EPA Greenlights New Pesticides With PFAS

The Environmental Protection Agency has approved two pesticides that contain PFAS, a group of compounds often referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their stubborn persistence in the environment. The decision has ignited debate between regulatory bodies, chemical manufacturers, and scientific experts concerned about long-term health and environmental impacts.

Cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, the newly approved pesticides, are set for use on staple crops including potatoes, romaine lettuce, and broccoli. Both substances meet the international definition of PFAS—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. These chemicals resist natural breakdown processes, allowing them to linger in soil and water.

Alongside these approvals, the EPA has also suggested loosening its existing rule that mandates companies disclose all PFAS-containing products. This move has drawn scrutiny from environmental groups and health advocates.

Officials Argue for Agricultural Benefits

The EPA defended its position, describing the new pesticides as tools that bring “unique benefits for farmers, users, and the public,” according to spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch. The agency maintains that not all PFAS are created equal, suggesting these specific compounds may offer advantages without the same level of risk associated with earlier PFAS like PFOA and PFOS.

CropLife America, a major pesticide industry trade group, supported the decision. The group praised the EPA’s process, highlighting the agency’s reliance on what it called “gold standard science.”

Scientists Warn of Long-Term Risks

Despite the official stance, many scientists remain cautious. PFAS compounds have been previously linked to serious health conditions, including various cancers, developmental disorders, liver damage, and immune system dysfunction.

Doug Van Hoewyk, a toxicologist with Maine’s Department of Agriculture, emphasized the importance of distinguishing between different classes of PFAS. “It is important to differentiate between the highly toxic PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS for which the EPA has set drinking water standards, versus less toxic PFAS in pesticides that help maintain food security,” he stated.

The two pesticides awaiting approval contain fewer than four fluorinated carbon atoms. This chemical structure places them in the category of “ultrashort-chain” PFAS. These shorter-chain variants do not appear to accumulate in human tissue, making them potentially less hazardous from a biological perspective.

Yet concerns persist. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, acknowledged the limited bioaccumulation risk but flagged another issue: the environmental footprint. “My concern with the ultrashort-chains is that while they may not be biologically persistent, they are environmentally persistent. If the levels get high enough, they will have an impact on us,” she warned.

Regulatory Consistency Questioned

Hirsch countered growing criticism by accusing environmental advocates of misrepresenting the issue. She argued that the approval process remained consistent under different political administrations. “This is another example of partisan organizations pedaling mistruths,” Hirsch said. She pointed out that fluorinated pesticides had also been approved during previous administrations, including one under President Biden.

This continuity has added complexity to the debate, challenging the notion that the controversy stems solely from partisan shifts. The scientific community remains split over how these newer PFAS should be regulated, especially given the significant knowledge gaps surrounding their long-term impact.

Persistent Chemicals in a Fragile Ecosystem

The core issue lies in the environmental behavior of PFAS. These compounds resist natural breakdown, often remaining in the soil and water for years. Though ultrashort-chain variants like those in cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram may exit the human body quickly, their long-term environmental effects are still uncertain.

Scientists worry that if used widely on food crops, these chemicals could leach into groundwater or build up in ecosystems. This persistence raises the risk of chronic exposure to humans and wildlife over time. The EPA’s decision appears to reflect a weighing of agricultural needs against uncertain environmental costs.

Farmers Face Pressure to Maintain Yields

Farmers have expressed ongoing concerns about crop loss and pest resistance, especially in the face of climate volatility. The push for newer pesticide options reflects a broader pressure to ensure food security amid changing growing conditions. However, the use of PFAS-based chemicals introduces a new set of variables into an already complex agricultural system.

Proponents argue that these new tools can help stabilize yields, but the debate over their safety continues to cast a shadow. The tension between agricultural productivity and environmental health remains unresolved, raising questions about regulatory priorities and the long-term sustainability of U.S. food production.

Reverse Osmosis and Water Conditioners: A Shield Against PFAS

As PFAS continue to appear in agricultural and municipal water systems, households face a growing need for protection. Reverse osmosis (RO) filtration offers an effective solution. RO systems force water through a semi-permeable membrane, removing up to 99% of PFAS, including ultrashort-chain types like those found in the newly approved pesticides.

In regions where these chemicals have entered groundwater or surface water, whole-home water conditioners can complement RO systems. These devices treat all incoming water, reducing chemical exposure through bathing, washing, and cooking. For families living near agricultural zones, these systems offer a tangible way to reduce health risks.

Source: The Washington Post