Japan's love-hate relationship with bears

Issued on: 12/06/2026 

Cover image: ACCESS ASIA © FRANCE 24

13:07 min

This week, a town north of Tokyo shut down nearly 100 schools following a spate of bear sightings. In another Japanese town last week, a bear attacked four people, opened a water tap and unlatched a window to escape a building it had been trapped in. So are bears becoming a bigger threat? FRANCE 24's Yuka Royer speaks with Kazuhiko Maita from the Institute for Asian Black Bear Research and Preservation, who has survived nine bear attacks himself, about what's behind the recent crisis in Japan.

Emerald Maxwell reports on how authorities caught a large bear this week after days of standoff in the Japanese town of Utsunomiya.

Plus, Charlotte Lam takes a closer look at how Japan's ageing population and disappearing hunters have led to increasingly frequent bear attacks, and how people in Japan still love the animal despite deadly incidents.

BY:

Yuka ROYER

Sonia BARITELLO

Joanna COCKERELL

Audrey LILING

Stéphanie CHEVAL

Charlotte Lam

Emerald MAXWELL

Why Wild Bats Matter To Agave, Tequila, And Desert Ecosystems – Analysis

Bats flying at dusk.

June 13, 2026 
By Reynard Loki

Bats pollinate wild agave plants, sustaining desert ecosystems and preserving the genetic diversity that supports tequila and mezcal production.

Bats move through desert night skies with a purpose that is easy to overlook and difficult to replace. As they travel from plant to plant, feeding on nectar, they are also performing one of the most important ecological services in arid landscapes: pollination. For agave plants—long-lived, slow-growing succulents that define much of Mexico’s desert ecology—bats are not just occasional visitors. They are essential partners in reproduction.

This relationship is a classic example of mutualism, in which two species depend on each other for survival. Nectar-feeding bats gain a high-energy food source in agave that sustains their long-distance movements. In contrast, agaves rely on those bats to transfer pollen between flowers, ensuring fertilization and genetic diversity. The consequences of this exchange extend well beyond the desert; it helps shape ecosystem resilience, influences the future of agriculture, and even affects the production of tequila and mezcal.
The Interdependent Relationship Between Bats and Agave Plants

Agave plants are adapted to environments where water is scarce, and weather conditions can be extreme. Many species store energy in their thick, spiny leaves for years, sometimes decades. When the agave plants are ready to reproduce, they send up a single flowering stalk that can tower above the surrounding landscape. This bloom is both spectacular and final. After flowering and setting seed, the plant dies in most agave species.


Because each agave has only one opportunity to reproduce, successful pollination is critical. The flowers open at night, when temperatures are cooler, and there is less evaporation. They are large, pale, and highly visible in low light, and they release a strong, musky scent that can travel long distances. These traits are not random. They are signals evolved specifically to attract nocturnal pollinators—most importantly, bats. “Bats are one of the only ways wild agaves can reproduce—plants exposed to bats produce nearly 3,000 viable seeds for every seed made by a plant that wasn’t,” states a blog by FoodPrint.

Among the key species involved are the lesser long-nosed bat and the Mexican long-nosed bat, both of which migrate seasonally across Mexico and the southwestern United States. A bat approaches a flowering agave, guided by scent and visual cues. These bats have evolved physical traits that align closely with the structure of agave flowers. Their elongated snouts and tongues allow them to reach deep into the blooms, accessing nectar that other animals cannot easily reach. As they feed, their bodies come into contact with the flower’s reproductive structures, picking up pollen that will be carried to the next plant.

The mechanics of this process are straightforward but highly effective. When the bat brushes against the anthers where pollen is produced, it sticks to its fur, especially around the face and chest. When the bat moves on to another agave, some of that pollen is deposited onto the stigma of the next flower, completing the process of fertilization.


This repeated movement between plants enables cross-pollination, which is essential for maintaining genetic diversity. Genetic variation allows agave populations to adapt to changing environmental conditions, including drought, disease, and climate shifts. Without it, agave plants become more uniform and more vulnerable to stress.

