04
Dec
At Odds with Intl Regulatory Bodies, EPA Defines Away PFAS Problem, Allows Widespread Contamination
(Beyond Pesticides, December 4, 2025) In a news release last week on November 26, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “issued a comprehensive fact-check addressing dangerous misinformation circulating about EPA’s recent pesticide approvals†that, according to health and environmental advocates, continues to deceive the public about the true risks for health and the environment from petrochemical pesticides including, but not limited to, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Also published on November 26, coverage titled The EPA Is Embracing PFAS Pesticides. These Are The Health Risks in Time further highlights EPA’s deficiencies and the threats of PFAS, which Beyond Pesticides has extensively covered. (See here and here.)Â
The controversy erupted as a result of EPA’s latest proposal to allow a new fluorinated pesticide to the list of four other similar compounds now widely available for use in homes and gardens, buildings, and agriculture. The newest pesticide proposed for EPA registration, epyrifenacil (agricultural weed killer), joins cyclobutrifluram (soil fungicide/nematicide), isocycloseram (household and agricultural insecticide), diflufenican (lawn and agricultural weed killer), and trifludimoxazin (agricultural weed killer), making a total of five PFAS pesticide proposals this year that have been associated with national and worldwide contamination of food, land, and water. Two of these, cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, have been approved.
“Instead of constraining the use of fluorinated pesticides—persistent and highly toxic compounds defined as PFAS internationally—EPA is opening the door to further threats to health with generational harm,†said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “The agency is allowing public and worker exposure and environmental contamination of food and water to chemical compounds that cause hormonal disruptions, developmental issues, and cancer, despite the availability of productive and profitable alternative practices and nontoxic products,†he said.Â
While EPA is politicizing a serious public health and environmental issue, with EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin calling news reports on PFAS pesticides “fake news from Democrats and their media allies,” at the root of the issue is the classification of fluorinated chemical compounds (containing the element fluorine) that put the agency at odds with international regulatory bodies. Beyond the classification of the compounds are issues of hazards to health and the environment, given the scientific findings tying the chemical to highly threatening adverse effects. See a press release by Beyond Pesticides here.
In a news release, EPA says, “E]very approved pesticide undergoes thorough safety evaluation and poses no health risks when used as directed. BOTTOM LINE: EPA-Approved Single Fluorinated Compounds Are NOT Forever Chemicals and Pose No Safety Concerns When Used According to Label Instructions.â€Â
When a Chemical is Classified as PFAS Â
In its argument, EPA is ignoring the widely accepted definition of PFAS, supported by scientists, through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). As previously covered by Beyond Pesticides in Daily News, titled Artificially Narrow EPA Definition of PFAS Mischaracterizes Widespread Threat to Health and Environment, the definition of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals†due to their persistence, continues to be debated in the regulatory arena, with many scientists arguing that certain types of chemicals in this vast group are not accurately captured in EPA risk assessments.Â
The definition of PFAS used by OECD encompasses a wide variety of fluorinated compounds and is “scientifically grounded, unambiguous, and well suited to identify these chemicals,†as described by scientists in a commentary published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. As the researchers describe, excluding certain fluorinated chemical subgroups does not properly represent the scope of PFAS, which they estimate to include millions of theoretical structures, but more practically, several thousand that are actually manufactured.Â
The OECD chemical definition of PFAS states:Â
PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS.Â
This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that regulatory bodies like EPA do not include in their definitions.Â
As the Time article points out: “[T]here is no firm definition of exactly what a PFAS is—at least in the United States. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which works with 38 member nations including the U.S. to foster international cooperation and economic growth, defines PFAS as industrial chemicals that have at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom—which is a carbon atom with two or three fluorine atoms attached to it. There are about 15,000 species of chemicals that meet that standard. But the EPA has pushed back, broadening the definition to two fully fluorinated carbon atoms.â€Â
EPA is pointing to the Biden administration for approving the single fluorinated compound fluazaindolizine with a clear signal that single fluorinated compounds are not PFAS. The Trump Administration, however, has already doubled that approval rate, allowing the registration of cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram within the term’s first year and within two weeks of each other. Three other PFAS have been proposed by EPA, which could bring the total approved PFAS active ingredients to five within a short time frame. Beyond Pesticides submitted comments on the proposals of cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, with 20 signatories, prior to their approval, as well as comments on diflufenican, trifludimoxazin, and for the latest comment period for epyrifenacil just this month.  Â
