The EPA, which regulates pesticides in the U.S., defines a pesticide as any substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate any pest, such as weeds, insects and organisms, that attack plants.
Pesticides are often referred to as toxins when found in food, water bodies or other places where they are not intended. But just because something is detected doesn’t mean it’s harmful to humans or wildlife. Toxicity depends on how much of the substance a person or animal is exposed to, how they are exposed to it – such as breathing it, or getting it on their skin – and for how long.
The Department of Agriculture began regulating pesticides in 1947 with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Most of the department’s interest was whether a particular pesticide was effective against the target pests.
In 1970, the newly formed EPA took over responsibility for pesticides. It shifted its focus to the safety of consumers, farmworkers and the environment after the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act took effect in 1972.
A wide range of pesticides are available to consumers for use in their homes and yards.Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
Risk-benefit analysis
Federal law requires the EPA to evaluate both the risks and the benefits of each pesticide – and to revisit that analysis at least every 15 years for every pesticide used in the U.S.
The EPA determines whether the risks to people, animals or the environment are too high for the benefits the pesticide provides and whether any of those risks can be reduced. Sometimes a chemical’s risk can be lessened by recommending mitigation strategies such as wearing protective clothing, reducing environmental spread by barring the use of pesticides near the edges of a property, or decreasing the amount of a pesticide that’s legal to use.
In its analysis of any given pesticide, the EPA requires a massive amount of data from the manufacturer about what ingredients the pesticide contains and how they work. The agency also reviews scientific research on the pesticide and uses its own scientists and independent experts to evaluate any studies that were submitted by the manufacturer.
The EPA uses all the available data on a pesticide to evaluate the dose that would be toxic to a range of organisms, as well as what residues the pesticide may leave on plants, in the soil and in water. The data is incorporated into computer models that estimate the potential amount of the chemical that may come in contact with humans, animals and the environment. Those models’ results are then combined with toxicity data to determine risk.
The models used by EPA scientists are very conservative. They often use significant overestimates of exposure, which means that when the models determine the risk of a pesticide is below a particular level, they are evaluating the risk posed by far higher quantities of the chemical than will ever actually be used. The risk from the amount actually used, therefore, is even less likely to cause harm.
The EPA also provides opportunities for public comment on a pesticide and uses that information in its evaluations as well.
Pesticides are commonly used in commercial agriculture.Charlie Neibergall/AP
Additional scrutiny
The Endangered Species Act also requires the EPA to evaluate the effects of pesticides on threatened and endangered species.
If a pesticide is found to potentially be dangerous to a protected species or its habitat, the EPA will discuss those findings with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, which enforce the Endangered Species Act, and determine what to do to ensure the species aren’t harmed.
The law’s requirement to reevaluate each pesticide every 15 years is based on the fact that science evolves and information becomes more precise. New data can shed light on potential risks and benefits, and even lead to pesticides being banned or more closely restricted.
Until recently, for instance, pesticide residues on plants, food and in the environment were measured in parts per million. Newer equipment can measure even smaller amounts, determining parts per billion, which is as precise as identifying one single second in 32 years. Some chemicals can even be measured in parts per trillion, equivalent to one drop of water in 20 Olympic-size swimming pools. That means exposures can be more accurately measured. While some chemicals can be toxic in very small concentrations, most pesticides can be detected at levels that do not pose a biological risk.
Allowing a pesticide to be used
If the EPA determines that a pesticide’s risks outweigh its benefits, then its staff will conduct additional analyses to determine how to mitigate the risks enough to justify using it. If that’s not possible, the EPA will reject the application and not allow the pesticide to be used in the U.S.
If the agency determines that the benefits outweigh the risks, the EPA approves the pesticide for sale and use in the U.S. The law requires the pesticide come with a label providing a strict set of guidelines for how, when and where to use the pesticide.
The guidelines define amounts and timing for applying the pesticide safely, and specific restrictions or protection strategies to control the target pests while eliminating or minimizing harm to the environment, workers and the public.
The EPA also makes information on pesticides available to the public, so anyone can find out how to use them safely. Using the pesticide without following those directions is a violation of federal law.Jeffrey Gore, Professor of Agricultural Science and Plant Protection, Mississippi State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Currently, getting a yearly COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for everyone ages 6 months and older, regardless of their health risk.
In the video announcing the plan to remove the vaccine from the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women, Kennedy spoke alongside National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. The trio cited a lack of evidence to support vaccinating healthy children. They did not explain the reason for the change to the vaccine schedule for pregnant people, who have previously been considered at high-risk for severe COVID-19.
