01
Jun
Action Calls for Banning Hazardous and Persistent PFAS Pesticides, as Uses Continue
(Beyond Pesticides, June 1, 2026) In the face of U.S. government inaction, the California state Assembly last week passed legislation to phase out existing agricultural uses and ban new uses of PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) pesticides. The legislation, AB 1603, which accurately defines PFAS pesticides in accordance with international standards, does allow continued residential, school and park, playing field, and community PFAS pesticide use (including mosquito spraying). The bill now moves on to the state Senate.
While advocates say the bill is an important step forward, they point out that the legislation is one of many examples that compromises public and environmental health, as pesticide-associated cancer, degenerative diseases, multigenerational effects, and ecosystem decline escalate. This attack on health and the environment is happening at the same time that organic agriculture and land management prohibits the use of PFAS pesticides and all the petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers with profitable and cost-effective practices.
The California victory paves the way for state action as regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refuse to act on clear scientific findings identifying devastating health and environmental threats. In this context, the bill serves as a call for all states to push for this type of legislation in all statehouses across the country, in the U.S. Congress, and, at EPA. Communities, on the frontline of public health and environmental protection, are increasingly phasing out all toxic pesticide use and advancing organic land and building management systems, which include eliminating all PFAS pesticide use.
ℹ️ [For community leaders interested in advancing cost-effective practices instead of a lengthy and often compromised whack-a-mole, chemical-by-chemical approach, see Beyond Pesticides’ model local pesticide policy and implementation plan. Beyond Pesticides assists communities through its Parks for a Sustainable Future program and other pest prevention programs, and collaborates through its organic agriculture and Keeping Organic Strong program.]
PFAS chemicals have become the new DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic.
Through an action, Beyond Pesticides is calling for accurately defining and banning PFAS pesticides, starting in California, and asking Congress and EPA to stop dismissing the serious health and environmental threat of these pesticides with the current PFAS definition, which defies international standards.
Because of their toxicity and persistence, the agrichemical industry looks to PFAS chemicals for new pesticides. Given the likelihood of water contamination, there is public health concern that drinking water health advisories issued by EPA show PFAS levels as low as .02 parts per trillion (ppt) having the potential to cause adverse health effects.
EPA continues to ignore the widely accepted definition of PFAS, which is supported by scientists and by the international forum, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). EPA’s current definition is at odds with the prevalent scientific thinking of scientists worldwide who have challenged the agency’s position and its resulting risk assessments. The OECD definition should be used as a basis for evaluating pesticides, and EPA should not allow PFAS pesticides, as defined by OECD to be registered.
Recent research by independent scientists finds, “[T]he biggest contributor to PFAS in pesticide products was active ingredients and their degradates. Nearly a quarter of all US conventional pesticide active ingredients were organofluorines and 14% were PFAS, and for active ingredients approved in the last 10 years, this had increased to 61% organofluorines and 30% PFAS.”
Fortunately, legislators in the California Assembly passed a bill (AB 1603) that adopts the OECD definition of PFAS and states that no one shall, “Use, or market, for agricultural use a pesticide that contains any of the PFAS pesticide ingredients;” or “Manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer for sale in commerce, a pesticide registered for agricultural use that contains any of the PFAS pesticide ingredients.” It now moves to the state Senate. The bill states findings on the hazards of PFAS, their presence in the California environment, and their presence in food grown in California. The agricultural use of PFAS is responsible for this widespread contamination, but PFAS ingredients are also found in the excluded products with “uses to treat pets, livestock, and other animals to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fleas, mites, ticks, heartworms, or other insects, parasites, or organisms.” Using California pesticide use data, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) calculates that farmers applied 15 million pounds of PFAS pesticides across all 58 California counties between 2018 and 2023. Based on the state’s Surface Water Database and other releases, PFAS pesticides were also found in up to 50% of California surface water samples, and in about 45% to 55% of sediment samples, according to an EWG analysis.
But, California is not unique. This is a serious nationwide problem and EPA continued in the last year to register new PFAS pesticides, in addition to ignoring the need to clean up existing contamination.
The PFAS pesticide now bill faces a crucial vote in the California Senate. Because of the state’s importance in agriculture, adoption of AB 1603 by California would have national impact, even if the legislative action is restricted to agricultural pesticides and all new uses, as the bill is currently worded. The OECD chemical definition of PFAS states: “PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS.” This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that regulatory bodies like EPA do not include in their definitions.
Thus, while the OECD defines PFAS as industrial chemicals that have at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom—which is a carbon atom with two or three fluorine atoms attached to it— EPA has narrowed the definition to those containing two fully fluorinated carbon atoms.
