A rising cancer rate blamed on water quality in rural, red Iowa has become a looming midterm campaign issue

A series of issues affecting rural America is giving hope to Democrats as the midterm elections approach, including data centers that are supported by President Trump but opposed by many communities, concerns about health care access, Medicaid cuts by Republicans that threaten the future of clinics and hospitals, housing shortages and inflation. Now in heavily red rural Iowa, Politico reports that a rising cancer rate blamed on water quality is        overshadowing other issues and is “changing Iowa politics.”

Photo by Shawn Schroeder on Unsplash

From the report by Tom Philpott and Nina B. Elkadi: “Iowa’s lakes and ponds are often murky and fetid from algae blooms fed by fertilizer runoff, a byproduct of the state’s vast agricultural industry’s reliance on farming chemicals … People are angry and worried about the quality of the state’s water, the health risks it poses and its increasingly undeniable tie to the state’s signature industry: agriculture.”

Politicians in Iowa have been hesitant to criticize the industry, Politico reports, but candidates in both parties are taking shots at the big companies and their use of chemicals and fertilizer that they claim has seeped into drinking water and has the state’s cancer rate rising dramatically.

The issue not only has raised the hopes of Democrats seeking statewide office in November, but appears to have delivered victories to Republicans who are bucking the establishment wing of the party.

Perhaps the best example of the strength of the issue is in the positions of the candidates for Iowa secretary of agriculture. The Democrat, Chris Jones, accuses the large farming operations of trying to control nature, “ … and what has controlling nature done for us?,” he asks. “It’s polluted all our water. It’s really destroyed a lot of Iowa.” 

Jones’ Republican opponent is the current secretary of agriculture, Mike Naig, who Politico observes, “can’t run on water.” Naig once worked for Monsanto, the producer of Roundup, a controversial herbicide. Naig thinks farming operations can be convinced to voluntarily pollute less, which is the current approach, and rejects the need for regulation. In a June press release, Naig said, “We have made tremendous progress working with farmers and landowners and hundreds of public and private partners to incorporate responsible farming practices, but there’s no finish line when it comes to conservation.”

Angry voters want results, and the election may come down to who they believe will deliver on water quality. Jones observed that, “Cancer doesn’t care what party you belong to. Republicans don’t like drinking poisonous water any more than Democrats do.”

Live, virtual panel discussion on the link between agricultural sprays and cancer cases in the Midwest, May 7

Are chemical crop treatments causing cancer in the communities where they are used?

A live virtual panel event on May 7 from 11 a.m. to noon. will explore what current data and reporting reveal about potential links between agricultural sprays and cancer diagnoses. The conversation will cover what research indicates, clinical insights and lived experience. The event is free. You can register here.

The discussion panel includes journalists, researchers, a physician and a cancer survivor who will discuss the growing body of data examining the potential link between pesticide use and cancer outcomes.

The panel will flesh out what's known about the possible connection, present what remains unclear, and examine how chemical crop treatments and severe health conditions often play out in rural communities.

The conversation will connect data, policy and personal impact to better understand what’s driving cancer risks in farm belts across the U.S. Time for a Q&A with the audience also will be included.

Current panel lineup:

• Dr. Richard Deming, MercyOne Cancer Center
• Kerri Johannsen, Iowa Environmental Council
• Amanda Starbuck, Food & Water Watch
• Carey Gillam, The New Lede
• Lisa Lawler, Iowa cancer survivor
• Ben Felder, Investigate Midwest (moderator)

“We selected these panelists to help better understand what the latest data and reporting are showing and where we go next,” said Lauren Cross, assistant editor for the event's sponsor, Investigate Midwest.

What does science say about health risks from widely used glyphosate on U.S. farms? An expert weighs in.

Unlike soybean and corn farmers, wheat growers don't
 routinely use glyphosate. (Photo by H. Shedrow, Unsplash)

Despite thousands of lawsuits and some scientific studies linking glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, to serious human diseases, the compound remains the most popular herbicide for farmers worldwide.

In the U.S., where Roundup is the most commonly used herbicide, many consumers have questions about the health risks glyphosate may pose. According to epidemiologist Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, writing for Your Local Epidemiologist on Substack, the most pressing questions are: "Does glyphosate cause cancer? And how much exposure is actually risky?" She provides some background and details about what "the scientific evidence actually says."

