals included. The insecticide was thiamethoxam—one of the most common neonics.

Later, Dengler got his chance to ask about what was included in his corn seed treatments. Attending a plot tour hosted by Pioneer, one of the major seed companies, he learned that the corn seed had “seven fungicide treatments and two insecticide treatments on it. That’s the first time during my farming career I heard anything about it,” he explained by email to Civil Eats.

Leaving Neonic-Coated Seeds Behind

For those who do decide to swim upstream, the current encouraging them to stay the usual course is strong.

“Even though there’s data showing that, ‘Hey, with a few tweaks, you can change your farming practices and you don’t need to use insecticides on your seed,’ [farmers] still want that protection. They don’t want that one-out-of-every-10-years problem,” said Erhardt, from Albert Lea Seed.

That rare issue is the sticking point: Neonics are very good at killing some pests that can cause serious damage to crops, and companies are quick to point to that. One industry document created by CropLife to promote neonics on seeds highlights a study that found the number of plants that survived the season increased 18 percent, and crop yield increased by 12 percent, “when neonicotinoid-treated corn seed was planted into corn fields with high wireworm populations.”

“Even though there’s data showing that, ‘Hey, with a few tweaks, you can change your farming practices and you don’t need to use insecticides on your seed,’ [farmers] still want that protection.”

In other words, if you use neonics in a field infested with wireworm, it really helps. But using it on every field preventatively is like taking an antibiotic every day in case an infection pops up at some point. “Most of the pests that neonics really work well on are highly sporadic,” said Maggie Douglas, who is now an assistant professor of environmental studies at Dickinson College. “The question is: How many farmers are having a seedcorn maggot infestation in their field in a given year?”

Seedcorn maggots are dreaded for their ability to burrow into seeds and kill a crop off the bat. But in New York, at least, there’s a clear answer. As the campaign to pass a law banning the use of neonicotinoid coatings on corn and soybean seeds heated up, farm groups were concerned, specifically, about how they’d control the pest.

So, researchers at Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences set out to quantify how big the problem was. They set up ten one-year trials in four different locations across the state, comparing neonic-treated fields to fields planted with alternative seed treatments. After they pooled and analyzed the data, their preliminary conclusions were that there were no significant differences and that overall, “seedcorn maggots were not a factor in establishing corn” in any of their trials. (They expect to release final results from three years of trials this winter.) In Quebec, researchers did find seedcorn maggot infestations that caused damage to young corn plants, but at the end of the day, the infestations still didn’t result in yield losses.

Another big hurdle facing farmers who want to move away from neonics is that they would also likely have to switch to non-genetically modified seed, said Rademacher. “I’m not aware of any seed company that that offers untreated seed in a GMO variety,” he said.

If it was available, he would likely know. Not only does Rademacher have a degree in crop science with a focus on pest management, he also has an off-farm job as a conservation agronomist for The Nature Conservancy. In his own fields, he began implementing all kinds of conservation practices and, to ditch neonic coatings on his corn, was able to navigate the accompanying switch to planting non-GMO seed. But even a neonic-skeptical farmer would likely balk at giving up the protection against other pests that genetic modification enables. For example, if corn seed is not genetically modified to withstand glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, farmers would have to stop spraying the widely used weedkiller to avoid killing their corn.

“You’re asking people to make not just one big shift but potentially two or more big shifts,” he said. “It’s all or nothing.”

One compelling reason to make the switch is cost savings. In Quebec, a group of farmers convened by the University of Vermont last spring all said their seed costs $10–$20 less per bag now that they’re not paying for the neonicotinoid coating. In Iowa, the farmer who paid to have her soybeans coated said she was charged $2/acre—or $1,000 extra for a 500-acre field. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates, seed treatment “may account for around 15 percent of the seed price.”

That got Dengler’s attention. With a degree in finance, he was particularly interested in opportunities to cut costs on the farm, and he was intrigued by a PFI farmer who conducted his own field trials on neonics. The results showed that the treatment applied to his soybean seeds might not be necessary: The farmer planted beans without the coating, the plants stayed healthy, and crop yields didn’t drop.

“When you tie in the environmental impact of the seed treatment on the soybeans, I was like, ‘I’ll even take a bushel or two less, just because I believe that I’m doing the right thing,’” he said. While he couldn’t see how to do it with corn, he started opting out of neonic treatments on his soybean seeds.

After harvest ended, he reported that all but one of his soybean fields yielded better than last year. But a clear takeaway on whether his choice to forgo neonics had an impact would be tough, he said. For one, growing conditions were better this season. Both years were dry, and wet conditions are often what precipitate early-season insect issues. So far, based on the lack of a clear difference, he said adding the neonic treatments “doesn’t seem worth the pay or environmental impacts.”

Meanwhile, Rademacher is a few years in. Since planting seeds without neonic coatings, he said his yields might vary a few bushels here or there, but it’s nothing significant.

However, he didn’t just change his seeds and continue farming the same way. Instead, he’s investing in an entirely different method of pest control. “As counterintuitive as it seems, our system is to promote insects. We have no tillage, so we don’t destroy their houses every year, and we provide year-round habitat via cover crops,” he said. Each small change adds up, and now, he and his dad are seeing significant numbers of beneficial insects returning, which keeps the bad guys in check.