In desert ecosystems, where resources are limited and environmental pressures are high, such resilience becomes especially important. The bats that pollinate agave are often described as keystone mutualists—species whose ecological roles disproportionately affect their environment. By supporting agave reproduction, bats help sustain a wide range of other organisms that depend on these plants for food and habitat.
The Multifaceted Role of the Agave Plant in Ecosystem Support

Agaves are foundational species in many desert systems. Their flowers provide nectar not only for bats but also for insects and birds. Their leaves and structures offer shelter to small animals, and their presence helps stabilize soil and influence local microclimates. When agave populations are healthy and diverse, the surrounding ecosystems tend to be more stable as well.

The relationship between bats and agave is also directly connected to human economies and cultural traditions. Agave plants are the raw material for tequila and mezcal, spirits deeply embedded in Mexican heritage and increasingly popular worldwide. “Agave, which Native Americans call Maguey, has long been rooted in the culture and traditions of Mesoamerica and Mexico. … The Aztecs drank a form of fermented agave called “pulque” in their rituals. This was the first distilled drink produced in the Americas. Pulque, which is similar to kombucha, remains part of the Mexican culture and is popular even today,” states the Naples Botanical Garden.

Most commercial agave production, however, does not rely on natural pollination. Instead, farmers often propagate plants clonally, using cuttings to produce genetically identical crops. This approach offers consistency and predictability, which are valuable in large-scale agriculture. But it also reduces genetic diversity, making crops more susceptible to pests and disease. Historical examples of this in other crops—from the Irish potato famine to Panama disease in bananas—demonstrate how genetic uniformity can lead to widespread vulnerability.


Wild agave populations, maintained through bat pollination, serve as a critical reservoir of genetic diversity. They contain traits that may be essential for adapting to future challenges, such as changing climate conditions or emerging plant diseases. In this way, the work bats perform in the wild indirectly supports the long-term sustainability of agave agriculture.

There is growing recognition of this connection, and with it, a shift in how some producers approach cultivation. Conservationists and industry groups have promoted “bat-friendly” practices that allow a portion of agave plants to flower rather than being harvested prematurely. By leaving these plants in the ground to bloom, farmers provide food for bats and enable natural pollination. “[P]reserving enough agaves to feed the bats doesn’t take a huge shift: allowing just five percent of the agaves used in tequila production to fully mature and flower could support more than two million bats. A number of growers and distillers have signed on to do this through the Tequila Interchange Project, producing spirits under the Bat Friendly label. It’s been a success so far, with bats returning to the field and pollinated plants producing viable, genetically variable seedings,” according to FoodPrint.

These flowering agaves can form part of an “agave corridor” along migratory routes, supporting bats as they travel long distances in search of food. The availability of flowering plants at regular intervals can make the difference between successful migration and population decline, sustaining bat populations that, in turn, continue to pollinate wild agaves.

This approach reflects a broader shift toward integrating ecological knowledge into agricultural systems. Rather than treating wild and cultivated landscapes as separate, it recognizes their interdependence, in which healthy ecosystems and thoughtful agricultural practices can sustain one another.
Safeguarding Bats and Agave Plants

Conservation efforts focused on bats and agave also address broader challenges. Many bat species face threats from habitat loss, climate change, and human disturbance. Misunderstandings about bats, often rooted in fear or misinformation, can further complicate conservation efforts. Highlighting the ecological and economic value of bats helps reframe them not as pests, but as essential contributors to both natural systems and human livelihoods.

Protecting this mutualistic relationship requires attention at multiple levels. It involves preserving habitats where wild agaves can grow and flower, supporting agricultural practices that allow for pollination, and maintaining migratory pathways for bats. It also requires continued research to better understand how these systems function and how they respond to future changes.

The story of bats and agave illustrates the interconnectedness of ecological relationships. A single nighttime interaction between a bat and a flower can ripple outward, influencing plant populations, animal communities, and human industries. These connections are not always visible, but they are fundamental to the operation of ecosystems.

As demand for agave-based spirits continues to grow, the pressures on both wild and cultivated agave populations are likely to increase. Balancing this demand with ecological sustainability will require approaches that value diversity, resilience, and long-term thinking. The role of bats in pollinating agave is a reminder that some of the most important processes in nature happen quietly, often out of sight, and depend on species that are easy to overlook.

