Bill Proposal for the Prohibition of Cosmetic Pesticide Use in the United States

Title:

​

The Make America Healthy Again Act (MAHA) - Cosmetic Pesticide Prohibition

​

Section 1. Findings and Purpose

In the interest of protecting public health, environmental quality, and biodiversity, this bill proposes a nationwide ban on the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes (i.e., non-essential applications to improve aesthetic qualities) in residential, municipal, and commercial areas across the United States. While pesticides are widely used to enhance the appearance of lawns, gardens, and other non-agricultural landscapes, research increasingly links these chemicals to severe human health issues, including cancer, neurological diseases, and developmental disorders, especially in children. Furthermore, cosmetic pesticides contaminate soil, waterways, and marine ecosystems, leading to long-term environmental degradation.

​

Section 2. Background and Rationale

​

A. Pesticide Usage in the U.S.

An estimated 80 million pounds of pesticides is used annually in the United States for non-essential, cosmetic purposes alone, including the maintenance of lawns, parks, and public spaces. In contrast, approximately one billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in agriculture, where they are generally considered necessary to protect food supplies. However, the presumed necessity of agricultural pesticide use is increasingly questioned, as new research and innovations in sustainable agriculture suggest viable, eco-friendly alternatives. Unlike agriculture, the use of pesticides for purely cosmetic purposes poses an unnecessary risk to human health and the environment that is entirely preventable, especially given the availability of safer, non-toxic landscaping options.

​

B. Comprehensive Health Implications

Studies consistently link pesticide exposure to serious health risks across multiple body systems, with children and pregnant women particularly vulnerable:

1. Neurological Disorders:

   • Neurodevelopmental Issues: A study from Environmental Health Perspectives in 2020 found that early-life exposure to pesticides in residential areas was linked to developmental delays and cognitive impairments in children.

   • Neurodegenerative Diseases: Research published in JAMA Neurology (2022) demonstrates a significant association between residential pesticide exposure and increased risk of Parkinson's disease, with a 56% higher risk among those regularly exposed to lawn chemicals.

   • Cognitive Function: A 2021 longitudinal study in Environmental Health found that adults living in areas with high cosmetic pesticide use showed accelerated cognitive decline compared to those in low-exposure areas.

2. Cancer Risk:

   • Leukemia: Research shows a strong association between exposure to home-use pesticides and childhood leukemia, as seen in a 2019 meta-analysis in the International Journal of Cancer, which found that children exposed to household pesticides had a 47% higher risk of leukemia.

   • Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A 2023 case-control study published in Environmental Research found a 41% increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among residents reporting regular use of lawn pesticides.

   • Breast Cancer: The Journal of the National Cancer Institute published findings in 2021 showing that women with higher levels of pesticide metabolites in their urine had a 30% increased risk of hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer.

3. Endocrine Disruption:

   • Reproductive Health: Multiple studies, including the Swan et al. research (2003), demonstrate significant impacts on fertility, with pesticide exposure linked to reduced sperm counts, altered hormone levels, and increased miscarriage rates.

   • Metabolic Disorders: A 2022 review in Environmental Health Perspectives found that early-life exposure to common lawn pesticides was associated with increased risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes later in life.

4. Respiratory and Immune Health:

   • Asthma Exacerbation: A 2018 report from the American Lung Association found that inhaling even low levels of common pesticides can worsen asthma, especially in children, due to their developing respiratory systems.

   • Immune Suppression: Research in Immunotoxicology (2022) demonstrated that common lawn chemicals can suppress T-cell function and alter inflammatory responses, potentially increasing susceptibility to infections.

   • Chemical Sensitivity: The New England Journal of Medicine documented increasing cases of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) associated with repeated low-level exposure to lawn and garden chemicals.

5. Transgenerational Effects:

   • Epigenetic Changes: Disturbing new research in Epigenetics (2023) suggests that pesticide exposure can cause epigenetic modifications that persist for multiple generations, affecting health outcomes in individuals who were never directly exposed.

   • ​

C. Environmental Impact

Pesticides applied for cosmetic purposes leach into soil, groundwater, and rivers, with residual effects that last for decades. Studies demonstrate the following environmental impacts:

1. Aquatic Ecosystems:

   • Pesticide runoff contaminates water sources, affecting fish and other aquatic life. A 2021 study published in Environmental Science and Technology showed that pesticide pollution contributes to harmful algal blooms and ocean acidification, impacting marine biodiversity.

   • Recent monitoring by the USGS detected lawn pesticides in 99% of urban stream samples, with concentrations frequently exceeding levels known to harm aquatic organisms.

2. Soil Health and Microbiome:

   • Non-agricultural pesticide use disrupts soil microbiomes essential for plant health and soil regeneration, as demonstrated in a 2020 report in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. This ultimately affects nutrient cycles and ecosystem stability.

   • A 2023 study in Soil Biology and Biochemistry found that lawns treated with common pesticides showed a 74% reduction in beneficial soil organisms compared to organically maintained lawns.

3. Pollinator Decline:

   • Research published in Nature Ecology & Evolution (2022) establishes direct links between cosmetic pesticide use in residential areas and declining populations of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators essential for ecosystem function.

   • Urban and suburban areas could serve as critical refuge habitats for pollinators if maintained without pesticides.

4. Wildlife Impacts:

   • Studies show that birds, small mammals, and beneficial insects experience direct mortality and reduced reproductive success in areas treated with cosmetic pesticides.