Risks of PFAS ExposureÂ
As referenced in the Time article, “PFAS have been linked by the EPA itself to an increased risk of a host of health effects, including decreased fertility, hypertension in pregnant people, increased risk of certain cancers (especially kidney cancer), developmental delays in children, hormonal irregularities, elevated cholesterol, reduced effectiveness of the immune system, and more.â€Â Beyond Pesticides, in previous comments and Daily News coverage, has also highlighted these health threats, among others.Â
From epigenetic to immunotoxic effects, there is a wide range of health implications with PFAS exposure. Because of their ubiquitous use, studies report that PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. Furthermore, pregnant women can readily transfer compounds to the developing fetus through the placenta. PFAS residues are persistent in food and drinking water, with over six million U.S. residents regularly encountering drinking water with PFAS levels above the EPA health advisory of 70 ng/L. Therefore, PFAS are detectable in almost all of the U.S. population—disproportionately afflicting people of color communities—and have implications for human health.Â
It is evident that EPA and other federal regulators have been behind the curve in preventing and responding to the threats posed by PFAS compounds. Despite evidence on the dangers of PFAS stretching as far back as the 1950s, federal agencies effectively sat on the sidelines as the plastics industry continued adding the material to new products. Now we are seeing a similar expansion of use with the registration of pesticides in the PFAS group.Â
The detection of any level of PFAS is cause for concern. As drinking water health advisories issued by EPA show, PFAS levels as low as .02 parts per trillion (ppt) have the potential to cause adverse health effects for public health. From widespread presence in farm fields and sewage sludge (biosolids) to contaminated water bodies throughout the U.S., PFAS have made their way into the environment and human bodies. PFAS are even present in remote environments like the Arctic, Antarctica, and Eastern European Tibetan Plateau. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) determined that almost all Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream, which highlights PFAS as a chronic danger to people that demands urgent regulatory action.Â
In a literature review published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety earlier this year, the authors highlight a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and endocrine-disrupting pesticides (EDPs) showing epigenetic effects from exposure, as the chemicals imitate the action of endocrine hormones and lead to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health. In summarizing these results, the researchers state, “As a class of particularly representative endocrine-disrupting chemicals, the accumulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances potentially leads to adverse health effects, including hormonal disruptions, developmental issues, and cancer.†These effects result from complex mechanisms that are not yet fully assessed in EPA’s pesticide registration process, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed before products are approved.Â
EPA DeficienciesÂ
In the Time article, Nathan Donley, PhD, points to the effect of defining away the PFAS pesticide problem. Dr. Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, states: “[The EPA definition of PFAS creates] an enormous decrease in the number of chemicals that are subject to regulation as PFAS… We’re talking about defining away over 10,000 chemicals. The OECD definition was a definition agreed upon by scientists. Now, the EPA has come up with a regulatory definition that in my opinion, ignores the science and is more designed to make [the chemical industries’] lives easier.â€Â
EPA states: “In 2023, EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics officially defined PFAS, after conducting a comprehensive public rulemaking process, as chemicals containing two or more fluorinated carbons. This deliberate exclusion of single fluorinated carbons was based on extensive scientific evidence and public input demonstrating that molecules with only one fluorinated carbon lack the persistence and bioaccumulation properties that are commonly associated with forever chemicals. The recent false claims that EPA approved a ‘forever chemical’ represents a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry and toxicology.â€Â  Â
Fluorinated Pesticides in General Threaten HealthÂ
In its news release, EPA’s resource on Pesticides Containing a Single Fluorinated Carbon is also referenced, which contains additional misleading and biased information. Even if EPA will not accept all fluorinated compounds as PFAS, there is scientific evidence connecting fluorinated pesticides to negative impacts on health and the environment.Â
While EPA claims that “Extensive scientific evidence and public input demonstrate molecules with only one fluorinated carbon generally lack the persistence and bioaccumulation properties that are commonly associated with forever chemicals,†peer-reviewed (and not industry-supported) research shows both persistence and health effects with exposure to fluorinated chemicals. As stated in previous comments to EPA, Beyond Pesticides notes that fluorinated pesticides are a broad category of chemicals that encompass PFAS and contain very strong carbon-fluorine bonds that are more resistant to degradation. Also of concern is the creation of additional fluorinated degradates (breakdown products) that have the potential to be more toxic than the parent compound.Â