“Today, as we speak in 2024 in Quebec, over half of the corn and soy acreage doesn’t carry any insecticide, and we’re going to have a fantastic year in terms of yield.”

In fact, the research that first spurred Douglas’ interest in neonics was on this very topic: In her lab, she accidently discovered that neonics were killing the beneficial beetles that prey on the slugs destroying Pennsylvania farmers’ yields—but not the slugs themselves. The discovery led her to a research trial that ultimately found that in their specific region, neonic treatments could actually reduce yields.

Further north, Quebeçois farmers have the biggest head start. During the University of Vermont panel, one said he had learned a simple trick since ditching neonic seed treatments: He waits to see when his neighbor—an organic farmer—is ready to plant, and he follows his lead. That simple adjustment allows him to sidestep early season pest risks.

For agronomist Louis Robert, the success of the Quebec government’s decision to move away from neonics on corn and soy seeds is apparent not in what’s being said, but in the silence. After five years, farmers aren’t talking about crop failure at their local meeting places, he said, and he hasn’t seen any media coverage of the neonic ban. Farmers can apply to use neonic-treated seed if they document a need, but almost no one’s doing so, he added.

“The most reliable proof is that it’s not even a matter of discussion anymore,” Robert said. “Today, as we speak in 2024 in Quebec, over half of the corn and soy acreage doesn’t carry any insecticide, and we’re going to have a fantastic year in terms of yield. So, the demonstration is right there in front of you.”

The post Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need appeared first on Civil Eats.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