Similarly, in the FDA announcement made a week prior, Makary and the agency’s head of vaccines, Vinay Prasad, said that public health trends now support limiting vaccines to people at high risk of serious illness instead of a universal COVID-19 vaccination strategy.
Was this a controversial decision or a clear consensus?
Many public health experts and professional health care associations have raised concerns about Kennedy’s latest announcement, saying it contradicts studies showing that COVID-19 vaccination benefits pregnant people and children. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, considered the premier professional organization for that medical specialty, reinforced the importance of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, especially to protect infants after birth. Likewise, the American Academy of Pediatrics pointed to the data on hospitalizations of children with COVID-19 during the 2024-to-2025 respiratory virus season as evidence for the importance of vaccination.
Kennedy’s announcement on children and pregnant women comes roughly a month ahead of a planned meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of vaccine experts that offers guidance to the CDC on vaccine policy. The meeting was set to review guidance for the 2025-to-2026 COVID-19 vaccines. It’s not typical for the CDC to alter its recommendations without input from the committee.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has removed COVID-19 vaccines from the vaccine schedule for healthy children and pregnant people.
FDA officials Makary and Prasad also strayed from past established vaccine regulatory processes in announcing the FDA’s new stance on recommendations for healthy people under age 65. Usually, the FDA broadly approves a vaccine based on whether it is safe and effective, and decisions on who should be eligible to receive it are left to the CDC, which bases its decision on the advisory committee’s research-based guidance.
The advisory committee was expected to recommend a risk-based approach for the COVID-19 vaccine, but it was also expected to recommend allowing low-risk people to get annual COVID-19 vaccines if they want to. The CDC’s and FDA’s new policies on the vaccine will likely make it difficult for healthy people to get the vaccine.
Will low-risk people be able to get a COVID-19 shot?
Not automatically. Kennedy’s announcement does not broadly address healthy adults, but under the new FDA framework, healthy adults who wish to receive the fall COVID-19 vaccine will likely face obstacles. Health care providers can administer vaccines “off-label”, but insurance coverage is widely based on FDA recommendations. The new, narrower FDA approval will likely reduce both access to COVID-19 vaccines for the general public and insurance coverage for COVID-19 vaccines.
Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance providers are required to fully cover the cost of any vaccine endorsed by the CDC. Kennedy’s announcement will likely limit insurance coverage for COVID-19 vaccination.
Overall, the move to focus on individual risks and benefits may overlook broader public health benefits. Communities with higher vaccination rates have fewer opportunities to spread the virus.
This is an updated version of an article originally published on May 22, 2025.Libby Richards, Professor of Nursing, Purdue University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The All-New 2026 Nissan LEAF Is Here — Sleek, Smart, and Ready to Lead
Nissan has officially lifted the curtain on the all-new 2026 LEAF, and it’s not just an update—it’s a total reinvention. The third-generation LEAF blends sleek, aerodynamic styling with SUV-like proportions, signaling a bold departure from the hatchback form that defined the nameplate for over a decade. This refreshed design marks a new chapter for one of the world’s most accessible and best-selling electric vehicles.
With nearly 700,000 global sales under its belt, the LEAF has long been a pioneer in the mass-market EV space. The 2026 model takes that foundation and builds upon it in every direction—design, technology, comfort, and capability. Whether you’re a loyal EV enthusiast or making the switch from a gas-powered car, Nissan’s newest electric offering is designed to meet you where you are and elevate your driving experience.
The all-new LEAF sports clean, sculpted body lines and a wide stance that echoes modern crossover aesthetics. Inside, the cabin is minimal yet inviting, focused on comfort, spaciousness, and wellbeing. A dimming panoramic roof with heat shielding adds a premium touch, while ambient lighting in 64 available colors helps set the perfect mood for any drive.
Performance Meets Practicality
Among the most impressive upgrades is a liquid-cooled lithium-ion battery offering up to 75 kWh of usable capacity—meaning more range, more freedom, and more confidence. Faster charging speeds and the inclusion of the North American Charging Standard (NACS) port with Plug & Charge capability further simplify EV ownership.
Nissan’s all-new 3-in-1 powertrain—a compact, integrated system combining motor, inverter, and reducer—delivers both efficiency and power in a sleek package. It’s an engineering advancement that supports the LEAF’s mission of providing reliable, affordable electric mobility for all.
Tech-Savvy and Feature-Rich
This isn’t just a car—it’s a rolling tech hub. The 2026 LEAF offers dual 14.3-inch displays, wireless Apple CarPlay® and Android Auto™, and Google built-in features like Google Maps. Drivers will enjoy innovative tools like the Invisible Hood View, Front Wide View, and the 3D Intelligent Around View® Monitor—making tight parking and complex driving environments far easier to navigate.
