New Forever Chemical Pesticides Move Forward Under EPA Oversight

For years, the phrase forever chemicals has sparked concern in communities across the United States. These substances linger in soil, water, crops and even the human body. Now the issue has taken on a new urgency as the Environmental Protection Agency moves forward with approvals of pesticide products that contain fluorinated compounds meeting widely recognized definitions of PFAS. At the same time, the agency has also signaled plans to scale back certain drinking water protections that were designed specifically to address PFAS contamination.

The convergence of these developments has raised alarm among environmental groups, scientists and public health advocates who warn that the United States may be moving backward at a moment when PFAS contamination is already widespread. The story is complex and politically charged, involving disputes over scientific definitions, conflicting interpretations of regulatory authority and intense pressure from agricultural and chemical industries. Yet beneath the political noise, families, farmworkers and communities near polluted waterways worry most about one thing. Will these new decisions increase their daily exposure to chemicals that can take centuries to break down and have been linked to cancer, immune dysfunction and reproductive harms?

This article brings together findings from multiple news reports and analyses to explore what is happening, why it matters and what the public should know. The developments include pesticide approvals during the Trump administration, PFAS-related disputes under Biden, regulatory changes under the current EPA leadership and newly released data showing millions of pounds of PFAS used on U.S. farms every year. Together they paint a complicated picture of shifting standards, scientific disagreement and a regulatory system that appears stretched thin.

A brief background on PFAS and public health concerns

PFAS are a massive class of synthetic chemicals, numbering at least 16,000 compounds. They are prized for their ability to repel water and stains, resist heat and improve product durability. Yet the qualities that make these compounds useful are precisely what make them dangerous. They do not naturally break down. They accumulate in the environment. They can persist in the human body for years.

Research has identified a range of health risks associated with PFAS exposure. These include kidney and testicular cancer, hormonal disruptions, impaired immune responses, liver damage and developmental issues. Some PFAS can affect cholesterol levels, reproductive health and fetal growth. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed links between PFAS exposure and higher risks for several cancers and pregnancy induced hypertension.

PFAS enter the environment through many pathways. In past decades, they were heavily used in firefighting foams and industrial manufacturing. More recently, scientists have raised alarms about PFAS in consumer goods, food packaging, water resistant clothing and cosmetics. Increasingly, agriculture has become a point of concern. PFAS can be used as active or inactive pesticide ingredients. They can contaminate soil, be absorbed by crops and move into food supply chains.

The Environmental Working Group and other advocacy groups have repeatedly warned that PFAS contamination in food and water is more widespread than earlier testing suggested. Several PFAS compounds have been found in drinking water systems serving an estimated 200 million Americans.

In this context, the federal government’s decisions about pesticide approvals and water safety standards carry enormous weight. Communities want transparency, accountability and decision making guided by public health rather than industry pressure.

The EPA’s move to weaken drinking water protections

One of the most controversial recent developments centers on national drinking water protections introduced in 2024. These protections set enforceable limits for six PFAS chemicals and required water systems to test, monitor and publicly report their levels. Environmental and public health groups widely supported the rules, calling them a long overdue step toward addressing a growing crisis.

Yet the EPA has now requested that federal courts allow the agency to halt and reverse parts of these protections. Specifically, the EPA asked the court to strike down its determinations to regulate four PFAS compounds. The agency also signaled its intention to delay enforcement deadlines for PFOA and PFOS standards, pushing compliance back to 2031.

Environmental lawyers argue that the Safe Drinking Water Act prevents the agency from weakening established standards. According to attorneys at Earthjustice and NRDC, the EPA is attempting to bypass the law by asking the court to do what the agency is legally prohibited from doing.

Community groups represented by Earthjustice have intervened to defend the original PFAS standards. These groups include organizations from North Carolina, Massachusetts, New York and Florida. They argue that rolling back these rules prioritizes the chemical industry and certain water utilities over public health. They also emphasize that many communities already face high PFAS levels in their drinking water and cannot afford delays.

The dispute over drinking water protections underscores a broader tension within the EPA. Even as scientists conclude that no safe level of exposure exists for certain PFAS, the agency faces pressure to soften regulations that affect powerful industries.

Controversial approvals of PFAS pesticides

At the same time the EPA is seeking to weaken certain water protections, it is also moving forward with approvals for pesticide products that contain PFAS compounds. The approvals include ingredients such as isocycloseram and cyclobutrifluram, which meet the internationally recognized PFAS definition used by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Some of these approvals began under the Trump administration, which authorized several PFAS pesticides and planned additional approvals. Critics argued that the decisions were made without sufficient consideration of child health risks or environmental impacts. Studies suggested potential harms including reduced sperm counts, liver toxicity and harm to pollinators such as bees.

According to reports, the EPA under Trump approved a PFAS pesticide that was later found to break down into approximately 40 smaller PFAS chemicals, some of which are highly persistent. Environmental health scientists described these approvals as reckless and warned that children would face disproportionate risks.

During the Biden administration, pesticide approvals slowed as officials expressed concerns about PFAS persistence. Some applications were deprioritized. Yet the administration still approved at least one PFAS pesticide during that period.

Now, under current EPA leadership, new approvals are accelerating again. Officials defend the decisions by pointing to their science based review process, while environmental groups insist that the risks are not fully understood. The dispute highlights a fundamental challenge. PFAS chemistries are highly varied and scientists still lack comprehensive toxicity data for many of the newer compounds.

Why the definition of PFAS matters so much

A major point of contention in the debate involves definitions. Under the most widely accepted international definition, PFAS include compounds containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. By this definition, many fluorinated pesticides qualify.