AI use cases are going to get even bigger in 2025

Over the past two years, generative AI has dominated tech conversations and media headlines. Tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Midjourney, and Sora captured imaginations with their ability to create text, images, and videos, sparking both excitement and ethical debates. However, artificial intelligence goes far beyond generative AI—which is just a subset of AI—and its associated models. AI’s real promise lies in its ability to address complex challenges across diverse industries, from military technology to cybersecurity, medicine, and even genome sequencing. As we move into 2025 and beyond, the question isn’t whether AI use cases will expand—it’s how big and transformative they’ll get. MILITARY TACTICS AND INTELLIGENCE Few sectors stand to gain more from AI advancements than defense. “We are witnessing a surge in applications like autonomous drone swarms, electronic spectrum awareness, and real-time battlefield space management, where AI, edge computing, and sensor technologies are integrated to enable faster responses and enhanced precision,” says Meir Friedland, CEO at RF spectrum intelligence company Sensorz. Friedland notes that recent conflicts, particularly in Ukraine and across the Middle East, have highlighted critical vulnerabilities in military operations, from tactical to strategic levels—a factor he says will drive the adoption of AI use cases in the military. While Axios said in April that AI hit trust hurdles with the U.S. military, Friedland notes that with the rise of global tensions and defense budgets at an all-time high, “we can expect significant investment in AI to maintain a combat edge.” For Friedland, the defense sector’s growing embrace of innovation from startups like Palantir and Anduril reflects how AI is going to increasingly change things across the global defense sector. CRACKING THE CODE OF LIFE The healthcare sector is witnessing a sharp rise in AI-driven innovation, especially in precision medicine and genome sequencing, transforming how diseases are understood and treated. For many years, scientists and medical professionals have been trying to understand human DNA in an attempt to crack the code that powers life as we know it. Now, with new AI models like GROVER, they have a real chance at getting closer to that goal, Science Daily reports. “AI is transforming genome sequencing, enabling faster and more accurate analyses of genetic data,” Khalfan Belhoul, CEO at the Dubai Future Foundation, tells Fast Company. “Already, the largest genome banks in the U.K. and the UAE each have over half a million samples, but soon, one genome bank will surpass this with a million samples.” But what does this mean? “It means we are entering an era where healthcare can truly become personalized, where we can anticipate and prevent certain diseases before they even develop,” Belhoul says. Genome banks, powered by AI, are facilitating the storage and retrieval of vast amounts of genetic data, which can be analyzed to identify patterns and predispositions to certain diseases. Beyond diagnostics, AI is playing a pivotal role in drug development, accelerating the discovery of therapies for complex diseases. By analyzing genetic mutations and environmental factors, AI enables researchers to design treatments tailored to individual patients. “These tools are not only improving outcomes but also reducing costs and timelines associated with traditional medical research,” says Belhoul. BUSINESS COMMUNICATION INTELLIGENCE Today, businesses swim in a vast ocean of applications—spanning email, messaging apps like WhatsApp and iMessage, and collaboration platforms like Microsoft Teams—that eventually make communication fragmented and often get important details lost in silos. But AI agents like LeapXpert’s patented Maxen are solving this challenge by combining external messaging channels with enterprise platforms to deliver what Dima Gutzeit, founder and CEO at LeapXpert, describes as “communication intelligence.” While Maxen is similar to Microsoft Copilot—which works only within the Microsoft product suite for now—it’s differentiated in its ability to integrate with multiple communications platforms, including WhatsApp, iMessage, and Microsoft Teams. Gutzeit explains that Maxen is an extension of the LeapXpert Communications Platform (which unifies and governs communication channels) and uses AI to provide relationship managers with real-time insights into client interactions. While that’s commendable, he notes that we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of how AI will transform business communication. “2025 will see the rise of AI assistants tailored for enterprise needs, focusing on unifying communication data and driving actionable insights. Compliance and security AI will evolve further, flagging suspicious activity in real time and reinforcing trust in digital interactions,” Gutzeit says. AI’s role in business communication isn’t just about boosting efficiency. It’s also helping enterprises navigate the growing complexity of data governance and regulatory compliance. For Gutzeit, the future of AI in communication will combine privacy-first AI, compliance, and actionable insights, enabling businesses to thrive in a digitally interconnected world. AI-POWERED CYBERSECURITY OPERATIONS AI operates on both the offensive and defensive sides of the cybersecurity equation. One classic example is how cybercriminals used AI-generated deepfake technology to impersonate a company executive in Hong Kong, tricking him into transferring several millions of U.S. dollars. But in response to such threats, companies are deploying AI-driven anomaly detection tools like Darktrace and Vectra AI that monitor network traffic to detect and respond to irregular patterns. Alex Yevtushenko, CEO at Salvador Technologies, highlights the dual nature of AI in this space: “On the one hand, AI enables expansive behavioral analysis and anomaly detection, improving efficiency and speeding up threat detection. On the other, cybercriminals are leveraging AI to launch more sophisticated attacks.” A growing and worrisome trend is the use of AI for polymorphic malware—a type of malware that shapeshifts its codes, making it difficult to detect. Attackers are also deploying AI for large-scale phishing campaigns, voice cloning, and social engineering attacks. “National and other critical infrastructures, often reliant on legacy systems, are particularly vulnerable,” Yevtushenko warns. AI’s ability to automate malicious code generation and exploit vulnerabilities amplifies these risks. Yevtushenko emphasizes the importance of resilience strategies to combat these threats, noting that organizations, especially critical infrastructure operators and industrial enterprises, must invest in robust recovery systems that enable rapid restoration of operations. Salvador Technologies, for example, offers a platform that ensures operational continuity and facilitates rapid recovery, bypassing traditional protocols to minimize downtime. Speaking about major AI trends to expect in the coming year, Yevtushenko says that 2024 has illustrated that “AI, although not a technology that just emerged, is a hugely useful tool that can become a ‘game changer’ in many fields.” He says that in 2025 “we will see more and more AI-based systems and tools in everyday cybersecurity-based operations, empowering business decision-makers to make the right kind of decisions with the ultimate goal to increase overall security.” WHAT LIES AHEAD? The potential for AI extends far beyond the use cases dominating today’s headlines. As Friedland notes, “AI’s future lies in multi-domain coordination, edge computing, and autonomous systems.” These advancements are already reshaping industries like manufacturing, agriculture, and finance. In manufacturing, for example, AI-powered robotics is enhancing productivity and reducing waste by optimizing workflows. Take Machina Labs, which uses the latest advances in robotics and AI to build the next generation of factories for the manufacturing industry. Meanwhile, in the agricultural field, precision AI tools are helping farmers monitor crop health, predict yields, and conserve resources. A great example is CropX, which uses AI-powered algorithms to aggregate data from the soil and sky, then transform it into useful insights that help farmers monitor the health of their fields and crops. In finance, AI is improving fraud detection, enabling smarter investment strategies, and automating routine tasks, with companies like CertifID, Hawk AI, Riskified, and others using AI to detect and mitigate fraud at scale. As we move further into the decade, the consensus by many experts is that AI will increasingly take over routine tasks, freeing human experts to focus on complex challenges that require nuanced decision-making. Emerging technologies like quantum computing and hardware acceleration are also expected to supercharge AI’s capabilities, enabling more powerful models and faster decision-making processes. “AI will become more useful for decision-making in the C-suite,” says Belhoul, who also predicts that “we may see the first AI board member of a Fortune 500 company next year.”

