Thoughts Beyond the Novel CHOIR OF CLOISTERED CANARIES–Chlorpyrifos Toxicity

When the author was faced to give her novel an appropriate title that partially dealt with the toxicity of chemicals used in everyday life and agriculture, namely chlorpyrifos (pronunciation: klôrˈpirəˌfäs), she sought a title with the first letter “C” and ended up with an appropriate alliteration that includes idiom “canary in the coal mine”–Choir of Cloistered Canaries. On all fronts, this chemical is not safe; it can affect the nervous system–health harms (e.g., neurological development and Parkinson’s disease claims). See pp. 79-86. (Image caption: Astrocyles surrounding capillaries in brain (Artwork by Ben Brahim Mohammed))

Chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticide used on crops and sometimes insects/pests in structure, which can affect the nervous system by disrupting acetylcholinesterase (AChE) that functions to rapidly break down the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, thus terminating nerve signals and allowing precise control of muscle and nerve activity. Like nicotine, it delivers, by breaking the blood-brain barrier (BBB) undetected. The health risk is high and higher with exposure to its spray and dust. It requires proper handling; however, the manufacturer fails to state in the warning label that use is subject to drift damage. Drift damage refers to harm caused to plants, crops, or even vehicles when chlorpyrifos are carried away from their intended target by wind (particle drift) or evaporation (vapor drift) and land on non-target areas.

Moreover, when it comes to carefully handling chlorpyrifos, it is hard to avoid breathing the spray or dust. Often the agricultural workers handling the product are not provided with appropriate PPE respirators and the like. Even children, food, and water sources are not to be exposed to chlorpyrifos, but they are exposed.

This insecticide is produced by several global agrochemical companies. While regulatory restrictions have reduced its use in some regions, it remains in production in others, and several manufacturers continue to supply it. While the science is clear and present about its health effects, it has not been banned as one would think and hope.

Key Manufacturers

Corteva Agriscience (formerly Dow AgroSciences) – Based in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, Corteva is a major legacy producer of chlorpyrifos, historically marketed under brands like Lorsban™ and Dursban. It continues to supply in regions where the product is approved, focusing on pest control for crops such as corn, soybeans, and fruit trees (Chemical Research Insight org.)

 

Dow Chemical Company – The original developer of chlorpyrifos, Dow AgroSciences was part of DowDuPont before the spin-off. It has phased out production in many markets but maintains a global supply chain in approved regions chemicalresearchinsight.com+1.

Gharda Chemicals Limited – An Indian manufacturer producing technical-grade chlorpyrifos and formulations, serving both domestic and international markets. It emphasizes cost-effective production and R&D to meet demand in price-sensitive regions chemicalresearchinsight.com.

Nanjing Redsun – A leading Chinese agrochemical company with significant chlorpyrifos production capacity. It is a key supplier in Asia and exports globally, especially as Western production declines chemicalresearchinsight.com.

Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd. – A Japanese chemical giant with crop protection products in its portfolio, including chlorpyrifos in various formulations Discovery.

BASF – Produces chlorpyrifos in multiple formulations for different crops and pests, aligning chemical management practices www.cnagrochem.com.

Syngenta – Involved in producing chlorpyrifos formulations as part of its integrated pest management solutions www.cnagrochem.com.

UPL Limited – An Indian multinational with growing presence in chlorpyrifos production, offering pest management solutions tailored to local farming needs www.cnagrochem.com.

Guangxi Tianyuan Biochemistry Co., Ltd. – A Chinese agrochemical producer offering chlorpyrifos and other pesticides Discovery.