More on PFAS:
EPA links PFAS to an increased risk of many health effects, including decreased fertility and hypertension in pregnant people; increased risk of prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; hormonal irregularities; elevated cholesterol and risk of obesity; and reduced immune system response. Like DDT, PFAS residues are persistent in food and drinking water, with over six million U.S. residents regularly encountering drinking water with PFAS levels above the EPA health advisory of 70 ng/L. Therefore, PFAS are detectable in almost all of the U.S. population—disproportionately afflicting people of color communities—and have implications for human health. From epigenetic to immunotoxic effects, there is a wide range of health implications with PFAS exposure. Because of their ubiquitous use, studies report that PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. Like DDT, the effects of PFAS endure through generations—pregnant women can readily transfer compounds to the developing fetus through the placenta.
EPA and other federal regulators have been behind the curve in preventing and responding to the threats posed by PFAS compounds. Despite evidence on the dangers of PFAS stretching as far back as the 1950s, federal agencies failed to respond as the plastics industry continued use of the material in new products. Now, EPA is similarly expanding PFAS use with the registration of pesticides in the PFAS group.
The detection of any level of PFAS is cause for concern, and the parallels with DDT continue. From widespread presence in farm fields and sewage sludge (biosolids) to contaminated water bodies throughout the U.S., PFAS have made their way into the environment and human bodies. PFAS are even present in remote environments like the Arctic, Antarctica, and the Eastern European Tibetan Plateau. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) determined that almost all Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream, which highlights PFAS as a chronic danger to people that demands urgent regulatory action. Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. In a literature review published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety earlier this year, the authors highlight a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and endocrine-disrupting pesticides (EDPs) showing epigenetic effects from exposure, as the chemicals imitate the action of endocrine hormones and lead to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health. In summarizing these results, the researchers state, “As a class of particularly representative endocrine-disrupting chemicals, the accumulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances potentially leads to adverse health effects, including hormonal disruptions, developmental issues, and cancer.” These effects result from complex mechanisms that are not yet fully assessed in EPA’s pesticide registration process, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed before products are approved.
Meanwhile, EPA continues to register PFAS pesticides through its normal registration review process. (See Daily News At Odds with Intl Regulatory Bodies, EPA Defines Away PFAS Problem, Allows Widespread Contamination.) The latest pesticide proposed for EPA registration, epyrifenacil (agricultural weed killer), joins cyclobutrifluram (soil fungicide/nematicide), isocycloseram (household and agricultural insecticide), diflufenican (lawn and agricultural weed killer), and trifludimoxazin (agricultural weed killer), making a total of five PFAS pesticide proposals in 2025 that have been associated with national and worldwide contamination of food, land, and water. Two of these, cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, have been approved as of last fall.
Beyond Pesticides is calling for accurately defining and banning PFAS pesticides, starting in California, and asking Congress and EPA to stop dismissing the serious health and environmental threat of these pesticides with the current PFAS definition, which defies international standards.
Californians, Tell Your State Senator:
Please support passage of AB 1603 to restrict PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) pesticides, now under consideration in the state Senate. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the state of California continue to ignore the widely accepted definition of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence, which is supported by scientists and by the international forum, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). EPA’s current definition is at odds with the prevalent scientific thinking of scientists worldwide who have challenged the agency’s position and its resulting risk assessments. The OECD definition should be used as a basis for evaluating pesticides, and EPA should not allow PFAS pesticides, as defined by OECD to be registered.
PFAS chemicals have become the new DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic. Because of their toxicity and persistence, the agrichemical industry looks to these chemicals for new pesticides. Given the likelihood of water contamination, it is disturbing that drinking water health advisories issued by EPA show PFAS levels as low as .02 parts per trillion (ppt) have the potential to cause adverse health effects for public health.
Recent research by independent scientists finds, “[T]he biggest contributor to PFAS in pesticide products was active ingredients and their degradates. Nearly a quarter of all US conventional pesticide active ingredients were organofluorines and 14% were PFAS, and for active ingredients approved in the last 10 years, this had increased to 61% organofluorines and 30% PFAS.”
Fortunately, legislators in the California Assembly have passed a bill (AB 1603) that adopts the OECD definition of PFAS and states that no one shall “Use, or market, for agricultural use a pesticide that contains any of the PFAS pesticide ingredients;” or “Manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer for sale in commerce, a pesticide registered for agricultural use that contains any of the PFAS pesticide ingredients.” It now moves to the state Senate. The bill states findings on the hazards of PFAS, their presence in the California environment, and their presence in food grown in California. The agricultural use of PFAS is responsible for this widespread contamination, but PFAS ingredients are also found in the excluded products with “uses to treat pets, livestock, and other animals to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fleas, mites, ticks, heartworms, or other insects, parasites, or organisms.” I urge you to consider removing the restriction to agricultural pesticides.
Because of the state’s importance in agriculture, adoption of SB 1603 by California would have national impact, even if restricted to agricultural pesticides.
The OECD chemical definition of PFAS states: “PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS.”
This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that regulatory bodies like EPA do not include in their definitions.