Ensuring that these processes continue is not just a matter of conservation for its own sake. It is an investment in the stability of ecosystems and in cultural and economic systems shaped by the domestication and traditional management of agave in Mexico. In the case of agave and bats, the connection is clear: without bats, wild agaves struggle to reproduce and maintain genetic diversity; without that diversity, ecosystems weaken, and the long-term resilience of agave cultivation—central to sustaining the tequila and mezcal—becomes more uncertain.


What happens in the desert at night does not stay there. It shapes the landscapes we depend on, the foods and products we consume, and the systems that sustain life across regions. Recognizing and supporting these relationships is a step toward a more integrated understanding of how human activity and natural processes can coexist.

Author Bio: Reynard Loki is a co-founder of the Observatory. He is also a writing fellow at the Independent Media Institute, where he serves as the editor of Earth | Food | Life.

Credit Line: This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

About Reynard Loki
Reynard Loki is a co-founder of the Observatory, where he is the environment and animal rights editor. He is also a writing fellow at the Independent Media Institute, where he serves as the editor and chief correspondent for Earth | Food | Life. He previously served as the environment, food, and animal rights editor at AlterNet and as a reporter for Justmeans/3BL Media covering sustainability and corporate social responsibility. He was named one of FilterBuy's Top 50 Health and Environmental Journalists to Follow in 2016. His work has been published by Yes! Magazine, Salon, Truthout, BillMoyers.com, Asia Times, Pressenza, and EcoWatch, among others.
View all posts by Reynard Loki →

Tracking Infectious Bacteria From Raccoons Via Rivers To Humans With DNA

 June 12, 2026

By Eurasia Review

The emerging infectious bacterium Escherichia albertii has caused outbreaks of severe food poisoning and hospitalized people through contaminated water and foods, such as salad ingredients. Now, a new study from Osaka Metropolitan University (OMU) has gathered evidence from river, animal and genetic samples that suggest a pathway by which invasive raccoons (Procyon lotor) transmit infections to humans.

This creates a problem as raccoons thrive everywhere from forests and rivers to farms and dense urban neighborhoods. Recently, the small omnivores have started foraging near people, livestock, and waterways, increasing the risks of their feces contaminating irrigation systems, animal feed, and rivers.

Because raccoons are closely tied to water sources, contaminated water has long been suspected to be behind some human outbreaks. This led a research team headed by Associate Professor Atsushi Hinenoya from the Graduate School of Veterinary Science at OMU to carry out a large-scale survey of wild raccoons and environmental water in Osaka Prefecture, where raccoon populations are particularly high.

They detected the bacterium in 77% of water samples and in six of eight river systems tested. Notably, all the negative samples were collected during winter and early spring, which is a period when the number of raccoons carrying the bacterium typically declines.

Usually, riverborne bacteria accumulate downstream, but the researchers also found E. albertii upstream and near water sources, including areas far from residential districts, farms, and recreational facilities. This strongly suggested that wildlife, rather than human activity, was introducing it into the rivers.

“Overall, these findings suggest that E. albertii is widely distributed in environmental waters,” Professor Hinenoya said. “Much of this contamination was strongly associated with wild animals.”

Supporting this idea, analysis of 122 wild raccoons showed that 56% carried the E. albertiibacterium.

Whole-genome analysis of the samples revealed a mix of bacterial strains, many of which matched those in water samples. This diversity suggested a pathogen that was firmly established in the ecosystem rather than originating from a single outbreak.

A closer look revealed that every sequenced strain carried genes linked to human disease, including factors reported to be found in patients with severe diarrhoea. Some strains were also similar to strains previously isolated from infected patients.

“The key takeaway is that all isolates possessed virulence genes associated with human pathogenicity, and some were closely related to strains derived from human patients,” Professor Hinenoya explained. “These findings are strong indicators that these pose a potential risk to public health.”

The concern is that if E. albertii strains can persist in rivers and wildlife populations, humans may repeatedly encounter them through contaminated food or water. Such environmental circulation could also make outbreaks far more difficult to trace.

The researchers stress that monitoring only human infections is no longer enough and instead advocate a “One Health” approach that treats human health, wildlife, agriculture, and environmental systems as interconnected.

The team now plans to investigate the precise contamination routes linking raccoons, environmental water, agricultural products, and food.