Other providers in the United States–Adama Agriculture Solutions (Raleigh, NC), Bayer Crop Science (St. Louis, MO), FMC Corporation (Philadelphia, PA), Gowan Corporation LLC (Yuma, AZ), Nufarm Limited (Chicago, IL),

Table 1. Chlorpyrifos uses currently allowed by U.S. States

Use SiteState
AlfalfaAZ, CO, IA, ID, IL, KS, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, NM, NV, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY
AppleAL, DC, DE, GA, ID, IN, KY, MD, MI, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, TN, VA, VT, WA, WV
AsparagusMI
Cherry (tart)MI
CitrusAL, FL, GA, NC, SC, TX
CottonAL, FL, GA, NC, SC, VA
PeachAL, DC, DE, FL, GA, MD, MI, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, SC, TX, VA, VT, WV
SoybeanAL, CO, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NM, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WV, WY
StrawberryOR
Sugar beetIA, ID, IL, MI, MN, ND, OR, WA, WI
Wheat (Spring)CO, KS, MO, MT, ND, NE, SD, WY
Wheat (Winter)CO, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, OK, SD, TX, WY

It should be noted that, where individual States (e.g., NY, MD, OR) have enacted State-level statutes banning organophosphates, State law supersedes Federal allowances.

It should also be noted that the commercial synthesis of chlorpyrifos relies on coupling two key precursor chemicals–(1) O.O-diethyl phosphorochloridothloate (DETC) and (2) 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCPy).

Legal Challenges

In the United States, there have been lawsuits involving chlorpyrifos, including cases alleging health harms. Beyond private tort litigation, there haven been legal challenges on EPA regulations involving chlorpyrifos. The main EPA-regulation legal challenge that directly affected chlorpyrifos tolerances was in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In brief, (1) Final rule (2021) revoked all chlorpyrifos food/feed tolerances; (2) a chlorpyrifos registrant and grower groups challenged that action; (3) the U.S. court remanded the matter back to EPA for further proceedings on November 2, 2023 whereby EPA’s tolerances were reinstated on December 28, 2023; (5) then EPA approved the amended labels and reflected the reinstatement in subsequent rulemaking with additional steps.

EPA rulemaking process is described as ongoing with an expended amended proposed interim decision planned for 2026. The agency approved amended labels reflecting voluntary cancellation and geographic/use restrictions discussed in earlier review documents. In addition, EPA issued a proposed rule relating to tolerance changes and reopened the public comment period with submissions handled through the relevant docket on regulations.gov )approved amended labels reflecting voluntary cancellation and geographic/use restrictions discussed in earlier review documents (EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0431). As of this posting (Aug 5, 2026), EPA’s proposed chlorpyrifos tolerance-related rule is in the post-comment phase, with public comments no longer accepted.

EPA has issued a final action reinstating chlorpyrifos food/feed tolerances after the court case, via an EPA Federal Register technical correction dated Feb. 5, 2024: Chlorpyrifos tolerances are currently in effect for the retained/registered food and feed uses, consistent with product labels.

The first time chorpyrifos was banned was under the Obama Administration. The second time, it was banned by the Biden Administration on February 28, 2022, to keep insects from damaging the nation’s crops as it was also toxic to plants. The chemical is still widely deployed as an agricultural pesticide in other countries, and it continues to be used as an insecticide in U.S. homes (e.g., in enclosed roach traps) and in nonfood settings such as golf courses and decorative-plant nurseries.

The twice-elected Trump Administration has reinstated use of chlorpyrifos in the United States. Chlorpyrifos was first marketed in 1965 by Dow Chemical as a presumed safer replacement for the banned insecticide DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)–eventually becoming one of several such “regrettable substitutions.” However, money talks and used to lobby the Executive and Legislative Branches of the United States. “The Global Chlorpyrifos Market was valued at USD 512.5 Million in 2021 and is projected to reach USD 601.4 Million by 2028, growing at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 2.3% during the forecast period (2022–2028). This growth is being driven by the persistent need for effective pest control in agriculture, though the market is also navigating significant regulatory challenges and a global shift towards safer alternatives” (Chemical Insight Review). The argument to continue the use of this toxic chemical is that it is needed by global agriculture due to rising food demand.

In the United States, EPA has retained 11 crops as noted above–alfalfa, apple, asparagus, cherry (tart), citrus, cotton, peach, soybean, strawberry, sugar beets, and wheat (spring and winter). Yet, the negative consequences remain due to exposure to this toxic chemicals–they include depression, skin irritation, hormonal disturbances, immunologic abnormalities, rapid muscle shrinkage and nervous system effects. Chronic chlorpyrifos exposure is characterized by light-headedness, tachycardia (abnormally rapid heart rate), paresthesia (tingling) and an increased risk of various cancers, whereas acute exposure can cause seizures, coma and death. Young children and in utero are subject to health risks such as developmental problems and lower IQ. In humans and other mammals, chlorpyrifos toxicity is mainly due to its ability to cause accumulation of the neurotransmitter (chemical messenger) acetylcholine in the nervous system.