Audiophiles take note: the available Bose® Personal® Plus audio system ensures that your soundtrack is every bit as premium as your ride.
Advertisement
Built to Impress, Ready for the Road
With details like flush door handles, holographic 3D tail lamps, and available 19-inch wheels, the 2026 LEAF is clearly designed to turn heads. But its mission is practical at heart: making electric driving seamless for everyday users. From its improved range to thoughtful in-cabin tech, Nissan is aiming squarely at the mainstream with this launch.
Assembly for the U.S. and Canadian markets will take place at Nissan’s Tochigi plant in Japan, where the LEAF will be built alongside the Ariya SUV.
The 2026 Nissan LEAF arrives at U.S. dealerships this fall, with availability in other global markets to follow.
Want more 2026 Nissan LEAF details or a feature breakdown?
Welcome to the Consumer Corner section of STM Daily News, your ultimate destination for savvy shopping and informed decision-making! Dive into a treasure trove of insights and reviews covering everything from the hottest toys that spark joy in your little ones to the latest electronic gadgets that simplify your life. Explore our comprehensive guides on stylish home furnishings, discover smart tips for buying a home or enhancing your living space with creative improvement ideas, and get the lowdown on the best cars through our detailed auto reviews. Whether you’re making a major purchase or simply seeking inspiration, the Consumer Corner is here to empower you every step of the way—unlock the keys to becoming a smarter consumer today!
The once red-hot U.S. residential solar market is showing signs of cooling off—but don’t count it out just yet. A combination of rising interest rates, regulatory changes, and supply chain challenges have led to a notable dip in installations across the country. But while the short-term trend suggests a slowdown, industry experts remain optimistic about the long-term potential of rooftop solar.
📉 The Numbers Don’t Lie: Installations Are Down
According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Wood Mackenzie, residential solar installations dropped by 13% year-over-year in Q1 2025, with 1,106 megawatts (MW) installed nationwide. That’s also a 4% decline from the previous quarter. This marks a continuation of the trend that began in 2024, which saw the residential sector contract in 22 states—including a five-year low in California [^1].
Analysts at BloombergNEF predict that total U.S. solar capacity will fall by 7% between 2025 and 2027, with a projected 1% annual decline through 2035 under current policy scenarios [^2].
🧾 What’s Behind the Drop?
1. Higher Interest Rates
The Federal Reserve’s continued efforts to tame inflation have made financing solar systems more expensive for homeowners. The result? Fewer consumers are willing to commit to the upfront investment, even with long-term savings in play [^3].
2. Policy Shifts in Key States
California, long considered the leader in solar adoption, rolled back its Net Energy Metering (NEM) 2.0 program in favor of NEM 3.0, which significantly reduces the value of solar exports back to the grid. Installations in the state fell sharply as a result [^1].
On the federal side, proposed cuts to the 30% Investment Tax Credit (ITC)—a major driver of residential adoption—have caused uncertainty in the market. According to Reuters, solar stocks plummeted following changes in a Senate tax bill that threatened to shrink or eliminate these credits [^4].
Advertisement
3. Tariffs and Supply Constraints
Tariffs on Chinese and other foreign-made solar panels have led to price increases and reduced availability. Simultaneously, battery storage components are experiencing shortages, further delaying installations and complicating project timelines [^5].
🌤 The Long-Term Picture: A Resilient Future
Despite the headwinds, many in the industry see this as a short-term correction rather than a lasting decline. SEIA projects a return to 9% annual residential growth from 2025 to 2030, particularly if financing conditions improve and federal incentives remain intact [^1].
Additionally, solar panel prices remain historically low, hovering around $2.50–$2.60 per watt installed. That affordability, coupled with increasing demand for home electrification and EV charging solutions, makes rooftop solar an attractive long-term investment [^1].
In a recent industry survey, 78% of solar installers said they expect to sell as much or more in 2025 than they did in 2024 [^3]. And while the market is down in states like California, others—including Texas, Florida, and Arizona—are continuing to grow.
✅ Final Takeaway
Yes, residential solar is currently in a downturn. But it’s more of a recalibration than a collapse. Regulatory turbulence and financial pressures are squeezing the market, but the fundamentals—affordability, environmental benefits, and technological advancement—remain strong.
The future of residential solar will depend heavily on stable policy support, affordable financing, and continued innovation. If those stars align, the industry could see another boom in the latter half of the decade.
Advertisement
📚 Sources
[^1]: SEIA/Wood Mackenzie. U.S. Solar Market Insight Q1 2025.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
Jeffrey Gore, Professor of Agricultural Science and Plant Protection, Mississippi State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