Over the past two years, generative AI has dominated tech conversations and media headlines. Tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Midjourney, and Sora captured imaginations with their ability to create text, images, and videos, sparking both excitement and ethical debates. However, artificial intelligence goes far beyond generative AI—which is just a subset of AI—and its associated models. AI’s real promise lies in its ability to address complex challenges across diverse industries, from military technology to cybersecurity, medicine, and even genome sequencing. As we move into 2025 and beyond, the question isn’t whether AI use cases will expand—it’s how big and transformative they’ll get. MILITARY TACTICS AND INTELLIGENCE Few sectors stand to gain more from AI advancements than defense. “We are witnessing a surge in applications like autonomous drone swarms, electronic spectrum awareness, and real-time battlefield space management, where AI, edge computing, and sensor technologies are integrated to enable faster responses and enhanced precision,” says Meir Friedland, CEO at RF spectrum intelligence company Sensorz. Friedland notes that recent conflicts, particularly in Ukraine and across the Middle East, have highlighted critical vulnerabilities in military operations, from tactical to strategic levels—a factor he says will drive the adoption of AI use cases in the military. While Axios said in April that AI hit trust hurdles with the U.S. military, Friedland notes that with the rise of global tensions and defense budgets at an all-time high, “we can expect significant investment in AI to maintain a combat edge.” For Friedland, the defense sector’s growing embrace of innovation from startups like Palantir and Anduril reflects how AI is going to increasingly change things across the global defense sector. CRACKING THE CODE OF LIFE The healthcare sector is witnessing a sharp rise in AI-driven innovation, especially in precision medicine and genome sequencing, transforming how diseases are understood and treated. For many years, scientists and medical professionals have been trying to understand human DNA in an attempt to crack the code that powers life as we know it. Now, with new AI models like GROVER, they have a real chance at getting closer to that goal, Science Daily reports. “AI is transforming genome sequencing, enabling faster and more accurate analyses of genetic data,” Khalfan Belhoul, CEO at the Dubai Future Foundation, tells Fast Company. “Already, the largest genome banks in the U.K. and the UAE each have over half a million samples, but soon, one genome bank will surpass this with a million samples.” But what does this mean? “It means we are entering an era where healthcare can truly become personalized, where we can anticipate and prevent certain diseases before they even develop,” Belhoul says. Genome banks, powered by AI, are facilitating the storage and retrieval of vast amounts of genetic data, which can be analyzed to identify patterns and predispositions to certain diseases. Beyond diagnostics, AI is playing a pivotal role in drug development, accelerating the discovery of therapies for complex diseases. By analyzing genetic mutations and environmental factors, AI enables researchers to design treatments tailored to individual patients. “These tools are not only improving outcomes but also reducing costs and timelines associated with traditional medical research,” says Belhoul. BUSINESS COMMUNICATION INTELLIGENCE Today, businesses swim in a vast ocean of applications—spanning email, messaging apps like WhatsApp and iMessage, and collaboration platforms like Microsoft Teams—that eventually make communication fragmented and often get important details lost in silos. But AI agents like LeapXpert’s patented Maxen are solving this challenge by combining external messaging channels with enterprise platforms to deliver what Dima Gutzeit, founder and CEO at LeapXpert, describes as “communication intelligence.” While Maxen is similar to Microsoft Copilot—which works only within the Microsoft product suite for now—it’s differentiated in its ability to integrate with multiple communications platforms, including WhatsApp, iMessage, and Microsoft Teams. Gutzeit explains that Maxen is an extension of the LeapXpert Communications Platform (which unifies and governs communication channels) and uses AI to provide relationship managers with real-time insights into client interactions. While that’s commendable, he notes that we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of how AI will transform business communication. “2025 will see the rise of AI assistants tailored for enterprise needs, focusing on unifying communication data and driving actionable insights. Compliance and security AI will evolve further, flagging suspicious activity in real time and reinforcing trust in digital interactions,” Gutzeit says. AI’s role in business communication isn’t just about boosting efficiency. It’s also helping enterprises navigate the growing complexity of data governance and regulatory compliance. For Gutzeit, the future of AI in communication will combine privacy-first AI, compliance, and actionable insights, enabling businesses to thrive in a digitally interconnected world. AI-POWERED CYBERSECURITY OPERATIONS AI operates on both the offensive and defensive sides of the cybersecurity equation. One classic example is how cybercriminals used AI-generated deepfake technology to impersonate a company executive in Hong Kong, tricking him into transferring several millions of U.S. dollars. But in response to such threats, companies are deploying AI-driven anomaly detection tools like Darktrace and Vectra AI that monitor network traffic to detect and respond to irregular patterns. Alex Yevtushenko, CEO at Salvador Technologies, highlights the dual nature of AI in this space: “On the one hand, AI enables expansive behavioral analysis and anomaly detection, improving efficiency and speeding up threat detection. On the other, cybercriminals are leveraging AI to launch more sophisticated attacks.” A growing and worrisome trend is the use of AI for polymorphic malware—a type of malware that shapeshifts its codes, making it difficult to detect. Attackers are also deploying AI for large-scale phishing campaigns, voice cloning, and social engineering attacks. “National and other critical infrastructures, often reliant on legacy systems, are particularly vulnerable,” Yevtushenko warns. AI’s ability to automate malicious code generation and exploit vulnerabilities amplifies these risks. Yevtushenko emphasizes the importance of resilience strategies to combat these threats, noting that organizations, especially critical infrastructure operators and industrial enterprises, must invest in robust recovery systems that enable rapid restoration of operations. Salvador Technologies, for example, offers a platform that ensures operational continuity and facilitates rapid recovery, bypassing traditional protocols to minimize downtime. Speaking about major AI trends to expect in the coming year, Yevtushenko says that 2024 has illustrated that “AI, although not a technology that just emerged, is a hugely useful tool that can become a ‘game changer’ in many fields.” He says that in 2025 “we will see more and more AI-based systems and tools in everyday cybersecurity-based operations, empowering business decision-makers to make the right kind of decisions with the ultimate goal to increase overall security.” WHAT LIES AHEAD? The potential for AI extends far beyond the use cases dominating today’s headlines. As Friedland notes, “AI’s future lies in multi-domain coordination, edge computing, and autonomous systems.” These advancements are already reshaping industries like manufacturing, agriculture, and finance. In manufacturing, for example, AI-powered robotics is enhancing productivity and reducing waste by optimizing workflows. Take Machina Labs, which uses the latest advances in robotics and AI to build the next generation of factories for the manufacturing industry. Meanwhile, in the agricultural field, precision AI tools are helping farmers monitor crop health, predict yields, and conserve resources. A great example is CropX, which uses AI-powered algorithms to aggregate data from the soil and sky, then transform it into useful insights that help farmers monitor the health of their fields and crops. In finance, AI is improving fraud detection, enabling smarter investment strategies, and automating routine tasks, with companies like CertifID, Hawk AI, Riskified, and others using AI to detect and mitigate fraud at scale. As we move further into the decade, the consensus by many experts is that AI will increasingly take over routine tasks, freeing human experts to focus on complex challenges that require nuanced decision-making. Emerging technologies like quantum computing and hardware acceleration are also expected to supercharge AI’s capabilities, enabling more powerful models and faster decision-making processes. “AI will become more useful for decision-making in the C-suite,” says Belhoul, who also predicts that “we may see the first AI board member of a Fortune 500 company next year.”