Like many chemicals, natural and synthetic, the dose determines toxicity. "So, at what dose is glyphosate poisonous? The LD50 in rats (the dose that kills half the test animals) is around 5,600 mg/kg body weight," Jetelina explains. "Table salt is roughly 3,000 mg/kg. By that classic measure, glyphosate is less acutely toxic than salt."

Still, many people who work on farms or live near farms may be regularly exposed to "a lot of glyphosate," Jetelina writes. "Among the general public, there are many questions about low-dose, cumulative exposure from multiple sources over long periods."

Correlation maps that show the number of non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases in counties that spray the most glyphosate seem to point to a relationship between the two. Jetelina adds, "But correlation alone doesn’t establish cause, which is why animal and human studies matter."

Food and Water Watch graph via Your Local Epidemiologist

Tests on rats, which have often been cited as the most alarming, and observation testing on humans, indicate the same thing: "At very high exposure levels, there may be some cancer risk," Jetelina explains. "But that’s about as far as the science currently takes us."

The U.S. EPA, the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada, and regulatory agencies in Australia and Japan have "all concluded that glyphosate is 'unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans' at realistic exposure levels," Jetelina writes. Those regulatory bodies looked at "how much glyphosate people actually encounter and asked what is the probability of harm? Your actual exposure is what determines your actual risk."

In daily life, an average American would be hard-pressed to consume enough glyphosate to do any harm. To exceed EPA's herbicide residue limits, a "150-pound adult would need to eat roughly 50 pounds of oats every day," Jenelina writes. Organic certification doesn't allow synthetic herbicides, so in practice, most herbicides can be avoided by purchasing organic foods.

For farm workers who mix and apply glyphosate, Jenelina advises using personal protective equipment consistently to prevent unnecessary exposure. People who live near farms can help protect themselves from spray drift by "knowing your local agricultural calendar and keeping windows closed during application are the first steps."

Silicone wristbands can monitor exposure to 'forever chemicals' over time

Silicone wristbands could help scientists monitor for 
chemicals. (Venier Lab photo via The Conversation CC)

Silicone wristbands are a new noninvasive method to measure Americans’ exposure to "forever chemicals", or PFAS, reports Yaw Edu Essandoh for The Conversation.

These synthetic chemicals, often found in water systems, soils and consumer products, have been a growing public concern and become more prevalent in everyday environments, Essandoh explains.

Traditional monitoring tools for measuring their exposure have only used samples from a single point in time and can be invasive, like drawing someone’s blood or testing soil or water from one location on one day, reports Essandoh. However, Essandoh found from his environmental chemistry research that people or animals living in the same environment “showed very different chemical profiles.”

Since people are exposed continuously throughout the day, new noninvasive tools are becoming more popular to monitor exposure over a period of time, Essandoh reports. One such tool is the silicone wristbands, made of silicone polymer, which “absorb chemicals from the surrounding environment over time, similar to how skin or fur interacts with air, dust and surfaces." Researchers can then extract these compounds from the wristband and examine the pattern of exposure, once the wristband is worn for multiple days or weeks.

Other noninvasive methods scientists have started using to track exposure include “passive air samplers placed in homes or small wearable devices,” explains Essandoh. These types of devices can also be used for animals and wildlife, instead of drawing their blood, to better understand how PFAS affect their ecosystems and to identify emerging risks sooner.

Noninvasive monitoring tools aren’t meant to eliminate traditional monitoring, Essandoh explains, but to provide additional context to how exposure moves through time and space and to entice more volunteers to participate in studies. “They offer ways to better understand cumulative exposure, identify overlooked pathways and inform environmental health and conservation decisions.”

Flora & Fauna: The grizzly of 2026 awakens; springtime woodpeckers; America dominates pistachio market; crime solving with moss; eagle research helps human PFAS study

The first grizzly bear of 2026 spotted in Yellowstone National Park left its den in search of lunch.                                     (Photo by Jim Peaco, National Park Service)        

Yellowstone Park researchers know winter is on the way out when they see a grizzly bear out of its den and feasting on lunch after its long months of hibernation. "Scientists spotted the first grizzly bear of 2026 earlier this week at Yellowstone National Park, marking the beginning of the end of hibernation season for the massive creatures," reports Emily Mae Czachor of CBS News. "The grizzly observed this year was seen in the backcountry, scavenging on the carcass of a bull bison, another species found in the park." 