The EPA, however, applies different definitions depending on the program. The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics uses a narrower definition requiring two or more fully fluorinated carbon atoms. The Office of Pesticide Programs does not apply a formal PFAS definition at all. Instead, it states that each chemical is reviewed individually.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has publicly disputed the label forever chemical in reference to certain pesticides, arguing that they do not meet the narrower EPA definitions. Critics say this position ignores global scientific consensus and amounts to a semantic strategy to downplay risk. Several news reports note that both Democratic and Republican administrations have approved fluorinated pesticides that meet international PFAS definitions.

The dispute over definitions has large implications. If the agency does not classify these chemicals as PFAS, they may not trigger the same level of scrutiny, monitoring or disclosure. This leaves consumers, farmers and communities in a difficult position. They hear conflicting messages from the government and from independent scientists.

New data show millions of pounds of PFAS used on U.S. crops

Recent analyses reveal that PFAS pesticides are not a marginal issue. They are widely used across American agriculture. One review of California Department of Pesticide Regulation data found that about 15 million pounds of PFAS pesticides were applied in the state from 2018 to 2023. That is an average of 2.5 million pounds per year.

Crops receiving PFAS pesticides include almonds, pistachios, tomatoes, grapes and alfalfa. Water rich fruits and vegetables are particularly vulnerable because PFAS compounds tend to migrate toward moisture. Researchers have shown that PFAS can accumulate at dangerous levels in produce.

Farmworkers who handle or work near these chemicals face additional risks. Many are Latino and from low income communities. Environmental justice advocates argue that pesticide related PFAS exposure disproportionately harms vulnerable populations.

At the national level, data from the U.S. Geological Survey indicate that tens of millions of pounds of PFAS pesticides may be used annually. The numbers are likely higher today because many new approvals have been issued since the last nationwide estimate.

Environmental groups warn that the United States risks creating new PFAS contamination pathways at a time when scientists are still estimating the scope of the existing contamination crisis.

What scientists say about ultrashort chain PFAS

Many of the newly approved pesticides contain ultrashort chain PFAS. These compounds have fewer fluorinated carbons and behave differently than legacy PFAS like PFOA and PFOS. Industry groups and some government officials have claimed these newer compounds are safer because they do not accumulate in the body.

Scientists caution against this assumption. While they may not persist inside the human body, they can persist in soil, water and plants for extremely long periods. Some break down into TFA, a PFAS increasingly found in drinking water and food. TFA has been linked to liver damage and reproductive harm.

Regulators in several countries, including Denmark, have banned multiple PFAS pesticide ingredients due to environmental risks associated with ultrashort chain compounds. European officials emphasize that these chemicals move easily through water and can create widespread, long term contamination.

Community reactions and the growing trust gap

Communities affected by PFAS contamination express deep frustration with what they see as inconsistent or contradictory messaging from the federal government. On one hand, the EPA acknowledges that PFAS pose serious health effects. On the other hand, the agency continues to approve PFAS containing products while also attempting to relax existing protections.

Environmental justice organizations argue that the public is being asked to trust a regulatory system that has not fully accounted for the long term consequences of PFAS. They highlight past examples in which certain chemicals were approved, widely used and later found to cause significant harm.

Farm communities also express concern. Many farmers want effective pest control tools but also want to know whether these chemicals will affect their soil, groundwater or crop marketability in the long term. Without clear guidance, farmers fear being caught between regulatory uncertainty and consumer pushback.

What this means for consumers and public health

For the average consumer, the issue is difficult to follow. PFAS are complicated chemicals. Scientific research is evolving. Government messaging often changes. Yet the implications for public health are significant.

PFAS in pesticides can enter food supply chains through crop uptake. PFAS in drinking water can expose entire communities. PFAS contamination in soil and groundwater can persist for generations. Each pathway contributes to cumulative exposure.

Consumers increasingly want transparency about the chemicals used to grow their food. Many also want stricter regulation of PFAS across industries. Independent scientists say more research is urgently needed to understand how different PFAS compounds interact in the body and in the environment. Without this data, any claim of safety may be premature.

What can be done and where we go from here

Despite the challenges, there are meaningful steps that could reduce PFAS risks.

1. Stronger national definitions. A consistent federal definition of PFAS would improve transparency and allow regulators to evaluate chemicals more rigorously.
2. Expanded monitoring. Increased testing of water systems, soil and produce could help identify emerging contamination patterns sooner.
3. Environmental justice protections. Policies that protect farmworkers and vulnerable communities could reduce disproportionate exposure.
4. Support for farmers. Clear guidance and investment in safer pest management tools would help farmers transition away from PFAS based pesticides.
5. Strengthened drinking water rules. Restoring and enforcing PFAS limits in drinking water could significantly reduce exposure across the country.
6. International alignment. Learning from European regulatory approaches could help the United States avoid repeating mistakes associated with past chemical approvals.

These steps would not eliminate PFAS, but they would reduce future contamination and protect communities already facing high exposure levels.

The Path Forward

The EPA’s decisions to approve pesticides that contain PFAS compounds and to reconsider certain drinking water protections represent a pivotal moment in U.S. environmental policy. These developments highlight deep disagreements about science, regulation and the balance between industry needs and public health.

Communities want clarity and accountability. Scientists want more comprehensive data. Environmental groups want precaution. Farmers want effective tools that will not harm their land or customers. All of these voices matter.

Forever chemicals have earned their name because they outlast political cycles, economic shifts and scientific debates. The choices made today will shape the environmental and health legacy faced by future generations. In the midst of uncertainty, one thing remains clear. The United States must take PFAS risks seriously and ensure that regulatory decisions protect people, ecosystems and the food we depend on.