“The approach used in this study can be applied to other zoonotic diseases,” Professor Hinenoya explained. “So, we hope to expand this research toward the development of comprehensive strategies for infectious disease control.”

Do Organic Farms Use Pesticides? How Organic And Conventional Farming Differ – Analysis

June 12, 2026 0 Comments
By Caroline Cox

Many consumers assume organic food is pesticide-free. In reality, both organic and conventional farms use pesticides, but the types of products, regulatory standards, and pest-management strategies differ significantly.

Many consumers assume that food labeled organic is grown without pesticides. The reality is more nuanced. Organic farmers can and do use pesticides, but the types of pesticides they use, the circumstances under which they use them, and the regulatory standards governing their use differ significantly from those in conventional agriculture.

Understanding those differences matters because pesticides affect more than the crops on which they are applied. They can influence the health of farmworkers and rural communities, the quality of soil and water, the well-being of pollinators and other wildlife, and the amount of pesticide residue that remains on food.

Pesticides are substances designed to prevent, destroy, repel, or control pests. Because they are intended to affect living organisms, they can also pose risks to people and the environment. Reducing those risks while maintaining productive farms has become one of the central challenges of modern agriculture.

The differences between organic and conventional farming offer two distinct approaches to that challenge—and reveal why pesticide use remains one of the most debated issues in modern food production.

What Are Pesticides?

When you think about pesticides, probably insecticides come to mind first. These are products designed to kill insects. But legally, “pesticides” have a much broader definition. In the US, pesticides are substances intended for “preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, or intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant, or any nitrogen stabilizer.” Weed killers, rodenticides, and products to control plant diseases are all examples of pesticides.

US farmers use large quantities of pesticides each year. Most government estimates are outdated, but total pesticide use on US farms is about 600 million pounds per year. Some pesticides are used on both organic and conventional farms, but the types of pesticides that may be used, the circumstances under which they may be applied, and the rules governing their use differ significantly. Organic growers do not use synthetic pesticides or fertilizers unless approved through a comprehensive public process. All pesticides are used according to a plan approved by an organic certifier. Overall, current research suggests that organic farms use significantly less pesticide than conventional farms—about 30 percent less, according to a 2021 study. Organic growers may also use certain “natural” pesticides, with ingredients derived from naturally occurring plant, animal, or mineral sourcesrather than the synthetic chemicals found in most conventional pesticides. Understanding those differences requires a closer look at how pesticides are used in conventional agriculture.

Conventional Farming’s Reliance on Synthetic Pesticides

Pesticide use has been controversial since Rachel Carson’s landmark Silent Spring was published in 1962. Yet pesticides remain a central feature of modern industrial agriculture. Farmers use them to control insects, weeds, plant diseases, and soil-borne pests that can reduce yields and damage crops.

Supporters of pesticide use argue that these products help farmers produce large quantities of food efficiently and economically. However, critics point out that pesticide-dependent farming systems can create risks for farmworkers, nearby communities, wildlife, pollinators, soil health, and water quality.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), plant pests and diseases reduce global crop yields by 20 to 40 percent each year, despite global agricultural pesticide use of approximately 3.7 million metric tons of active ingredients in 2023—roughly double the level recorded in 1990. At the same time, the FAO recognizes pesticide hazards as a global concern and promotes less hazardous approaches to pest management. The organization also notes the growing role of organic agriculture, which now includes millions of farmers worldwide.

Conventional agriculture relies on several major categories of synthetic pesticides:

– Insecticides are used to kill insects that damage crops. Common examples include chlorpyrifos, malathion, imidacloprid, permethrin, carbaryl, and spinosad. Many insecticides have been linked to concerns ranging from impacts on pollinators and aquatic ecosystems to developmental and reproductive effects in humans and wildlife.

– Herbicides are designed to control weeds that compete with crops for sunlight, nutrients, and water. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide worldwide, while atrazine, 2,4-D, dicamba, and glufosinate are also widely used. Concerns associated with herbicides include contamination of waterways, damage from chemical drift, and possible links to cancer, endocrine disruption, and other health effects.

– Fungicides help protect crops from molds and plant diseases. Common examples include chlorothalonil, mancozeb, captan, and propiconazole. While these products can reduce crop losses, some have been associated with cancer risks, reproductive harms, and toxicity to aquatic organisms.