When spring starts its seasonal orchestra, the percussion section begins with the staccato drums of male woodpeckers trying to out "hammer" each other to win over female woodpeckers. "The emphatic drumming, meant to attract mates and drive off rival males, is by no means the only way woodpeckers are at the pulse of things," writes Margaret Roach of The New York Times. Abandoned woodpecker nests are repurposed into homes by "wood ducks, owls, bluebirds, tree swallows, squirrels, martens, bats and raccoons" to name a few. Woodpecker: A Year in the Life of North American Woodpeckers is a new book by author and wildlife photographer Paul Bannick that gives rich insight into how humans can help nature's amazing builders.

Chestnut trees that once filled American forests until an airborne blight and root rot pushed them to the brink of extinction might once again compete for space in forests from Maine to Mississippi. "A new study in the journal Science provides hope for its revitalization, finding that the genetic testing of individual trees can reveal which are most likely to resist disease and grow tall, thus shortening how long it takes to plant the next, more robust, generation," reports Michael Phillis of The Associated Press. "A smaller gap between generations means a faster path to lots of disease-resistant trees. . . . The authors hope that can occur in the coming decades."

U.S. pistachio production hit a record 1.57 
billion pounds last year. (USDA ARS photo)

They're cracked, green and more than a little nutty. Meet the American pistachio. It's an alternate-bearing crop that's gaining international popularity, especially when mixed with chocolate. "The U.S. pistachio industry appears to be attracting more demand as its supply could soon reach 2 billion pounds," reports Todd Fitchette of Western Farm Press. "The popularity of a chocolate bar created in Dubai with crushed pistachios in it has helped bolster global pistachio demand in other products. . . .The U.S. currently controls the world’s pistachio market share with about 63% of the global supply."

Moss can help 'track a suspect's movements' through
woods and water edges. (Photo by N. Macc, Unsplash) 

In some hard-to-crack crime cases, there's often a trail that leads to a remote location where a body is disposed of, leaving nearby flora as the only witness. And while plants can't talk, many a detective knows that foliage can still tell part of the story. More recently, forensic botanists are analyzing moss for clues. "Particles from the dense, green mats can easily attach to a suspect’s shoes or clothing, grow on human remains and survive in adverse conditions," reports Samantha Drake of The New York Times. Moss samples can help detectives determine postmortem timelines, "track a suspect’s movements and establish key links to help solve crimes including homicides, missing person cases and cemetery desecrations."

Research efforts in Wisconsin who are focused on bald eagle health are helping scientists determine PFAS levels in human populations across the state. "Dubbed 'forever chemicals,' PFAS don’t break down easily and are found in common household products," Sea Grant for the University of Wisconsin reports. "They’re harmful to human health and have been found in high concentrations in drinking water in communities across Wisconsin. The project's emerging contaminants specialist, Gavin Dehnert, said eagles are what’s known as a 'sentinel species,' organisms that can alert humans to environmental toxins. Due to their diet, bald eagles are particularly good indicators of how much PFAS are in the environment."

USDA can remediate 'forever chemical' pollution on U.S. farmlands, new study shows

The new report found that the USDA can respond to
PFAS contamination on U.S. farmland. (TNL photo)

The Department of Agriculture has the resources to address PFAS contamination on U.S. farmland, a National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine report finds.

The study, which was partially sponsored by the USDA, lists the various tools and remediation planning that can be used to reduce contamination caused by "human-made chemicals that accumulate in the environment and the bodies of humans and animals," which are collectively called "PFAS" or "forever chemicals," reports Shannon Kelleher for The New Lede.

Fertilizer use is one way farmers have unintentionally polluted their soil with forever chemicals. Kelleher explains, "PFAS end up on agricultural lands when farmers apply tainted sewage sludge as a fertilizer, contaminating crops and soil with chemicals linked to certain cancers and other health harms." Forever chemicals can also be added to soil through PFAS-laced pesticides.