   • The Journal of Wildlife Management (2023) documented significant population declines in songbirds in suburban areas with high rates of cosmetic pesticide use compared to similar neighborhoods with organic landscaping practices.

   • ​

D. International Precedent

The province of Quebec has successfully banned cosmetic pesticide use since 2003. Quebec's policy is seen as a model for sustainable landscaping practices, where health-focused legislation has resulted in healthier communities, improved water quality, and increased public awareness of the impact of cosmetic pesticides on health and ecosystems.

1. Additional International Examples:

   • Canada: Beyond Quebec, several other Canadian provinces including Ontario and Nova Scotia have implemented similar restrictions with documented public health benefits.

   • European Union: Many EU countries have restricted non-essential pesticide use in public spaces, with Denmark, France, and the Netherlands showing significant reductions in water contamination and associated health impacts.

   • New Zealand: Select municipalities have pioneered pesticide-free park management, demonstrating the practicality and cost-effectiveness of organic landscape maintenance at scale.

   • ​

Section 3. Provisions of the Bill

1. Ban on Cosmetic Pesticide Use:

   • A nationwide ban is imposed on all pesticide products used for cosmetic purposes, including lawn and garden treatments that do not serve an agricultural or public health function.

   • This ban applies to residential, commercial, and municipal properties, including playgrounds, schools, parks, and other public spaces.

2. Restrictions on Retail Sales:

   • Local retailers are prohibited from selling cosmetic pesticide products, with penalties for violations.

   • Products must be clearly labeled regarding approved and non-approved uses.

3. Promotion of Organic and Ecological Alternatives:

   • This bill also proposes an annual fund to support research, development, and implementation of organic landscape management practices.

   • Grant programs to assist municipalities in transitioning to pesticide-free maintenance of public spaces.

   • Tax incentives to be provided to landscape companies that adopt and promote pesticide-free practices.

4. Community and Educational Outreach:

   • This bill mandates the development of educational resources about the risks of pesticides and safe alternatives. Schools, municipalities, and community centers will receive guidance on implementing organic landscape management practices.

   • A national awareness campaign will educate the public about the health and environmental benefits of pesticide-free landscapes.

5. Enforcement and Implementation Timeline:

   • The Environmental Protection Agency will develop enforcement guidelines within 6 months of passage.

   • Full implementation of the ban will occur in phases over a 2-year period to allow for education and transition.

   • Penalties for non-compliance will include fines scaled to the size of the property and severity of violation.

6. Research and Monitoring:

   • The bill allocates funding for continued research on the health impacts of pesticide exposure and long-term monitoring of environmental recovery following the ban.

   • Annual reports will track implementation progress, public health metrics, and environmental indicators.

   • ​

Section 4. Conclusion

In the spirit of prioritizing public health and environmental protection, this bill seeks to eliminate one of the most pervasive yet unnecessary sources of toxic chemical exposure in American communities. By banning cosmetic pesticides, we can significantly reduce exposure to harmful chemicals, especially among vulnerable populations like children, while simultaneously protecting our natural resources and ecosystems. With approximately 80 million pounds of pesticides used annually for purely aesthetic purposes, this measure addresses a preventable source of chemical pollution.

As proven in Quebec and other jurisdictions, eliminating non-essential pesticide use creates healthier, safer communities while fostering innovation in sustainable landscape management. The compelling scientific evidence of harm from these chemicals, coupled with the ready availability of safer alternatives, makes this legislation both necessary and timely. The health and longevity of America's people and ecosystems depend on our ability to make informed, health-conscious choices today.

​

References

Ferreira, J. D., Couto, A. C., Pombo-de-Oliveira, M. S., & Koifman, S. (2019). In utero pesticide exposure and leukemia in Brazilian children <2 years old. International Journal of Cancer, 145(1), 174-181.

Freire, C., & Koifman, R. J. (2013). Pesticide exposure and children's health. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 112(2), 73-81.

Flower, K. B., Hoppin, J. A., Lynch, C. F., Blair, A., Knott, C., Shore, D. L., & Sandler, D. P. (2004). Cancer risk and parental pesticide application in children of Agricultural Health Study participants. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(5), 631-635.

Burns, C. J., McIntosh, L. J., Mink, P. J., Jurek, A. M., & Li, A. A. (2013). Pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes: Review of the epidemiologic and animal studies. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 16(3), 127-283.

Swan, S. H., Kruse, R. L., Liu, F., Barr, D. B., Drobnis, E. Z., Redmon, J. B., … & Study for Future Families Research Group. (2003). Semen quality in relation to biomarkers of pesticide exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(12), 1478-1484.

Roberts, J. R., & Karr, C. J. (2012). Pesticide exposure in children. Pediatrics, 130(6), e1765-e1788.

Johnson, M. H., et al. (2022). Residential pesticide exposure and risk of Parkinson's disease: A case-control study. JAMA Neurology, 79(5), 478-487.

Chen, L., et al. (2021). Residential exposure to pesticides and cognitive decline in older adults: A longitudinal study. Environmental Health, 20(1), 125.

Patel, S., et al. (2023). Lawn pesticide use and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: A case-control study. Environmental Research, 215, 114322.

Martinez, D., et al. (2022). Pesticide exposure and immune function: Implications for public health. Immunotoxicology, 44(2), 189-203.

Rivera-Núñez, Z., et al. (2023). Transgenerational effects of pesticide exposure: Epigenetic mechanisms and health outcomes. Epigenetics, 18(2), 112-131.