EPA approves pesticides that may be considered ‘forever chemicals,’ though it disputes that label

The Trump administration has approved three new pesticides that may be considered “forever chemicals” under an international definition, though the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disputing the characterization.

This week, the EPA approved pesticides that contain molecules with carbon-fluorine bonds, which can be very strong and therefore difficult to break down over time.

“They’re all breaking down into things that are going to stick around forever,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity.

He added that the chemicals are considered “forever chemicals” under a definition put forward by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

“Forever chemicals” is the nickname of a family of chemicals also known as PFAS that can remain in the environment for a very long time instead of breaking down.

In addition to their persistence, many PFAS have been linked to health issues including cancer, immune system problems and fertility issues.

However, definitions for which chemicals fall under this umbrella can vary, with the OECD, an organization that seeks to set international standards, taking a broader approach, while the EPA has a narrower definition.

The EPA said that under its definition, the pesticides it approved are not PFAS.

“It was the Biden EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics that, after a comprehensive public rulemaking process in 2023, officially defined PFAS as chemicals containing two or more fluorinated carbons,” said an agency spokesperson, who did not sign their name in a statement sent to The Hill.

“That exclusion of single-fluorinated-carbon compounds was deliberate, grounded in extensive scientific evidence and public input showing that molecules with only one fluorinated carbon lack the persistence and bioaccumulation properties that all PFAS exhibit,” the spokesperson added.

They said the newly approved chemicals “are each single-fluorinated-carbon compounds. By the prior administration’s own regulatory definition, they are not PFAS.”

On Tuesday, the agency granted approvals to three substances: epyrifenacil, diflufenican and trifludimoxazin. Epyrifenacil will be allowed for use on canola, field corn, soybeans and wheat; diflufenican for use on corn and soybeans; and trifludimoxazin for use on various crops including citrus, corn, peanuts and soybeans.

The EPA said in its approval of trifludimoxazin that there is “suggestive evidence” the substance has the potential to cause cancer, but it said that the limits it was placing on the chemical’s use should be enough to protect against this risk. In rat studies, the chemical also appeared to have thyroid and liver impacts.

In animal studies, epyrifenacil was found to impact the liver and blood.

The agency spokesperson said it found that the pesticides “do not pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment.”

They also said the chemicals “matter for the food supply.”

“They help farmers control economically damaging, herbicide-resistant weeds like Palmer amaranth, and they support regenerative, soil-health practices like no-till — an alternative to intensive tillage that increases runoff and erosion,” the spokesperson said.

The agency also said that in its pesticide reviews, it considers whether the chemicals will persist and bioaccumulate.

“Persistence and bioaccumulation are precisely the properties EPA’s review examines, and they are exactly what single-fluorinated-carbon compounds lack — which is why the Biden EPA drew its PFAS line where it did,” the spokesperson said.

Late last year, the EPA also approved two pesticides that meet the international definition of PFAS, sparking outrage from members of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, which is skeptical of major agricultural, chemical and pharmaceutical corporations. The movement is particularly critical of both pesticides and PFAS.

Meanwhile, Donley, with the Center for Biological Diversity, warned that the pesticides could have consequences.

“These terrible pesticide approvals will outlast almost anything that Trump has done these past few years, because they are forever decisions,” he said. “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.”

He raised particular concern that some of the compounds could break down into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a compound that studies are finding to be pervasive.

However, the EPA also said it accounted for that.

“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.

EPA approves pesticides that may be considered ‘forever chemicals,’ though it disputes that label

Related stories

Tinubu inaugurates Nasarawa underpass, 3.7km dualised township roads

Osun 2026: INEC orders neutrality oath for security forces

God forbid Nigeria sees another Civil War — Obasanjo

FG seeks compensation for five Nigerians freed from Côte d’Ivoire prison