California lawmakers are weighing new restrictions on pesticides that contain PFAS, the long-lasting chemicals often called “forever chemicals,” as environmental health advocates warn that their use in agriculture is growing despite concerns about contamination in food and water.
Assembly Bill 1603 would require pesticide products to disclose whether they contain PFAS, bar new approvals of PFAS pesticides and phase out existing uses over 10 years. The measure faces a deadline vote in the full Assembly by May 29.
PFAS, short for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are synthetic chemicals that have been used since the 1950s to make products resistant to water, grease and heat. Studies have linked some PFAS exposure to cancer, reproductive harm, hormone disruption and other health risks. The chemicals are known for their persistence in the environment, where they can remain for decades or longer.
The debate has particular importance in California, where agriculture supplies much of the nation’s produce, including more than three-quarters of fruits and nuts consumed in the United States and nearly half of its vegetables. Produce grown in the Central Valley is distributed widely across Southern California and the Inland Empire, making the issue relevant to local shoppers as well as farm communities.
Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, argues that regulators have moved too slowly to address PFAS in pesticides even as they have taken steps to limit some PFAS in drinking water. Donley co-authored a peer-reviewed study with scientists from the Environmental Working Group and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility that found 14% of conventional pesticide active ingredients are PFAS. Among pesticide active ingredients approved in the past decade, the study found the share rises to 30%.
Recent findings have heightened concerns among environmental groups. In March, the U.S. Geological Survey reported widespread water contamination involving PFAS pesticides in the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys, major growing regions for California fruits and vegetables.
A separate analysis by the Environmental Working Group, based on state testing of nonorganic produce in 2023, found PFAS chemicals in nearly 40% of samples. The group reported finding 17 different PFAS pesticides on more than half of 78 types of nonorganic fruits and vegetables tested, including nectarines, peaches, plums, strawberries, blueberries, celery and green beans.
Supporters of AB 1603 say those findings show the need for California to move beyond disclosure and begin phasing out agricultural uses of PFAS pesticides. They also point to the amount of PFAS pesticide use in the state. According to figures cited by advocates, 23 million to 35 million pounds of pesticide ingredients used each year in the United States are PFAS. California has registered 53 PFAS pesticides, and roughly 2.5 million pounds are applied annually to cropland in the state.
The issue has also become part of a larger dispute over how PFAS should be defined. The pesticide industry has argued that some newer pesticides should not be classified as PFAS because they contain one fully fluorinated carbon rather than two. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has accepted that approach in some cases. Environmental scientists and advocates counter that the widely used scientific definition includes chemicals with a single fully fluorinated carbon.
Critics of current regulatory policy also point to recent pesticide approvals. Since President Donald Trump took office, the EPA has approved two PFAS pesticides and proposed approving three more, according to the Center for Biological Diversity. In California, the Department of Pesticide Regulation recently approved the PFAS insecticide sulfoxaflor, despite previous court rulings at the state and federal levels involving concerns about risks to pollinators, including honeybees.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation oversees pesticide registration and use in the state, including safety reviews and restrictions. Environmental groups say the agency’s continued approval of PFAS-containing products shows that legislative action is needed.
AB 1603 would create a statewide framework intended to prevent additional PFAS pesticide products from entering the market while giving agriculture a decade to transition away from existing products. If approved by the Assembly, the bill would still need to move through the Senate and be signed by the governor before becoming law.
For consumers, the debate comes as PFAS contamination has drawn increasing attention in drinking water, consumer goods and food packaging. In California, where residents rely on produce grown throughout the state and where farming remains a major economic engine, the question before lawmakers is whether pesticide use should become the next major front in efforts to reduce exposure to forever chemicals.
Original source: CalMatters