Thus, while the OECD defines PFAS as industrial chemicals that have at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom—which is a carbon atom with two or three fluorine atoms attached to it EPA—has narrowed the definition to those containing two fully fluorinated carbon atoms.
I urge you to support SB 1603 and move for its passage in the state Senate. Thank you.
Letter to Congress:
Legislation is urgently needed to restrict PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) pesticides. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to ignore the widely accepted definition of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence, which is supported by scientists and by the international forum, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). EPA’s current definition is at odds with the prevalent scientific thinking of scientists worldwide who have challenged the agency’s position and its resulting risk assessments. The OECD definition should be used as a basis for evaluating pesticides, and EPA should not allow PFAS pesticides, as defined by OECD to be registered.
PFAS chemicals are the new DDT. Once hailed as a miracle solution for agriculture and public health, DDT became recognized as the antithesis of that—a highly toxic, persistent chemical whose effects endured through generations. PFAS substances have a wide variety of uses—from nonstick pans to waterproofing fabrics to firefighting foams to pesticides—and similarly lead to the characterization as “miracles.” PFAS also share the hazardous characteristics of DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic.
Like DDT, PFAS residues persist in food. Over six million U.S. residents regularly drink water with levels above the EPA health advisory level, with a wide range of health implications. PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. Like DDT, the effects of PFAS endure through generations—pregnant women can readily transfer compounds to the developing fetus through the placenta.
Federal agencies have failed to respond as the plastics industry continues to use the material in new products. Now we are seeing an expansion of use with the registration of PFAS pesticides.
Parallels with DDT continue. From widespread presence in farm fields and sewage sludge (biosolids) to contaminated water bodies throughout the U.S., PFAS have made their way into the environment and human bodies—even in remote environments like Antarctica. CDC has determined that almost all Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream.
Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. A literature review published this year highlighted a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) showing epigenetic effects leading to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health. In summarizing these results, the researchers state, “As a class of particularly representative endocrine-disrupting chemicals, the accumulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances potentially leads to adverse health effects, including hormonal disruptions, developmental issues, and cancer.” These effects result from complex mechanisms not yet fully assessed in EPA pesticide registration, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed.
Instead of eliminating fluorinated pesticides—persistent and highly toxic compounds defined as PFAS internationally—EPA attempts to define away the problem. The internationally accepted definition of PFAS states: “PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS.” This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that EPA does not include in its definition—narrowed to those containing two fully fluorinated carbon atoms.
It is time to act on lessons learned from DDT. Please take urgent action to eliminate PFAS.
Thank you.
Letter to EPA:
Action is urgently needed to restrict PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) pesticides. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to ignore the widely accepted definition of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence, which is supported by scientists and by the international forum, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). EPA’s current definition is at odds with the prevalent scientific thinking of scientists worldwide who have challenged the agency’s position and its resulting risk assessments. The OECD definition should be used as a basis for evaluating pesticides, and EPA should not allow PFAS pesticides, as defined by OECD to be registered.
PFAS chemicals are the new DDT. Once hailed as a miracle solution for agriculture and public health, DDT became recognized as the antithesis of that—a highly toxic, persistent chemical whose effects endured through generations. PFAS substances have a wide variety of uses—from nonstick pans to waterproofing fabrics to firefighting foams to pesticides—and similarly lead to the characterization as “miracles.” PFAS also share the hazardous characteristics of DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic.
Like DDT, PFAS residues persist in food. Over six million U.S. residents regularly drink water with levels above the EPA health advisory level, with a wide range of health implications. PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. Like DDT, the effects of PFAS endure through generations—pregnant women can readily transfer compounds to the developing fetus through the placenta.
As a regulatory agency, EPA has failed to respond as the plastics industry continues to use the material in new products. Now we are seeing an expansion of use with the registration of PFAS pesticides.
Parallels with DDT continue. From widespread presence in farm fields and sewage sludge (biosolids) to contaminated water bodies throughout the U.S., PFAS have made their way into the environment and human bodies—even in remote environments like Antarctica. CDC has determined that almost all Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream.
Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. A literature review published this year highlighted a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) showing epigenetic effects leading to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health. In summarizing these results, the researchers state, “As a class of particularly representative endocrine-disrupting chemicals, the accumulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances potentially leads to adverse health effects, including hormonal disruptions, developmental issues, and cancer.” These effects result from complex mechanisms not yet fully assessed in EPA pesticide registration, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed.
Instead of eliminating fluorinated pesticides—persistent and highly toxic compounds defined as PFAS internationally—EPA attempts to define away the problem. The internationally accepted definition of PFAS states: “PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS.” This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that EPA does not include in its definition—narrowed to those containing two fully fluorinated carbon atoms.
It is time to act on lessons learned from DDT. Please do not register PFAS pesticides, as recognized internationally.
Thank you.
