The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently approved the use of three new PFAS pesticides designed to combat insect infestations on crops, reports BritPanorama. This decision follows the approval of two additional “forever chemical” pesticides in November 2025, bringing the total to five under the Trump administration’s tenure.
Concerns regarding these chemicals are substantial; nearly 40% of nonorganic fruits and vegetables produced in California already contain traces of PFAS pesticides. This is particularly alarming as California accounts for approximately half of the vegetables and more than three-quarters of the fruits and nuts consumed in the United States.
According to the EPA, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as PFAS, are associated with various health risks, including cancer, obesity, and immune system damage. These substances have earned the moniker “forever chemicals” due to the resilience of the carbon-fluoride bonds that do not readily break down in the environment.
Despite widespread public concern and scientific warnings about their dangers, the Trump administration has already taken steps to roll back regulations concerning PFAS in drinking water, including the delay or removal of strict guidelines previously established during the Biden administration.
“We’re seeing the Trump administration do everything they can to continue our exposure to PFAS,” said Jared Hayes, a senior policy analyst at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit organization dedicated to public health and environmental protection. Hayes noted that exposure to these harmful substances is reportedly increasing due to the newly approved pesticides and changes to drinking water regulations.
Conflict-of-interest concerns
The EPA’s recent approvals have drawn ire from the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, originally buoyed by promises from the Trump administration to reduce harmful chemicals in food and water. Supporters of MAHA have expressed dissatisfaction over the appointment of candidates with industry ties to influential roles within the EPA and on scientific advisory boards, alleging that these links may prioritize industry profits over public health.
Alexandra Munoz, an independent toxicologist associated with MAHA, criticized EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, arguing that his actions have increased rather than reduced exposure to PFAS. In her statements, she emphasized that Zeldin’s efforts seem to contradict his claims of safeguarding the public from such chemicals.
Internal emails at EPA
Internal communications from the EPA, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal that top officials were involved in altering definitions related to PFAS, potentially redefining hazardous pesticides as safe. This redefinition has caused concern among public health advocates who argue it represents a significant departure from established scientific consensus.
These emails indicate coordination among various EPA officials, some of whom previously held positions within industrial organizations, raising questions about the potential influence of corporate interests on regulatory processes.
Redefining PFAS pesticides as safe
The EPA has since defended its redefinition efforts, asserting that the goal was to clarify common misconceptions about fluorinated carbon compounds. They maintain that newly approved compounds lack the toxicity associated with traditional PFAS and do not accumulate in living organisms.
However, skepticism remains among experts regarding this categorization. Varun Subramaniam, a science analyst at EWG, stated that these chemicals possess enduring health risks due to their fundamental properties as PFAS, which do not change upon degradation.
Two of the newly sanctioned pesticides, diflufenican and epyrifenacil, are noted for eventually degrading into various smaller PFAS compounds, including trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which has been identified as a significant environmental concern. TFA’s presence has been recorded in soil, water, and plants at alarming concentrations.
As the EPA prepares to monitor TFA levels in drinking water, following its recent pesticide approvals, the implications for public health continue to be a topic of heated debate among lawmakers, scientists, and environmental advocates.
The timing of the EPA’s actions coincides with a recent Supreme Court ruling that limits citizen lawsuits against pesticide producers over health concerns, further complicating the regulatory landscape surrounding PFAS pesticides.