Research in Pest Management Science highlights that fluorinated molecules are often resistant to degradation, representing an environmental challenge with heightened risks to soil organisms. As the authors state, these chemicals are “suspected of being environmental contaminants and endocrine disruptors, although only a small number are currently monitored and regulated. However, due to limited epidemiological evidence, experimental toxicology studies, and mechanistic evidence, many of the specific functions, underlying mechanisms, and contributing factors remain poorly understood.â€Â
A study this year in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology finds concentration-dependent results with fluorine-containing pesticide exposure in earthworms. The data shows exposure elevates reactive oxygen species (ROS), activating antioxidant enzymes and increasing lipid peroxidation and DNA damage biomarkers. Mitochondrial function also declines, with impairments in energy metabolism. Tissue damage within the epidermis, gut structures, and reproductive organs of the earthworms is also noted, showing biochemical stress as a result of exposure to fluorinated pesticides. All results were heightened at higher concentrations, indicating severe ecological threats. Â
In 2020, fluorinated agrochemicals comprised about nine percent of the pesticide market, and have now reached almost 70 percent of newly-approved pesticides, according to a 2025 review in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Additionally, commentary by Donley et al. in Environmental Health Perspectives showcases how between 2012 and 2018, EPA granted 223 of 229 waiver requests (97%) for immunotoxicity testing of pesticide active ingredients. The article states: “Troublingly, the number of active ingredients that are fluorinated or that meet the definition of PFAS has increased considerably from 2012 to the present—the very time period that the US EPA granted 97% of waiver requests for immunotoxicity study requirements. This suggests that fluorinated or PFAS active ingredients may be more likely to be immunotoxic than other types of active ingredients and that any associated immunotoxicity may not be accounted for owing to the lack of requirement for scientific study.â€Â
Also on the Pesticides Containing a Single Fluorinated Carbon page, EPA states: “As part of its obligation to ensure that all pesticide products and uses are safe, EPA evaluates them using gold-standard science, robust data requirements, and comprehensive assessment methodologies. This process ensures that EPA’s pesticide reviews allow farmers and other users to have the tools they need to control pests to provide for a safe and abundant food supply while maintaining the highest standards to ensure human health and the environment are protected.†This messaging continues to ignore thousands of studies that show currently registered pesticide active ingredients are associated with deleterious and deadly implications for humans, wildlife, and all ecosystems.Â
The Organic SolutionÂ
With EPA’s failure to perform its statutory duty to adequately protect the health of the environment and all organisms within it, as extensively covered by Beyond Pesticides, the call to truly safeguard ecosystems and public health with the elimination of pesticides, including all PFAS, takes on a greater urgency. Instead of creating a complicated workaround that will not address the urgent health, biodiversity, and climate crises, EPA must cancel registrations of pesticides that harm health and the environment and facilitate a widescale conversion to organic practices.Â
The holistic, systems-based organic solution for land management and agriculture offers numerous health and environmental benefits. Learn more about how to take action and have your voice heard on governmental efforts that are harmful to the environment and public and worker health, increase overall pesticide use, and undermine the advancement of organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies here.Â
Join us TODAY at 1 PM Eastern for the second session of Beyond Pesticides’ 42nd National Forum, The Pesticide Threat to Environmental Health: Advancing Holistic Solutions Aligned with Nature. The first session recordings and materials are available here.Â
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides. Â
Sources:Â
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2025). FACT CHECK: EPA Debunks False Claims that Agency Recently Approved ‘Forever Chemical’ Pesticides. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/fact-check-epa-debunks-false-claims-agency-recently-approved-forever-chemical. Â
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2025). Pesticides Containing a Single Fluorinated Carbon. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/pesticides-containing-single-fluorinated-carbon. Â
Kluger, J. (2025) The EPA Is Embracing PFAS Pesticides. These Are The Health Risks, Time. Available at: https://time.com/7336883/epa-pfas-pesticides-health-risks/.
This administration is more focused on denying and reversing previous administration’s actions than doing their job. Their main focus seems to be funneling money into the pockets of the billionaires who put them in place and the family of the president. Their short-sighted goals and denial of climatic and environmental consequences are unreasonable and incongruent with facts.
December 4th, 2025 at 2:06 pm