What Bird Flu Means for Milk

On Wednesday, California became the first state to issue a declaration of emergency regarding the avian flu (H5N1). That same day, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first severe case of the flu in a human on US soil and outbreaks in cow herds were detected in Southern California. Still, the […]

On Wednesday, California became the first state to issue a declaration of emergency regarding the avian flu (H5N1). That same day, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first severe case of the flu in a human on US soil and outbreaks in cow herds were detected in Southern California. Still, the threat to humans is low according to the CDC. The agency has traced most human infections back to those handling livestock, and there’s been no reported transmission between people. “I have dairies that are never coming back from this.” But for cows and the dairy they produce, it’s a different story. This year was the first time the flu was detected in cows in the US, and it has ripped through many Western states’ dairy farms with startling speed. Since March, the virus has been found in cow herds of 16 states. For the last few months, infected herds have largely been concentrated in California—the state that makes up about 20 percent of the nation’s dairy industry. Last week, Texas, another one of the nation’s top dairy producing states, saw the reappearance of bird flu after two months without a detected outbreak. In the industry hit hardest by bird flu, the poultry industry, the virus’ spread has resulted in the culling of entire flocks which has lead to higher egg prices on supermarket shelves. Will milk and butter prices soon go the same route? And how worried should you be about consuming dairy? How exactly does bird flu affect dairy cows? Some farmers are first identifying outbreaks in their herds through the color and density of the milk, in what they are coining “golden mastitis,” according to Milkweed, a dairy news publication. As early studies by University of Copenhagen researchers found, the virus latches onto dairy cows mammary glands, creating complications for the dairy industry beyond just the cow fatalities. The virus is proving deadly to cows. According to Colorado State University Professor Jason Lombard, an infectious disease specialist for cattle, the case fatality rates based on a limited set of herds was zero to 15 percent. But California saw an even higher rate of up to 20 percent during a late summer heatwave in the states Central Valley. It was a warning for how the rising number of heatwaves and temps across the country could result in deadlier herd outbreaks in upcoming summers.  For some of the cows that survived, there was a dip in their dairy production of around 25 percent according to multiple experts I spoke with. As a farmer told Bloomberg News, some of the cows aren’t returning to full production levels, an indication of longer lasting effects of the virus. It’s a finding experts are seeing in other parts of the US, too. According to Lombard, this may be due to the severity of the virus in the cow. According to reporting in Milkweed, there may also be “long-tail” bird flu impacts on a cow’s dairy production, health, and reproduction. Additional research is likely needed to understand the extent of these potential longterm effects of the virus and whether they could spell trouble ahead for recovering farms.   A spokesperson with the California Department of Food and Agriculture told Mother Jones, “it’s too soon to know how production has been impacted.” How is this impacting farms and farm workers? As of today, more than half of the people who’ve contracted H5N1 are dairy farmworkers, according to the CDC. This population is particularly vulnerable because they are often the ones handling milking or milking equipment which can lead to spreading the virus. The CDC is recommending employers take steps to reduce their workers’ exposure to the virus by creating health and safety plans. The CDC is working with organizations like the National Center for Farm Worker Health to expand testing, PPE availability, and training. According to Bethany Alcauter, a director at the organization, ensuring dairy farmworkers have access to testing is a tricky situation. The 100,000-some workforce faces barriers to accessing health care and testing, such as an inability to take paid-time off to get themselves tested if they are sick. And the system depends on the producer to decide to bring in the health department to oversee potential outbreaks within herds and staff, which doesn’t always happen because there’s no government mandate. “It’s all recommendations and kindness—that’s what we’re running on. It’s not regulation and enforcement.” “It’s all recommendations and kindness—that’s what we’re running on,” Alcauter says. “It’s not regulation and enforcement.” She believes the testing infrastructure could be strengthened by “recognizing that farm workers can be public-health first responders if they have the knowledge and the access to the right contacts, in the right system.” Outside of navigating farmworker health, farmers face economic impacts when the virus spreads through their herds. “What you’re losing at the end of the day is revenue for your farm when it rolls through,” says Will Loux, vice president of economic affairs for the National Milk Producers Federation. “Depending on the financial situation of an individual farm it can certainly be devastating.”  