In summary, the list of health risks is not something to sneeze at. Studies have shown some of these risks: prostate cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, multiple myeloma and leukemia, respiratory problems (asthma, wheeze, allergies), retinal degeneration, longer menstrual cycles and missed periods, diabetes, and the list goes on and on and on. Just like the nicotine manufacturers, they know the high health risks, for they do conduct research studies as did the Seven Dwarfs of Nicotine (CEOs) industry who testified before the U.S. Congress that “nicotine was not addictie” in 1994!

Thoughts Beyond the Armida Trilogy–Brain Fog (Choir of Cloistered Canaries)

We all know the phrase, “canary in the coal mine,” that refers to an early warning sign of potential danger in detecting toxic cases in the coal mine–the canary dies.

Unfortunate for the author, Febreze became such a problem for her (and others who suffer from Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)). Proctor & Gamble test marketed Febreze as a fabric refresher in 1996 and then rolled it out widely in 1998 to aggressively promote it as the “best breeze in the air to eliminate odors” or as the “odor killer.” P&G has successfully promoted its trademark but not as a torus of artificial fragrances/chemicals. It’s fragrances was even applied into pillows for sale! Needless to say, it affects all users, their friends, families, and strangers sooner or later with some serious symptoms and altering health problems. BRAIN FOG is one of the symptoms that could be accompanied with dizziness and high-blood pressure. Character Izobel in Choir of Cloistered Canaries is one of the MCSers.

BRAIN FOG has been determined by a recent scientific study to be BIOLOGICAL, whether caused by a virus (e.g., COVID-19) or other chemicals (e.g., solvents, pesticides, Benzenes, heavy metals, fagrance-binding cyclodextrin). It is an indication that the blood-brain barrier has been breached.

Normally, tightly-knit cell linings keep riffraff interlopers out of the brain. What happens when exposed to these toxic chemicals, the barrier brakes down, causing the blood vessels to leak into the brain’s tissue and causing havoc (e.g., persistent inflammation of skull and brain tissues, memory collapse, etc.);

the inflammatory trigger persists and is not eliminated with the acute inflammatory response, chronic inflammatory state can be induced.

NIH-funded and NIH-indexed research has increasingly investigated the physiological link between low-level environmental toxin exposure and cognitive impairment—often described clinically and colloquially as “brain fog”.

Rather than viewing brain fog as a vague or psychosomatic complaint, modern research points to real, measurable neuroinflammatory pathways triggered by common environmental toxicants, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mold spores, and synthetic fragrances.

1. The Core Biological Mechanisms

Historically, scientists struggled to explain how low-dose chemical exposure could trigger sudden cognitive symptoms like memory loss, difficulty concentrating, and “haziness.” Recent NIH-indexed literature points to three primary pathways:

The Olfactory-Limbic Pathway & Mast Cells

The nose provides a direct pathway to the brain. When we inhale volatile chemicals (like synthetic fragrances, pesticides, or solvents), these molecules bypass the systemic blood-brain barrier via the olfactory neurons.

Research suggests that these inhaled chemicals trigger mast cells (immune cells concentrated heavily in the brain’s boundary regions, like the meninges and hypothalamus). When activated, mast cells release inflammatory mediators like histamine, which trigger microglia—the brain’s resident immune cells (Rincón et al., 2024). This microglial activation causes localized neuroinflammation, which alters cerebral blood flow and directly disrupts synaptic communication, leading to cognitive deficits (Rincón et al., 2024).

The Lung-Brain Axis

Similar to the gut-brain axis, researchers have identified a lung-brain axis (Wang et al., 2026). When we inhale airborne particulates or chemical pollutants, the peripheral inflammatory response initiated in our respiratory system does not stay confined to the lungs. Circulating cytokines cross the blood-brain barrier, triggering an inflammatory cascade that impairs hippocampal function—the region of the brain responsible for memory and spatial learning (Wang et al., 2026).

