15
Dec
Widespread PFAS Pesticide Contamination Harkens Back to DDT Poisoning
(Beyond Pesticides, December 15, 2025) With recent proposals by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to register new pesticides that under international standards are classified as PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances), people and organizations are calling for Congress to reverse the agency’s action. Beyond Pesticides announced an action to Tell EPA and Congress to eliminate PFAS chemicals, including those used in pesticides.
In its action Beyond Pesticides pointed to the long history of allowing pesticides on that market that have long residual lives and bioaccumulate in the environment, causing generations of exposure and adverse effects to health and ecosystems. DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) exemplifies the generational effect of a toxic pesticide whose effects ha endured for decades, even though it was hailed as a miracle solution for agriculture and public health.
PFAS, with a wide variety of uses—from nonstick pans to waterproofing fabrics to firefighting foams to pesticides—might similarly lead to the characterization as a “miracle” chemical. PFAS also share the less beneficial characteristics of DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic.
EPA links PFAS to an increased risk of many health effects, including decreased fertility and hypertension in pregnant people; increased risk of prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; hormonal irregularities; elevated cholesterol and risk of obesity; and reduced immune system response. Beyond Pesticides, in previous comments and Daily News coverage, has also highlighted these health threats, among others.
Like DDT, 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. 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. Like DDT, the effects of PFAS endure through generations—pregnant women can readily transfer compounds to the developing fetus through the placenta.
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 failed to respond as the plastics industry continued adding the material to new products. Now, there is a similar expansion of use with the registration of pesticides in the PFAS group. 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.
The detection of any level of PFAS is cause for concern, and the parallels with DDT continue. 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 the 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, health advocates say, demands urgent regulatory action.
Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. 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.
In a news release on November 26, 2025, EPA circulated what it called “a comprehensive fact-check addressing dangerous misinformation circulating about EPA’s recent pesticide approvals” that 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.
The controversy erupted as a result of EPA’s latest proposal to allow a new fluorinated pesticide, which adds 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 curtailing the use of fluorinated pesticides—persistent and highly toxic compounds defined as PFAS internationally—EPA attempts to define away the problem. The definition of PFAS used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (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.
The OECD chemical definition of PFAS states: “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.”
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.
Thus, while the OECD 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 EPA—has narrowed the definition to those containing two fully fluorinated carbon atoms.
It is time to act on lessons learned from DDT—the original “forever chemical.”
In response to science, widespread contamination, and an expanding market of PFAS chemicals, Beyond Pesticides realeased the following action: Tell EPA and Congress to eliminate PFAS chemicals, including those used in pesticides.
Letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Are PFAS chemicals the new DDT? Once hailed as a miracle solution for agriculture and public health, DDT became recognized as the antithesis of that—a highly toxic, persistent chemical whose effects endured through generations. “PFAS” refers to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances whose wide variety of uses—from nonstick pans to waterproofing fabrics to firefighting foams to pesticides—might similarly lead to the characterization as “miracles.” PFAS also share the hazardous characteristics of DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic.
Like DDT, PFAS residues persist in food. Over six million U.S. residents regularly drink water with levels above the EPA health advisory level, with a wide range of health implications. PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. Like DDT, the effects of PFAS endure through generations—pregnant women can readily transfer compounds to the developing fetus through the placenta.
U.S. regulators are overdue in preventing and responding to PFAS. Despite evidence of the dangers of PFAS stretching as far back as the 1950s, federal agencies failed to respond as the plastics industry continued adding the material to new products. Now we are seeing an expansion of use with the registration of PFAS pesticides.
Parallels with DDT continue. 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—even in remote environments like Antarctica. CDC has determined that almost all Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream.
Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. A literature review published this year highlighted a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) showing epigenetic effects leading 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 not yet fully assessed in EPA pesticide registration, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed.
EPA proposes 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 PFAS 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. Two of these, cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, have been approved.
Instead of eliminating fluorinated pesticides—persistent and highly toxic compounds defined as PFAS internationally—EPA attempts to define away the problem. The internationally accepted definition of PFAS states: “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.” This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that EPA does not include in its definition—narrowed to those containing two fully fluorinated carbon atoms.
It is time to act on lessons learned from DDT. Please do not register PFAS pesticides, as recognized internationally.
Thank you.
Letter to Congress
Are PFAS chemicals the new DDT? Once hailed as a miracle solution for agriculture and public health, DDT became recognized as the antithesis of that—a highly toxic, persistent chemical whose effects endured through generations. “PFAS” refers to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances whose wide variety of uses—from nonstick pans to waterproofing fabrics to firefighting foams to pesticides—might similarly lead to the characterization as “miracles.” PFAS also share the hazardous characteristics of DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic.
Like DDT, PFAS residues persist in food. Over six million U.S. residents regularly drink water with levels above the EPA health advisory level, with a wide range of health implications. PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. Like DDT, the effects of PFAS endure through generations—pregnant women can readily transfer compounds to the developing fetus through the placenta.
U.S. regulators are overdue in preventing and responding to PFAS. Despite evidence of the dangers of PFAS stretching as far back as the 1950s, federal agencies failed to respond as the plastics industry continued adding the material to new products. Now we are seeing an expansion of use with the registration of PFAS pesticides.
Parallels with DDT continue. 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—even in remote environments like Antarctica. CDC has determined that almost all Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream.
Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. A literature review published this year highlighted a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) showing epigenetic effects leading 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 not yet fully assessed in EPA pesticide registration, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed.
EPA proposes 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 PFAS 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. Two of these, cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, have been approved.
Instead of eliminating fluorinated pesticides—persistent and highly toxic compounds defined as PFAS internationally—EPA attempts to define away the problem. The internationally accepted definition of PFAS states: “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.” This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that EPA does not include in its definition—narrowed to those containing two fully fluorinated carbon atoms.
It is time to act on lessons learned from DDT. Please do not register PFAS pesticides, as recognized internationally.
Thank you.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