There are a handful of variables and factors that shape the financial losses of a dairy hit with an outbreak. Luckily, agriculture economist Charles Nicholson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and some colleagues created a calculator to estimate this financial impact of a bird flu outbreak. Based on Nicholson’s estimates for California, a typical farm of 1500 cattle will lose $120,000 annually. For context, this is about $10,000 more than the median household income of a dairy farmer. Based on those estimates, that would mean California’s farmers have collectively lost about $80 million at most due to avian flu so far. The US Department of Agriculture is providing support for farmers who are impacted by H5N1 outbreaks. In reviewing a few herd datasets in Michigan, Phillip Durst, a dairy and cattle expert, noted that about half a year after an outbreak, herds were producing around 10 percent less than before. Not only do farmers face massive short term losses, they also struggle to return to full capacity again. And, there are high costs associated with putting resources into taking care of sick animals too.  Even strong diaries that had “tip top” biosecurity measures, or comprehensive environmental protection measures in place, are shutting down, according to Anja Raudabaugh, CEO of Western Untied Dairies, a trade organization overseeing farms across California. “I have dairies that are never coming back from this,” Raudabaugh says. “This was just so cataclysmic for them. They’re not going to be able to get over that loss in production hump.” There is some hope around the corner. A vaccine for cows, which the USDA claims is in the works, could help stop the spread and protect remaining uninfected herds. “Until we have a vaccine that we can inoculate them with at an early age, we have no choices except to hope that herd immunity sets in soon,” Raudabaugh says. What’s the effect on milk? In June, the US dropped 1.5 percent in production, around 278 million pounds of milk, compared to 2023. It was one of the early potential indicators of the industry’s vulnerability to this virus. However, since then, the nation’s production rebounded to above 2023 numbers. It’s largely why consumers are not seeing the same impact on the price and availability of dairy products like they are with eggs.  “When one state gets H5N1 there are a lot of other states that tend to pick up the slack. So in general, when you look at the national numbers, you really have to squint to kind of find where H5N1 is in the milk production”,” says Loux. California produces around a fifth of the nation’s dairy, and since August over half of the state’s herds had an outbreak. In October, California saw a near four percent drop in milk production compared to 2023, equating to about 127 million pounds of milk. On Thursday, the USDA released November’s data on milk production showing California with the largest decrease this year of 301 million fewer gallons of milk compared to 2023. That is more than double the decrease of last month. Still, the nation only saw a near 1 percent decrease since 2023. How the next administration handles this virus may spell a different story for the dairy industry and the country. With Trump’s history of downplaying infectious diseases and promoting unfounded cures, and public health cabinet nominations who decry vaccine effectiveness, a human-to-human outbreak could lead to another pandemic. Likely to take over the USDA is Brooke Rollins, who, according to Politico, had less experience in agriculture than others on Trump’s shortlist (though she does have a degree in agriculture development). It’s currently unclear what her plans are for handling this virus and supporting farmers and the industry at large. Rollins did not respond to my request for an interview. Should I be worried about getting sick from drinking milk? Drinking pasteurized milk is safe. For more than 100 years, pasteurization has kept the public safe by killing harmful bacteria and viruses. The CDC is warning against raw milk consumption, on the other hand, due to it potentially having high-levels of bird flu. While there’s yet to be a human case of bird flu traced to raw milk consumption, there is fear that the unpasteurized product could lead to illness. And raw milk loaded with the virus has been linked to deaths in other mammals, like cats. Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the likely soon-to-be director of Health and Human Services under Trump, has a history of promoting raw milk. Earlier this month, Kennedy’s favorite raw milk brand was recalled by California after testing positive for bird flu. Kennedy’s rise to public health power comes at time when raw milk is rising in popularity on TikTok. In response to the spread of bird flu in raw milk, the USDA announced a national strategy requiring milk samples nationwide be tested by the agency. Since officially beginning testing on Monday, 16 new bird flu outbreaks in cow herds have been identified in two states. For now, as the nation continues to work on controlling the spread of bird flu, consider tossing your raw milk out before it does more than just spoil.

