Three pesticide approvals issued by the Trump administration are drawing criticism from advocates who say they could increase the environmental load of substances known as "forever chemicals."
The Environmental Protection Agency is disputing the label. The disagreement is centered more on which PFAS definition the government uses rather than whether the chemicals contain strong carbon-fluorine bonds, The Hill reported.
What happened?
On June 30, the EPA signed off on epyrifenacil, diflufenican, and trifludimoxazin for use on crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, peanuts, citrus, and canola.
Nathan Donley, the Center for Biological Diversity's environmental health science director, told The Hill that the chemicals fall under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's broader international definition of PFAS.
"They're all breaking down into things that are going to stick around forever," Donley said.
The EPA pointed to its own standard. In a statement to The Hill, an agency spokesperson said the products are "single-fluorinated-carbon compounds" and fall outside the narrow PFAS definition the agency formalized in 2023.
TCD Picks » EDF Spotlight
💡EDF's Vital Signs newsletter delivers stories about game-changing solutions close to home and around the world
In the EPA's view, compounds with only one fluorinated carbon "lack the persistence and bioaccumulation properties that all PFAS exhibit."
Why does it matter?
PFAS are called forever chemicals because they persist in the environment and don't break down naturally. Many have been linked to health concerns such as cancer, immune system problems, and fertility issues.
When persistent chemicals enter the environment, surrounding communities may face years of consequences, including polluted water, contaminated soil, and costly cleanup. That risk may be felt most in rural farming areas because the approved products are meant for widely planted crops.
"These terrible pesticide approvals will outlast almost anything that Trump has done these past few years, because they are forever decisions," Donley told The Hill. "Releasing forever chemicals is a forever decision, because there's no going back, and the lasting damage is going to be cemented once that pesticide is applied."
TCD Picks » Quince Spotlight
💡These best-sellers from Quince deliver affordable, sustainable luxury for all
What's being done?
The EPA says that registered pesticides "do not pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment."
The agency also told The Hill that it examined whether the chemicals could break down into other compounds, including trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA.
"Where a compound has a breakdown pathway that warrants extra scrutiny, EPA accounts for it directly — for epyrifenacil, the dietary limit on the label is set roughly 1,800 times lower than the doses where any TFA-related effect might occur," the spokesperson said.
Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips, smart advice, and a chance to earn $5,000 toward home upgrades. To see more stories like this one, change your Google preferences here.