The report included a remediation outline and noted that the USDA could leverage its considerable resources to address the farmland PFAS crisis. Researchers suggested the USDA use predictive models, on-site testing and "develop PFAS screening levels for different types of agriculture facilities, soil types and climates," Kelleher reports.

The report also recommends the USDA analyze how forever chemicals interact with different soils and climates to "develop better mechanisms to trap or sequester PFAS, and research ways to minimize the uptake of PFAS in plants and animals," Kelleher writes.

The February Farm Bill draft includes "language that would permit research grants on the agricultural impacts of PFAS in land exposed to firefighting foams, sewage sludge or compost containing the chemicals," Kelleher adds.

Trump's order increases the production of controversial herbicide glyphosate

Glyphosate is the most popular
herbicide in the world.

Despite large pockets of concerned Americans and a growing body of scientific research linking the country's most commonly sprayed weedkiller ingredient, glyphosate, to serious health concerns, President Donald Trump issued an "executive order aimed at ramping up production of glyphosate," report Hiroko Tabuchi and Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times. The move alarmed supporters of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.

Glyphosate, sometimes sold under the brand name "Roundup," is the world's most popular weedkiller for good reason -- it is extremely effective at annihilating noxious weed growth; however, the ingredient "has been the target of tens of thousands of lawsuits that claim it causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma," Tobuchi and Stolberg explain.

To issue the order to increase domestic glyphosate production, "Trump invoked the Defense Production Act, a 1950s-era law typically used in national emergencies to compel companies to produce certain materials or supplies that the president deems necessary for national security," the Times reports. "Trump declared both glyphosate and phosphorus, used to manufacture the weedkiller, 'critical to the national defense.'"

Some MAHA supporters and environmental activists were infuriated by the move. Vani Hari, a healthy eating advocate and supporter of Kennedy’s nutrition agenda, told the Times, "MAHA voters were promised health reform, not chemical entrenchment."

Meanwhile, Kennedy issued a statement supporting Trump's order, saying it "puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply."

So far, much of the research on glyphosate exposure among people has yielded mixed results. Tobuchi and Stolberg explain, "Late last year, a landmark study that had found glyphosate to be safe 25 years ago was retracted by the scientific journal that published it."

German-based glyphosate maker Bayer has been working for years to resolve its glyphosate litigation. Last week, "it proposed to settle a nationwide class-action lawsuit to resolve claims that its flagship herbicide causes cancer," Thomas reports. "The settlement plan includes setting aside more than $7 billion to fund payments over 21 years."

Analysis: Growing up in the Corn Belt may contribute to higher cancer rates in younger adults

Skin and kidney cancer rates are higher in big corn-growing
states than the rest of the country. (Adobe Stock photo)

The alarming rate of cancer among younger adults in the U.S. has led to questions and research aimed at addressing the "shift in cancer diagnoses in America, with rates for young adults in their 20s, 30s and 40s trending up even as overall cancer rates decline," report Ariana Eunjung Cha, Dan Keating, Jahi Chikwendiu and Luis Melgar of The Washington Post.

When groups of younger cancer victims were analyzed, growing up in the Midwest emerged as a key risk factor, according to the article. "Cancer rates among young adults in the Corn Belt are rising more rapidly than in the country as a whole." The Corn Belt includes Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana and Kansas.

When states began tracking their cancer rates in 1999, Corn Belt states reported cancer rates that fell in line with the rest of the country. But in 2015, an unsettling shift began as corn-growing states recorded "a significantly higher cancer rate among those ages 15 to 49," the Post reports. "In the latest data from 2022, those states have a rate 5% higher for young adults and 5% higher for the overall population."

Young adults raised in Corn Belt states "have significantly higher rates of several cancers, especially kidney and skin cancers," Cha writes. "The skin cancer risk for young adults in the corn-producing states is 35% higher for men and 66% higher for women than their peers in other states."

As younger Midwesterners grapple with cancer diagnoses, many are starting to look at the agriculture around them and wonder about its health impacts. The Post reports, "They are raising questions about the role of agribusiness and the water that runs through their communities, and pushing politicians to act in a region where such questions have long been taboo."