2. Key NIH-Indexed Research & Discoveries

Dr. Claudia Miller’s Research on TILT (Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance)—

A cornerstone of this research is the paradigm of Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance (TILT), first characterized by Dr. Claudia Miller at the University of Texas Health Science Center.

TILT is a two-stage disease process:

1. Initiation: A major acute exposure (such as a pesticide application or moving into a newly built “sick” building) or persistent low-level exposure compromises the body’s natural tolerance.

2. Triggering: Everyday, unrelated low-level exposures (such as cleaning products, perfumes, or diesel exhaust) begin to trigger severe, multisystem symptoms—most notably brain fog, fatigue, and headaches (Rincón et al., 2024).

In a 2024 study, researchers tracked patients with Chemical Intolerance (CI) who underwent “Environmental House Calls” designed to reduce VOCs and fragrances in their homes (Rincón et al., 2024). Their cognitive symptoms, documented using the Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory (QEESI), improved dramatically when exposure to common household synthetic chemicals was minimized (Rincón et al., 2024).

Mold Spores and Neuroinflammation

Another major source of toxic-induced brain fog is mold exposure in water-damaged buildings. A 2023 study published in Behavioural Brain Research examined the neurological effects of toxic vs. nontoxic mold spore inhalation (Harding et al., 2023).

The Finding: Inhalation of mold spores triggered substantial peripheral innate immune responses, which quickly spread to the brain.

The Cognitive Impact: The researchers found that levels of interleukin-1β (an inflammatory cytokine) in the hippocampus were directly correlated with cognitive deficits and memory retention difficulties (Harding et al., 2023). This provides a clear, biological explanation for the “brain fog” complained of by residents of mold-damaged environments.

3. Practical Takeaways for Mitigation

Based on these clinical and environmental studies, researchers emphasize several key steps to reduce the toxic load contributing to cognitive impairment:

Remove Fragranced Products: Synthetic fragrances (laundry detergents, air fresheners, personal care items) are among the most common triggers of mast cell degranulation in sensitive individuals (Rincón et al., 2024).

Improve Indoor Air Quality: Prioritize ventilation, use high-quality HEPA/carbon air purifiers to filter out VOCs, and keep household paints, solvents, and fuels stored in detached outdoor sheds rather than attached garages (Perales et al., 2022; Rincón et al., 2024).

Identify the Source: If brain fog began after moving into a new home, remodeling, or experiencing a water leak, check for active off-gassing materials or hidden mold growth (Harding et al., 2023; Rincón et al., 2024)

Thoughts Beyond Choir of Cloistered Canaries (CoCC.16)–Canaries/Chlorpyrifos, a Metaphor for American Life

Click title on where to purchase CHOIR OF CLOISTERED CANARIES

A Yellow Canary

In recent times, one hears political talking heads and some journalists use the term “the canary in the old mine” for other than its original meaning: taking little canaries down into the mines to let them slowly die of carbon monoxide poisoning. Sad, very sad. Yet, we persist in using toxic chemicals to supposedly make us live better, normalizing toxicity in our every day lives. Now this is very damn tragic to say the least when other countries have banned chlorpyrifos from its multiple uses. And yet the unenlightened Trump Administration recently had the U.S. Environmental Agency remove the ban under the Biden Administration.

A FULL DISCLOSURE So that we may know how serious this chemical agent is, AI Perplexity and AI ChatGPT responses have been reprinted below.

Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide whose main health risk is neurotoxicity—it inhibits acetylcholinesterase, causing overstimulation of the nervous system, with particular concern for fetuses and children.

