Guide: How to cite a Website in Paleobiology style

Guide: How to cite a Website in Paleobiology style

Cite A Website in Paleobiology style

Ads keep us free. Upgrade to remove.

Use the following template to cite a website using the Paleobiology citation style. For help with other source types, like books, PDFs, or websites, check out our other guides. To have your reference list or bibliography automatically made for you, try our free citation generator.


Pink text = information that you will need to find from the source.
Black text = text required by the Paleobiology style.

Reference list

Place this part in your bibliography or reference list at the end of your assignment.


Author Surname, Author Initial. Year Published: Title. Downloaded from http://Website-Url on 10 October 2013.


Feldman, J. 2014: Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options. Pesticides and You:14-23.

In-text citation

Place this part right after the quote or reference to the source in your assignment.


(Author Surname Year Published)


State of Cannabis Legalization 
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia (DC) have passed medical cannabis laws as of January 2015, and, of these, four states and DC have voted through ballot initiatives to allow recreational use. Of the 23 states, 17 states and DC have adopted policies or rules governing pesticide use in cannabis production. 

A review of state laws reveals a mix of approaches in the absence of federal oversight. Six states, generally those without medical marijuana dispensaries (where medical marijuana is sold and often grown in greenhouses), but including California (which has legalized medical marijuana and comprises nearly 50% of cannabis sales nationally), are silent on pesticide use in cannabis production, while five others specifically outlaw any application of a federally registered pesticide. 

Of these, three states have adopted a specific requirement that cannabis is grown without any pesticides.  As with all crop production systems, cannabis grown without toxic pesticides not only protects the consumer from pesticide exposure, but also the workers who grow the crop, and the environment where it is grown.  

A 2013 study, published in the Journal of Toxicology, found that up to 69.5% of pesticide residues can remain in smoked marijuana. Filtering the smoke through water showed only a slight reduction in pesticide residues. However, when filtered through cotton, pesticide levels were similar to levels in tobacco, with 1-11% of tested pesticides reaching the user. Authors of the Journal of Toxicology study note that, “High pesticide exposure through cannabis smoking is a significant possibility, which may lead to further health complications in cannabis users.” The significance of these results may confound studies that have associated cannabis use with negative health outcomes, according to researchers.

The survey results raise serious questions about pesticide exposure, inadequate regulatory oversight, and incentives or requirements to adopt sustainable practices in the cultivation of cannabis. While most state regulations currently offer some level of protection for patients and consumers, it is important that this growing $1.5 billion industry, authorized by numerous state laws, has clearer standards that restrict pesticide use and establish required sustainable cultivation systems based on the organic model. The restrictions should specifically prohibit pesticides registered by EPA, but allow those exempt 25(b) pesticides. 
Allowed and Prohibited Pesticides: 
In the absence of adequate testing at the federal level on the potential impacts of pesticide use on cannabis to consumers, workers, and the environment, states should provide clear rules to producers regarding sustainable production practices that protect public health and the environment. Beyond Pesticides recommends that states follow an approach similar to New Hampshire, which restricts growers to pesticides that are (i) allowed for use in organic production and (ii) exempt from federal registration (25(b)). It is critical that these restrictions also require a system plan that governs the potential use of a pesticide after alternative means have been exhausted. 

Pesticide Testing: 
State regulations should be written to include the batch testing of pesticide contaminants in cannabis sold. Testing laboratories should be independently certified, and the laboratory name should be disclosed on the product label. Relying on a complaint to investigate a supplier is not an effective means of enforcing safety standards, and unfairly places the burden on consumers and patients, who are likely to submit a complaint only after suffering injury or harm. 

Pre-plant Use of Pesticides: 
Pre-plant (used on soil prior to planting) use of registered pesticides should be prohibited. These chemicals typically leave residues in the soil that can be taken up by plants and result in exposure through inhalation or ingestion of the crop. Pesticide Labeling: Regardless of what pesticides are currently allowed under state law, all states should require the labeling of all pesticides that have been applied to a cannabis plant throughout its entire production and processing. 

Environmental Protection: 
Exemption from tolerance should not alone allow the use of a registered pesticide. Use patterns (in addition to those federally registered) could cause environmental damage that has not been evaluated. These include impacts on waterways and wildlife (including endangered species). 

Organic Practices: States should pass laws or implement rules that require a systems approach to cannabis production. State requirements that growers follow national organic standards (with only exempt pesticides permitted in organic) represent a positive trajectory for the industry. 

EPA Guidance: 
Current EPA guidance is misleading and suggests allowances of pesticide use that can be damaging to public health and the environment due to a lack of federal assessment of pesticide use and exposure patterns. EPA should simply notify the states that pesticides registered by the agency that are applied to fields or greenhouses before planting, or on plants during cultivation or post-harvest are illegal and subject to a violation of the pesticide product label. EPA allowances of pesticide product labels that permit toxic pesticide use on “unspecified food crops, home gardens and herbs” undermines the agency’s fundamental responsibility to evaluate use patterns and exposure. 

Pesticide use in the legal cultivation of cannabis in 23 states raises serious concerns about protection of public health and the environment. Those states that have adopted affirmative policies governing cannabis cultivation vary in their clarity in restricting pesticide use. EPA’s guidance has muddied the waters on this by suggesting the allowance of pre-planting pesticides and those with exemption from tolerances, or used under generalized labels that allow use on unspecified crops. Most importantly, six states of the total that have legalized cannabis production are silent on the issue of pesticide use, which raises serious questions about their efforts to enforce against the use of pesticides. The public and environment require uniform protections that include the following three basic elements: 
1. Prohibition of federally registered pesticide use. 
2. Allowance of pesticide exempt from federal registration, but not those that are only exempt from tolerances. 
3. Requirements for an organic system plan that focuses on sustainable practices and only 25(b) products as a last resort. (Feldman 2014)

Popular Paleobiology Citation Guides

Other Paleobiology Citation Guides

Join Us!

Save Time and Improve Your Marks with Cite This For Me

10,587 students joined last month!!

  • ✔ Save your bibliographies for longer
  • ✔ Quick and accurate citation program
  • ✔ Save time when referencing
  • ✔ Make your student life easy and fun
  • ✔ Use plagiarism checker
  • ✔ Create and edit multiple bibliographies