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds recently "announced a $1 million investment to establish a research team dedicated to investigating the underlying causes of the state’s growing cancer rates," Cha adds. "Researchers are still working to disentangle national trends from regional anomalies, and the data doesn’t yet offer a satisfying explanation for why cancer rates among the young have shot up here."

Cotton field project helps farmers and students learn how to outsmart bugs while saving money and time

Pests are identified by AI as they fly through a light sensor
inside this trap. (Photo by D. Mcgee via The Conversation)

Researchers working to introduce precision agriculture practices to farmers and agriculture students made progress during their recent project, in which AI was deployed to outsmart cotton-eating bugs in Jenkins County, Georgia.

Jenkins County, with a population of roughly 8,700, is "among the top 25 cotton-growing counties in the state," write Debra Lam, Atin Adhikari and James E. Thomas for The Conversation. The area's farmers rely heavily on expensive pesticides to defeat "stink bugs, cotton bollworms, corn earworms, tarnished plant bugs and aphids."

The project aimed to help farmers determine when to spray their crops by combining "AI-based early pest detection methods with existing integrated pest management practices and the Georgia Cotton Insect Advisor app," according to the report. By integrating those tools, researchers learned how to "improve pest detection, decrease pesticide exposure levels and reduce insecticide use."

The project's outcome demonstrated that AI tools could reliably predict where and when pest infestations would occur, providing farmers with the knowledge they need to save money and labor costs by applying pesticides only where and when necessary.

Through the use of AI sensors, the research provided farmers with practical and intuitive ways to plan and protect their crops. According to the report, "Even after the sensors are gone, farmers who used them become better at spotting pests. . . . AI dashboards and mobile apps help them see how pest populations grow over time and respond to different field conditions."

The project was part of Georgia's ongoing effort to train more farmers and students on how to integrate precision agriculture into their farming or pest management practices. According to The Conversation's report, "The same tools could help local governments manage mosquitoes and ticks and open up more agtech innovations." 

Iowa's water is polluted with farming nitrates and pesticides, but a potential solution challenges the 'status quo'

Crop and animal farm runoff has polluted at least
four Iowa rivers. (Adobe Stock photo)

In agriculturally dominated Iowa, what's good for corn producers gets top billing while residents face a deluge of polluted water. "In Iowa, which by some measures has the most polluted water in the U.S., people who advocate for the environment are widely scorned as enemies of farming," reports Peter Waldman of Bloomberg.

In a state where farmers spread copious amounts of pesticides, nitrogen fertilizers and nitrogen-rich manure, towns like Remsen, which is surrounded by Iowa corn country, are "saturated with pollution," Waldman writes. "Researchers have linked trace exposures to nitrate in drinking water to cancers, birth defects and thyroid disease. Iowa has the second-highest cancer rate in the U.S., after Kentucky."

Although concerned citizens, including many farmers, have pushed for fewer pesticides and nitrates, most efforts failed. "The state government has crushed almost every effort to hold farmers and agribusinesses accountable for their increasingly dirty footprint," Waldman explains. Last year, the EPA ordered Iowa to "add parts of four rivers to the state’s list of impaired waters needing cleanup, including the drinking supply for about a fifth of Iowa’s population."

Even with some of the state's drinking water in question, the state complained about the EPA's sanction, which the Trump administration lifted. Waldman reports, "Now even the feds defer to Big Ag, led in Iowa by the industry’s undisputed champion in the state, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation."

Remsen is located in eastern Plymouth County, 
in the heart of Iowa's corn belt. (Adobe Stock photo)

Without support, Remsen's water continued to be polluted. Despite investigations, area wells were allowed to fill with possibly toxic nitrates. "From 2016 to 2020, Remsen’s five-year rate of colorectal cancer, one of the cancers associated with nitrate exposure, was 19% higher than Iowa’s," Waldman adds. "By 2017, the shallow wells that supplied Remsen’s drinking water were so loaded with nitrates they had to be shut down."

Farming without so many nitrates and pesticides is possible. Matt Liebman, a retired agronomy professor at Iowa State, told Waldman, "What it takes to grow food with less pollution isn’t a mystery. . . .But the solution threatens the status quo. You can’t sell as much fertilizer, hybrid seeds or animal feed. For those companies, the solution is the problem.”