– Fumigants are among the most intensive forms of pest control. Products such as methyl bromide, chloropicrin, and metam sodium are used to sterilize soil or storage areas before planting or storing. Because fumigants are designed to kill a broad range of organisms, they often pose significant risks to farmworkers and nearby communities if not carefully controlled.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes allowable residue limits, known as tolerances, for pesticides used on food crops. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) help enforce these standards. Some public health and environmental advocates argue that the pesticide regulatory system does not always adequately address cumulative exposures, vulnerable populations, or emerging evidence about long-term health effects.

Pesticide Use in Organic Farming

Organic growers and processors in the United States are regulated by the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP). Under NOP standards, pest management begins with prevention, primarily through building healthy soil. Organic farmers are expected to control pests, weeds, and plant diseases primarily through physical, mechanical, and biological methods rather than relying on pesticides. If those approaches are insufficient, growers may use botanical, biological, or approved synthetic pesticides that have undergone the NOP’s public review process.

More than 1,000 pesticide active ingredients are registered for use in the United States, but only a small fraction are permitted under organic standards. Many organic-approved pesticides are derived from naturally occurring plant, animal, or mineral sources, although natural does not automatically mean risk-free. Common examples include neem oil, copper sulfate, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), corn gluten, and vinegar-based products.

Organic farming emphasizes managing the farm ecosystem in ways that reduce pest problems before they occur. USDA describes this approach as responding to “site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.” In practice, that can include crop rotation, encouraging beneficial insects, improving soil health, selecting resistant crop varieties, and using pesticides only when other measures are insufficient.

Comparing Residue Levels on Food

One of the most common questions consumers ask is whether choosing organic food reduces exposure to pesticide residues. Research suggests that it does.

A comprehensive 2021 study by the US Department of Agriculture on pesticide residues in conventional versus organic produce yielded clear results. Conventional vegetables were contaminated with 2 to 17 times as many pesticides as were organic vegetables. Conventional fruits were contaminated with 6–75 times as many pesticides as organic fruits.

Researchers also used a metric called the Dietary Risk Index, which considers both the amount of pesticide residue and the toxicity of the detected pesticides. The dietary risk index was more than 50 times higher for conventional vegetables than for organic vegetables, and more than 130 times higher for conventional fruits. Consumer Reports regularly does a user-friendly comparison of pesticides on conventional and organic produce and found similar results.

The presence of a pesticide residue does not necessarily mean that a food exceeds regulatory safety limits. However, residue testing can provide a useful way to compare the relative pesticide burden associated with different farming methods.

The Environmental Working Group performs a similar analysis of USDA data, considering the number of pesticides detected, their detection frequency, and their toxicity. EWG uses its results to identify the Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen lists as tools for consumers to use when deciding which produce to buy.

Health Considerations

Health concerns about pesticides are not distributed equally across the population. Farmworkers, children, pregnant people, and rural communities often face the greatest potential exposure.

The EPA’s Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings identifies farmworkers as a population of particular concern because they are more likely than most people to encounter pesticides directly during mixing, application, harvesting, and other agricultural work. The manual also notes that children may be more vulnerable because their bodies are still developing, while pregnant and nursing women face additional concerns because pesticide exposures can affect fetuses and infants.

Research reviewed by the Annual Review of Public Health and by organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has examined links between pesticide exposure and a range of health outcomes, including developmental, reproductive, neurological, and respiratory effects. Although scientists continue to debate some specific risks and exposure thresholds, concern about pesticide exposure among vulnerable populations is widespread across the public health community.

One area of active research involves endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), substances that interfere with the body’s hormonal systems. Because hormones help regulate growth, metabolism, reproduction, and other essential functions, disruptions can have significant consequences. Some pesticides have been identified as potential endocrine disruptors, although the strength of evidence varies among different chemicals. The Endocrine Society has argued that even very low levels of exposure may affect human health and has called for greater attention to the cumulative impacts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Environmental and Ethical Impacts

Pesticides affect not only human health but also the health of the ecosystems that support agriculture, including pollinators, healthy soils, and clean water. Researchers and international organizations have identified pesticide use as a significant environmental concern. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), for example, notes that agricultural pesticides can reduce pollinator abundance and diversity. UNEP has also identified pesticides as one of several factors contributing to declining soil health worldwide. And, in 2021, the US Geological Survey found 17 pesticides in all 74 streams and rivers studied nationwide. Aquatic life benchmarks were exceeded in half of the rivers and streams studied, meaning that the pesticides were toxic to fish and other aquatic plants and animals.