Blob-headed fish and amphibious mouse among 27 new species found in ‘thrilling’ Peru expedition

Scientists surprised to find so many animals unknown to science in Alto Mayo, a well-populated regionResearchers in the Alto Mayo region of north-west Peru have discovered 27 species that are new to science, including a rare amphibious mouse, a tree-climbing salamander and an unusual “blob-headed fish”. The 38-day survey recorded more than 2,000 species of wildlife and plants.The findings are particularly surprising given the region’s high human population density, with significant pressures including deforestation and agriculture. Continue reading...

Researchers in the Alto Mayo region of north-west Peru have discovered 27 species that are new to science, including a rare amphibious mouse, a tree-climbing salamander and an unusual “blob-headed fish”. The 38-day survey recorded more than 2,000 species of wildlife and plants.The findings are particularly surprising given the region’s high human population density, with significant pressures including deforestation and agriculture.The expedition was “thrilling to be part of”, said Dr Trond Larsen, senior director of biodiversity and ecosystem science at Conservation International’s Moore Centre for Science, who led the survey. “The Alto Mayo landscape supports 280,000 people in cities, towns and communities. With a long history of land-use change and environmental degradation, I was very surprised to find such high overall species richness, including so many new, rare and threatened species, many of which may be found nowhere else.”Researchers have discovered a new species of amphibious mouse, which belongs to a group of semi-aquatic rodents considered to be among the rarest in the world. Photograph: Ronald DiazThe “new” species include four mammals: a spiny mouse, a short-tailed fruit bat, a dwarf squirrel and the semi-aquatic mouse. Discovering a new species of amphibious mouse was “shocking and exciting”, Larsen said. “It belongs to a group of carnivorous, semi-aquatic rodents, for which the majority of species are exceedingly rare and difficult to collect, giving them an almost mythical status among mammal experts … We only found this amphibious mouse in a single unique patch of swamp forest that’s threatened by encroaching agriculture, and it may not live anywhere else.”The dwarf squirrel is about 14cm long and fast-moving, making it extremely difficult to spot in the dense rainforest.Larsen was particularly satisfied to find a new arboreal salamander “with stubby little legs and mottled chestnut-brown colouration, climbing at chest height in a small patch of white sand forest”. But the most intriguing find was “the blob-headed fish, which looks similar to related catfish species but with a truly bizarre speckled blob-like extension on the end of its head”, Larsen said. “The function of this ‘blob’ remains a complete mystery. If I had to speculate, I might guess it could have something to do with sensory organs in the head, or it may assist with buoyancy control, provide fat reserves or aid in its foraging strategy.”A new species of salamander, which spends most of its time in low vegetation and shrubs, was among the discoveries. Photograph: Trond LarsenSeven other new types of fish were also documented, along with a new species of narrow-mouthed frog, 10 new butterflies and two new dung beetles. Another 48 species that were found may also be new to science, with analysis under way to confirm.The expedition also documented 49 “threatened” species from the IUCN’s red list, including two critically endangered monkeys (the Peruvian yellow-tailed woolly monkey and San Martin titi monkey), two endangered birds (the speckle-chested piculet and long-whiskered owlet) and an endangered harlequin frog.The survey was conducted in June and July 2022, using camera traps, bioacoustics sensors and environmental DNA (eDNA) collected from rivers and other water sources. The team of 13 scientists included Peruvian scientists from Global Earth, as well as seven technical assistants with extensive traditional knowledge from Feriaam (the Indigenous Regional Federation of the Alto Mayo Awajún Communities). Of the 2,046 total species recorded, at least 34 appear to live only in the Alto Mayo landscape or the San Martin region it falls in.Members of the insect team survey a swamp forest using nets and various types of traps. Photograph: Trond LarsenWhile the species have never been described by science (the process of assigning a species and name), some were already known to Indigenous communities. “As Awajún people, we have a great deal of knowledge about our territory,” said Yulisa Tuwi, who assisted with the research on reptiles and amphibians. “We know the value of our plants, how they cure us, how they feed us and we know paths within the forest that have led us to meet different animals.“Although we don’t know scientific names, we’ve developed a classification of these species … I believe the discoveries are for the scientific world, not so much for us, as these species are known under other names or for their usefulness or behaviour in nature.”Researchers hope the survey will bolster conservation efforts, including plans to create a network of local protected areas.

Takeaways From AP's Story on Everglades Restoration Efforts

For decades, largescale engineering projects for development and agriculture drained and partitioned south Florida’s Everglades, a vast wetlands landscape home to endangered and threatened species and a vital source of drinking water for millions of Floridians

EVERGLADES, Fla. (AP) — The Everglades in southern Florida were once about twice the size of New Jersey. Wildlife was abundant and water flowed freely from the Kissimmee River to Lake Okeechobee to the Florida Bay. But decades of engineering projects partitioned and drained the water, invasive species have transformed the land, and pollution from agriculture has impoverished water quality. Today, about half the Everglades original size remains. A massive state-federal project, approved by Congress in 2000 with bipartisan support, aims to undo damages wreaked upon these wetlands. It is projected to cost more than $23 billion and 50 years to complete. More than two decades into it, there are some signs of progress. Wildlife is returning to some areas, regions dominated by the invasive melaleuca tree have dropped 75%, enthusiasm is high as significant projects are finally underway, others gain momentum and funding pours in. But as leaders and agencies race to “get the water right,” there are worries: the projects are billions of dollars over budget and questions remain about whether some will work. Record funding, unprecedented momentum and major projects underway Since 2019, the South Florida Water Management District has completed, broken ground on, or celebrated other milestones on some 70 projects. This year, lawmakers earmarked $1.275 billion, the largest annual amount allocated for the next 12 months of restoration efforts. The water district said they anticipate 12 to 15 years of this pace of construction as long as there's funding. Deemed the flagship project by some is the Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir Project, which includes a reservoir that will store excess water from Lake Okeechobee and an adjacent engineered wetland that will clean it before it’s discharged. But the reservoir is much smaller than originally planned, and some worry the project won't be large or deep enough to significantly clean water. The Western Everglades Restoration Project had its first groundbreaking in July after decades of advocacy from the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. The project's goal is to improve the quantity, quality, timing and distribution of water where the Miccosukee and Seminole tribal lands are. Since sections of the Tamiami Trail started getting elevated, water flows are increasing in the wetlands surrounding the highway, built in 1928 to connect Tampa and Miami. The road cut through the Everglades, acting as a dam and holding back water from ecosystems dependent on it. As parts of the Everglades are rehydrated and habitats reemerge, so are native species such as the wood stork. Wading bird colonies have returned to the Kissimmee River floodplain. Habitats in swamps or shallow lakes called sloughs are increasing in some areas. And flamingos blown in by Hurricane Idalia have stayed in the Everglades. Some scientists have said it is a sign restoration efforts are working.Climate change, urban development and water quality are ongoing challenges in restoration efforts. Sea level rise and salt water intrusion pose threats to biodiversity, drinking water supply, habitats and more, and experts warn that rising temperatures will increase evapotranspiration and decrease water runoff. In a recent report to Congress, a committee of experts acknowledged the enormous challenge of incorporating climate change impacts into restoration efforts. They recommended several actions, including developing a set of climate scenarios that are consistently used across all planning and implementation. Water quality has improved, but pollution from phosphorous remains a concern. Too much has harmed the wilderness' sensitive ecosystem, contributing to toxic algal blooms, oxygen depletion and excessive plant growth. Then there's the people. Florida has undergone decades of rapid population growth, becoming the nations’ fastest-growing state in 2022. Pressure to develop is high. “This is the biggest, most complicated and most expensive ecosystem restoration project in the world,” said Eve Samples, executive director of Friends of the Everglades. “It’s really important that we get it right.” The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

