N※N

EPA Approves PFAS-Containing Pesticides, Raising Food Safety Concerns

40

  //food-wine.news-articles.net/content/2025/11/24 .. ing-pesticides-raising-food-safety-concerns.html
  Published in Food and Wine on Monday, November 24th 2025 at 22:57 GMT by Food & Wine

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-24 219 x 224 / 13427 Bytes

2025-11-24 224 x 224 / 14920 Bytes

2025-11-24 187 x 224 / 5384 Bytes

2025-11-24 243 x 208 / 10548 Bytes

EPA’s New Approval of PFAS‑Containing Pesticides: What It Means for Food Safety and the Environment

In a move that has drawn both applause from the agrochemical industry and alarm from environmental health advocates, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved the use of several pesticides that contain per‑fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the chemicals long known as “forever chemicals.” The decision, announced in a federal notice last month, marks the first time the agency has formally cleared a class of pesticides that rely on PFAS for their performance. The approval is expected to affect hundreds of acres of crops nationwide, potentially bringing trace amounts of these persistent compounds into the food supply.

Why PFAS in Pesticides?

PFAS are a family of synthetic fluorinated compounds prized for their chemical stability, water‑ and oil‑repellent properties, and ability to act as surfactants. In pesticide formulations, they help herbicides and insecticides spread more evenly on leaf surfaces, penetrate waxy plant cuticles, and improve the overall efficacy of the active ingredient. The most common PFAS used in the approved products are PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate), PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), and GenX—a replacement for PFOS that has emerged as a major environmental contaminant in recent years.

The EPA’s approval covers 24 pesticide products, including formulations that target weeds, insects, and fungal pathogens. Each product is listed under its active chemical, such as “S-2,4‑D” or “N‑pyrimethamine,” with the PFAS surfactant component identified as a “co‑formulant.” The agency has issued maximum residue limits (MRLs) for the PFAS constituents, typically in the parts‑per‑million (ppm) range, to control their presence on harvested crops.

The Regulatory Process

The decision followed a five‑year review of PFAS in pesticides, initiated in 2018 when the EPA recognized that the existing pesticide registration process had not adequately accounted for the unique behavior of PFAS. In 2020, the agency published a draft guidance on how to assess the risks posed by PFAS when used as co‑formulants, and a public comment period opened in 2021. Manufacturers of the 24 pesticides provided toxicity data, residue studies, and exposure estimates, which the EPA evaluated under its “risk‑based” framework. The agency concluded that, when used according to label instructions and within the established MRLs, the risk to human health is acceptable.

EPA spokesperson Jillian White explained that the new approval “builds on the agency’s long‑standing commitment to protect public health while supporting agricultural productivity.” She noted that the agency has implemented a robust monitoring plan, including a requirement for agricultural producers to submit residue data to the National Pesticide Data Program (NPDP) and that the EPA will review any new studies on PFAS bioaccumulation annually.

Health and Environmental Concerns

Despite the agency’s assurances, PFAS remain a subject of intense scientific scrutiny. Numerous epidemiological studies link chronic exposure to PFOS, PFOA, and related compounds with developmental delays in children, thyroid dysfunction, immune suppression, and increased risk of certain cancers. PFAS also resist degradation, persisting in soil, water, and sediment for decades. A 2022 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine warned that even low‑level exposure could be harmful, especially to vulnerable populations such as infants, pregnant women, and farm workers.

The Food & Wine article cites a 2023 Washington Post investigation that found PFAS residues in a variety of produce, including leafy greens, strawberries, and citrus fruit, largely traced back to agricultural runoff. While the concentrations in the study were below the EPA’s MRLs, the presence of PFAS in fresh foods raises public concerns about cumulative exposure from multiple dietary sources.

Moreover, PFAS in pesticide formulations can leach into groundwater, a pathway already responsible for contaminating drinking water supplies in states such as North Dakota and Vermont. The EPA’s current plan for monitoring PFAS in agricultural settings focuses on surface residues and does not yet fully account for subsurface transport. Environmental groups argue that more stringent guidelines—such as lower MRLs or mandatory replacement of PFAS with biodegradable surfactants—are necessary to mitigate long‑term ecological risks.

Industry Perspective

Producers of the approved pesticides, including companies such as Syngenta, Bayer, and Corteva, defend the use of PFAS as essential for crop protection. They point to extensive testing that demonstrates the compounds’ low acute toxicity and the lack of adverse effects on non‑target species. They also emphasize the economic impact of crop losses if alternative surfactants fail to provide equivalent coverage and efficacy.

One company representative highlighted that GenX, although labeled as a PFAS, shows a faster elimination rate from plants than PFOS and PFOA, reducing potential bioaccumulation. Nonetheless, the industry acknowledges the need for transparency and supports the EPA’s monitoring initiatives to reassure consumers and regulators.

Looking Ahead

The EPA’s approval is not a permanent endorsement. The agency has announced plans to conduct a “PFAS Exposure Assessment” across the food supply chain, incorporating new biomonitoring data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). EPA officials also stated that they will revisit MRLs if new evidence suggests that current limits do not adequately protect human health.

Meanwhile, states with active PFAS monitoring programs—such as California, Texas, and New York—are already revising their own pesticide registration processes to require stricter testing for PFAS residues. In the federal arena, lawmakers are considering a bipartisan bill that would require the EPA to establish a PFAS Action Plan with clear deadlines for reducing or eliminating PFAS from consumer products, including pesticides.

For consumers, the practical takeaway is to remain vigilant. While the EPA’s MRLs are designed to keep residue levels below the threshold of concern, cumulative exposure through diet, drinking water, and household products continues to raise questions. Organic growers, who are already restricted from using synthetic surfactants, may need to adopt alternative crop protection methods that avoid PFAS altogether.

Conclusion

The EPA’s decision to approve PFAS‑containing pesticides reflects a complex balance between safeguarding agricultural productivity and addressing the growing evidence of PFAS toxicity. By setting residue limits and initiating monitoring, the agency hopes to mitigate risk while maintaining essential crop protection tools. However, the scientific consensus on PFAS health effects, combined with public apprehension, suggests that the approval is only a temporary milestone. Continued research, transparent data sharing, and proactive policy adjustments will be crucial to ensure that the “forever chemicals” do not become a lingering threat in our food system.