Acute (short‑term) effects:

At low–moderate exposure (e.g., drift, household contact, treated fields), typical cholinergic symptoms include–

• Headache, dizziness, confusion, difficulty concentrating

• Runny nose, tearing, excessive salivation and sweating

• Nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea

• Blurred or darkened vision, muscle twitching, tremors, weakness, loss of coordination

At high doses or severe poisoning, reported effects include==

• Loss of bladder and bowel control, seizures, unconsciousness or coma

• Respiratory muscle paralysis, respiratory failure, and death

• Severe organophosphate poisoning syndromes with convulsions and profound weakness

Chronic and developmental effects:

Evidence from human cohort and animal studies points to significant longer‑term risks, especially with prenatal or early‑life exposure:

• Developmental delays and neurodevelopmental disorders in children

• Reduced IQ and working memory, attention problems, ADHD‑type symptoms

• Changes in social behavior and brain development in animal studies, with young animals more sensitive than adults

Occupational and repeated exposures have also been associated with–

• Peripheral neuropathy (numbness, “pins and needles,” weakness, poor coordination)

• Possible liver damage

• Epidemiologic signals for Parkinson’s disease with chronic exposure (for chlorpyrifos and related pesticides)

Reproductive, endocrine, and cancer concerns of additional possible risks, although not all are fully resolved–

• Endocrine disruption: hormone level changes and sex‑specific behavioral effects in animal models

• Greater sensitivity in pregnant women and the fetus

• Emerging data suggesting possible links to lung and prostate cancer, even though EPA’s cancer classification has historically been “evidence of non‑carcinogenicity”

Who is most at risk?

Groups with higher potential exposure and vulnerability include–

• Farmworkers, pesticide applicators, and workers in chlorpyrifos manufacture or formulation

• Pregnant women and their fetuses in agricultural regions

• Children living near treated fields or in housing where it was historically used

International Bans and Restrictions

European Union

  • The EU has banned chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl entirely from use in plant protection products since 2020.

United Kingdom

  • The UK banned chlorpyrifos (with limited exceptions) as of April 2016.

Canada

  • Canada cancelled all chlorpyrifos uses and products, effectively banning it.

New Zealand

  • New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority announced plans to ban chlorpyrifos completely, with phase-out timelines in 2025–2026.

Thailand

  • Chlorpyrifos was banned under Thai law effective June 1, 2020.

Nepal

  • Nepal implemented an immediate nationwide ban on chlorpyrifos (alongside other hazardous pesticides) in late 2024.

🌎 Other National Bans

Reports and regulatory documents indicate chlorpyrifos has also been banned in several other countries, including:

  • Argentina, Morocco, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey and South Africa for various uses.
  • Various sources list additional bans or non-approvals in countries like Sweden, Egypt, Vietnam, and India (with some restrictions and exemptions depending on the use).

🌐 Global Phase-out Effort

In 2025, parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants agreed to phase out chlorpyrifos globally with specific exemptions — a move toward eliminating nearly all uses worldwide.

Summary

  • Banned: EU, UK, Canada, New Zealand (phase-out), Thailand, Nepal, and many others.
  • Restricted or phased out: Some regions (e.g., specific crop uses or states within countries).
  • Global effort: Stockholm Convention aims to eliminate it globally, though exemptions remain.

Chlorpyrifos has been used far beyond just crop spraying. Here are the main categories of use historically:

1. Agricultural Uses (Most Common)

  • Corn
  • Soybeans
  • Fruit trees (apples, oranges)
  • Tree nuts (almonds, walnuts)
  • Broccoli, cauliflower
  • Cotton
  • Wheat

It’s a broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticide, meaning it kills many types of insects by disrupting their nervous systems.


2. Residential / Structural Pest Control (Largely phased out in many countries)

  • Termite treatments
  • Cockroach control
  • Ant control
  • Flea treatments (yards, kennels)

In the U.S., most residential uses were canceled in the early 2000s because of child exposure risks.


3. Public Health Uses

  • Mosquito control in some regions
  • Control of flies in public spaces or livestock areas

Some countries have restricted these uses, but they still exist in limited areas globally.


4. Livestock Applications

  • Treatment for ticks, lice, and mites on cattle and sheep
  • Barn and stable insect control

5. Non-Food / Industrial Uses

  • Turf management (golf courses, athletic fields)
  • Utility pole and fence post treatments (wood protection)
  • Greenhouse insect control

Important Reality – Chlorpyrifos is potent! So, who manufactures chlorpyrifos?