NZ’s dairy industry faces an uncertain future – its fate now lies in its ability to adapt

Fewer cows on the farm and a broader range of farming practices, including involvement in the emerging alternative proteins industry, could help New Zealand’s dairy sector remain viable.

William West/AFP via Getty ImagesNew Zealand’s dairy sector faces an uncertain future due to several challenges, including water pollution, high emissions, animal welfare concerns and market volatility. All of these issues are building tensions and changing public perceptions of dairy farming. In my new research, I argue the time has come for the dairy sector to adopt a “just transition” framework to achieve a fair and more sustainable food future and to navigate the disruptions from alternative protein industries. The concept of a just transition is typically applied to the energy sector in shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. But a growing body of research and advocacy is calling for the same principles to be applied to food systems, especially for shifting away from intensive animal agriculture. Aotearoa New Zealand’s dairy sector is an exemplary case study for examining the possibilities of a just transition because it is so interconnected in the global production and trade of dairy, with 95% of domestic milk production exported as whole-milk powder to more than 130 countries. Environmental and economic challenges New Zealand’s dairy sector faces significant threats. This includes environmental challenges such as alarming levels of nitrate pollution in waterways caused by intensive agriculture. The sector is also a major source of emissions of biogenic methane from the burps of almost six million cows in the national dairy herd. Debates about how to account for these emissions have gone on for many years in New Zealand. But last month, the coalition government passed legislation to keep agriculture out of the Emissions Trading Scheme. This means livestock farmers, agricultural processors, fertiliser importers and manufacturers won’t have to pay for on-farm emissions. Instead, the government intends to implement a pricing system outside the Emissions Trading Scheme by 2030. To meet emissions targets, it relies on the development of technologies such as methane inhibitors. The development of plant-based and fermentation proteins poses another threat to the dairy sector. Getty Images In addition to environmental challenges, global growth and domestic initiatives in the development of alternative dairy products are changing the future of milk production and consumption. New Zealand dairy giant Fonterra is pursuing the growth of alternative dairy with significant investments in a partnership with Dutch multinational corporation Royal-DSM. This supports precision fermentation start-up Vivici, which already has market-ready products such as whey protein powder and protein water. Fonterra’s annual report states it anticipates a rise in customer preference towards dairy alternatives (plant-based or precision-fermentation dairy) due to climate-related concerns. The company says these shifting preferences could pose significant business risks for future dairy production if sustainability expectations cannot be met. Pathways to a just transition for dairy What happens when one the pillars of the economy becomes a major contributor to environmental degradation and undermines its own sustainability? Nitrate pollution and methane emissions threaten the quality of the land and waterways the dairy sector depends on. In my recent study which draws on interviews with people across New Zealand’s dairy sector, three key transition pathways are identified, which address future challenges and opportunities. Deintensification: reducing the number of dairy cows per farm. Diversification: introducing a broader range of farming practices, landuse options and market opportunities. Dairy alternatives: government and industry support to help farmers participate in emerging plant-based and precision-fermentation industries. While the pathways are not mutually exclusive, they highlight the socioeconomic and environmental implications of rural change which require active participation and engagement between the farming community and policy makers. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment recently published a guide to just transitions. It maps out general principles such as social justice and job security. But the guide is light on advice for agricultural transitions. My work puts forward recommendations to shape future policy for a more just and sustainable dairy future. This includes issues such as navigating intensification pressures, supporting the development of alternative proteins and fundamentally supporting farmer agency in the transition process. For the dairy transition to be fair and sustainable, we need buy-in from leadership and support from government, the dairy sector and the emerging alternative dairy industry to help primary producers and rural communities. This needs to be specific to different regions and farming methods. The future of New Zealand’s dairy industry depends on its ability to adapt. Climate adaptation demands balancing social license, sustainable practices and disruptions from novel protein technologies. Milena Bojovic received funding from Macquarie University as part of the RTP PhD Scholarship.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.