Organic farming helps the entire ecosystem stay healthy. According to FAO, organic agriculture seeks to promote biodiversity, healthy soils, and biological cycles while reducing reliance on synthetic inputs. The approach emphasizes long-term ecosystem health and the use of farming practices that work with natural systems rather than against them.

Documenting the impact of pesticides on farmworker health and community well-being is not simple. One of the best studies is the CHAMACOS study in Salinas, California. University of California researchers began working with a group of about 600 pregnant women from farmworker families in 1999 and have since studied their children’s health. The results have been sobering. A few examples: Exposure of pregnant mothers to organophosphate insecticides was linked to reduced IQ in their children. Childhood exposure to organophosphate insecticides was linked with asthma symptoms. Use of the fumigant methyl bromide near pregnant mothers’ homes was linked with smaller babies. Childhood exposure to the herbicide glyphosate was linked to liver and metabolic disorders in teenagers.

Cost, Accessibility, and Trade-Offs

For many consumers, the biggest challenge is not understanding the differences between organic and conventional farming—it is affordability. Organic food often costs more because organic farmers may incur higher production costs, especially labor, and because organic production generally operates on a smaller scale than conventional agriculture.


The good news is that the price premium for many organic products has narrowed in recent years. Consumer Reports and other organizations regularly track organic food prices and have found that the price difference between organic and conventional options varies widely by product, season, and retailer.

Cost is only one part of the equation. Access also matters. Not all communities have the same access to fresh produce, farmers’ markets, or stores that carry a wide range of organic foods. For many households, especially those facing food insecurity, the most important goal is simply increasing fruit and vegetable consumption, regardless of whether the produce is organic or conventional.

Consumers who want to reduce pesticide exposure without dramatically increasing their grocery budget have several options. Comparing prices, shopping sales, purchasing in bulk, and buying seasonal produce can help. Some states and communities also offer programs that increase the value of SNAP benefits when used to purchase fresh produce, including organic produce in certain locations.

Some shoppers choose to prioritize organic purchases for foods that tend to carry higher pesticide residues. The Environmental Working Group’s Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen lists, as well as analyses published by Consumer Reports, can help consumers decide where organic purchases may provide the greatest benefit. Also, Eating with a Conscience, a consumer resource produced by Beyond Pesticides, a nonprofit, is helpful for understanding environmental issues and farmworker health.

Ultimately, there is no single right approach. Any shift toward supporting farming systems that reduce pesticide use can help strengthen demand for those practices. Even small changes in purchasing habits can contribute to healthier food systems, healthier communities, and healthier ecosystems.

Choosing What You Support

Organic and conventional farming take different approaches to managing pests, weeds, and plant diseases. Organic agriculture generally uses fewer pesticides, relies more heavily on preventive and ecological pest management strategies, and permits only a limited number of approved pesticides when other methods are insufficient.

These differences have implications for pesticide residues on food, farmworker exposure, environmental health, and the long-term sustainability of agricultural systems. At the same time, questions of cost, access, and food security remain important considerations for consumers and policymakers alike.

For consumers, understanding how food is produced can make it easier to make informed choices that reflect their values, priorities, and budgets. Whether that means buying organic whenever possible, prioritizing certain products, or simply learning more about how food is grown, individual decisions can help shape demand for the kinds of farming systems people want to support.

Something as ordinary as grocery shopping can influence not only our own health, but also the health of rural communities, the vitality of soils and waterways, and the resilience of the ecosystems on which agriculture depends.

Author Bio: 

Caroline Cox is a pesticide scientist whose work has focused on the health and environmental impacts of pesticides. She served as a staff scientist at the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides from 1990 to 2006 and as research director and senior scientist at the Center for Environmental Health from 2006 to 2020. She has written about pesticides, environmental health, and agricultural sustainability for more than three decades. Cox is a contributor to the Observatory.

Credit Line: This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.