The reason many countries are banning it isn’t because it’s ineffective — it’s because it’s potent. Chlorpyrifos affects acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme critical for nervous system function. The same mechanism that kills insects can harm human neurological development, especially in children.

Chlorpyrifos has been manufactured by several agrochemical companies over the years. The main ones include the following:

Major Manufacturers (Historically and Currently)

  • Dow Chemical Company
    Originally developed chlorpyrifos in the 1960s. It was sold under the brand name Lorsban.
  • Corteva Agriscience
    Spun off from DowDuPont in 2019 and inherited chlorpyrifos products. Corteva announced it would phase out production in 2020.
  • Makhteshim Agan (now part of ADAMA Agricultural Solutions)
    Produced generic chlorpyrifos formulations.
  • Nufarm
    Manufactured and distributed chlorpyrifos products in multiple markets.
  • Gharda Chemicals
    A significant producer of chlorpyrifos for export markets.
  • Several Chinese manufacturers, including large state-linked agrochemical firms, have also produced chlorpyrifos for global export markets.

Important context:

Many Western companies have exited production due to regulatory pressure and liability concerns. However, production continues in parts of Asia and other regions where regulations remain less restrictive.

From an investment standpoint, chlorpyrifos itself is not generally considered a growth chemical in traditional portfolios — largely because of regulatory pressure, bans in major markets, and shifting industry dynamics. Here’s how to view it if you’re thinking about capital allocation OR if you do not care about the health and well-being of the global citizenry:


1. Declining Demand in Developed Markets

  • Regulatory authorities in the United States and European Union have restricted or revoked many uses of chlorpyrifos due to health and environmental concerns, significantly reducing its market footprint in those large agricultural economies.
  • Many companies have reduced or stopped production, such as Corteva Agriscience exiting chlorpyrifos production and shifting to safer alternatives.

Investment implication: legacy products like chlorpyrifos are not growth engines in developed markets and carry regulatory and legal risk.


2. Regional Opportunities Still Exist

  • While bans are tightening in Western markets, demand persists in parts of Asia, Latin America, and Africa where regulatory constraints are less strict and large-scale agriculture still uses broad-spectrum pesticides.
  • Some producers are innovating safer or low-residue formulations to remain compliant and extend product life in certain markets.

Investment implication: niche exposure in emerging markets may still generate revenue, but this tends to be more speculative and dependent on regulatory trends.


3. Regulatory Risk and Litigation

  • Because chlorpyrifos has been linked to neurological effects — especially in children — companies tied to its production face litigation risk, reputational risk, and potential future bans even where currently permitted.
  • Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing trends penalize exposure to hazardous chemicals, pushing capital away from products with poor health or sustainability profiles.

Investment implication: direct investment in chlorpyrifos production companies carries higher long-term risk.


4. Broader Agrochemical Industry Context

Rather than investing in chlorpyrifos itself, many analysts position investment more favorably in broader or adjacent sectors:

Biopesticides and Sustainable Inputs

Consumer and regulatory shifts toward safer, low-impact pest control are creating growth opportunities. Biopesticides and next-generation crop protection products are gaining traction.

Integrated Pest Management & Precision Ag Tech

Technologies that reduce reliance on traditional pesticides — such as precision spraying and biological controls — are attracting institutional interest.

📌 Example investment angles

  • Agrochemical companies diversifying into biologicals or safer chemistries
  • Precision farming and ag-tech platforms improving application efficiency
  • Sustainable agriculture ETFs or funds focused on ESG compliance

🧠 Bottom Line

Chlorpyrifos itself is generally not a growth investment.

  • Its traditional market is shrinking due to regulatory bans and health concerns.
  • Significant regulatory and ESG risks make it unattractive as a standalone investment.
  • Potential value is more likely found in companies pivoting toward safer pest control solutions or broader agricultural technology.

With all this known reality about this pesticide, why does the Trump Administration still persist in not regulating it, including other toxic agents under President Trump's first and second terms?

Bonus

For ingredients in producing chlorpyrifos, navigate HERE. Additional: Febreze ingredients, the most highly marketed toxicity.