The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) recent decision to approve pesticides that contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for use on food crops will put more Americans at risk. Given the links that scientific research has already established between these forever chemicals and cancer, immune suppression, developmental harm, and long-term toxic buildup in the body, this approach represents one of the most dangerous public-health rollbacks of the second Trump administration.
The EPA should not only reconsider this decision but also take a science-backed approach to these pesticides.
The problem of PFAS
Last month, the EPA granted approval for isocycloseram for use on crops including corn, potatoes, and soybeans, as well as for cyclobutrifluram for use on romaine lettuce, soybean seed, and more. Both pesticides contain PFAS, which are toxic to humans.[1][2]
Indeed, a 2021 meta-analysis published in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry found correlations between PFAS and “a variety of health effects, including altered immune and thyroid function, liver disease, lipid and insulin dysregulation, kidney disease, adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes, and cancer.” [3]
The risks are especially high for infants. A classic study in the Journal of Immunotoxicology found a “connection between prenatal PFAS exposure and impaired immune function in early childhood.” [4] A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) this fall showed that “New Hampshire mothers whose drinking water wells were downstream of PFAS releases had more extremely low-weight births, more extremely preterm births, and higher infant mortality than did mothers whose wells were upstream of PFAS releases.” [5]
Children are also at heightened risk. Researchers have demonstrated that PFAS diminish the production of antibodies following vaccinations, weakening their effectiveness. These chemicals also interfere with trained immunity, elevating the risk of allergies and autoimmune diseases later in life. There’s even evidence that PFAS may contribute to the development of autism. [6][7][8]
PFAS also stay in the body for a long time, accumulating with continued exposure. This persistence arguably explains why an estimated 98 percent of Americans have measurable amounts of these chemicals in their bloodstream, meaning that even small amounts are a big problem. [9] Moreover, some PFAS are toxic at minuscule doses.[10]
Furthermore, these chemicals also accumulate in the environment, aggravating exposure and its accompanying risks in a feedback loop. [11] Notably, a 2025 study found that low-income populations with contaminated water supplies or living near Superfund sites and PFAS-producing facilities have higher levels of PFAS in their blood than those living further away.[12]
EPA approval goes against global trends
Given these high stakes, the global trend in recent years has been for governments to ban PFAS, not expand their use.
Many countries in Europe have already taken steps to reduce the amount of PFAS that leaks into consumers’ lives. For instance, Denmark has banned PFAS in food packaging, [13] as well as clothing, shoes, and waterproofing agents used in consumer goods.[14] It has also withdrawn approval for more than 20 pesticides with PFAS.[15]
Meanwhile, the European Union as a whole is currently working on legislation to address this issue. [16] One proposal would be to regulate these chemicals as a class,[17] rather than assessing them individually, to prevent manufacturers from switching to a less-known but likely similarly harmful PFAS when the one they previously relied on becomes subject to regulation.
The EPA’s approval of isocycloseram and cyclobutrifluram goes in the opposite direction. A science-driven regulatory approach would not only reverse this recent decision but also implement a rigorous posture toward PFAS to protect Americans.
What a science-driven regulatory approach should look like
The EPA’s own website on PFAS explains the many health risks associated with PFAS. [18] Yet it also emphasizes that scientific research into these chemicals remains ongoing and is incomplete. While this is undoubtedly true, it does not justify inaction. The EPA should still take common-sense steps to protect the public with the knowledge we do possess.
The first step would be to adopt scientists’ official definition of PFAS for use across U.S. government agencies. A simple solution would be to use the scientist-approved definition offered by the internationally respected Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It defines PFAS 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.” [19]
The EPA’s own current definition requires two fluorinating carbon atoms rather than one, which has troubling implications, as it reduces the number of PFAS chemicals to be regulated by the thousands. For instance, since isocycloseram and cyclobutrifluram only have one fluorinating carbon atom, the EPA claims they are not PFAS. [20]
Second, the EPA should consider the existence of non-PFAS alternatives. Where effective nontoxic options are available, the agency should reject the use of formulas that contain PFAS. At the same time, they should support farmers with subsidies or technical assistance to help them adopt healthier pest management practices.
Third, the EPA should require manufacturers of pesticides to publicly disclose every PFAS they use in their processes or that results from those processes. Today, they do not list many of these chemicals, claiming that they are “inert,” residual, or mere manufacturing impurities. These loopholes need to be closed.
Finally, the EPA should establish enforceable limits on PFAS levels in agricultural fields, drinking water, and food products. Independent reviewers should conduct testing, monitor PFAS levels, and have vehicles for holding entities accountable for violations.
The EPA should restrict PFAS for American public health
PFAS have real downstream costs: a higher cancer burden, inequitable exposure for low-income families, and weakened consumer safety. The EPA’s recent decision is a direct step backward in both cancer prevention and environmental health policy.
Americans should not be used as guinea pigs in a natural experiment that shows the rest of the world why PFAS should not be used on crops. The EPA should adopt a science-driven approach, restricting the use of PFAS in pesticides, packaging, and consumer goods.
Reference
[1] EPA Announces Final Registration of New Pesticide Isocycloseram. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). November 20, 2025, Online. Last accessed on December 15, 2025
[2] EPA Registers New Pesticide Active Ingredient Cyclobutrifluram. November 5, 2025, Online. Last accessed on December 15, 2025
[3] Fenton SE, Ducatman A, Boobis A, DeWitt JC, Lau C, Ng C, Smith JS, Roberts SM. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Toxicity and Human Health Review: Current State of Knowledge and Strategies for Informing Future Research. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2021 Mar;40(3):606-630. doi: 10.1002/etc.4890. Epub 2020 Dec 7. PMID: 33017053; PMCID: PMC7906952.
[4] Pennings JL, Jennen DG, Nygaard UC, Namork E, Haug LS, van Loveren H, Granum B. Cord blood gene expression supports that prenatal exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances causes depressed immune functionality in early childhood. J Immunotoxicol. 2016;13(2):173-80. doi: 10.3109/1547691X.2015.1029147. Epub 2015 Mar 27. PMID: 25812627.
[5] Baluja R, Guo B, Howden W, Langer A, Lemoine D. PFAS-contaminated drinking water harms infants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025 Dec 16;122(50):e2509801122. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2509801122. Epub 2025 Dec 8. PMID: 41359852.
[6] Bline AP, DeWitt JC, Kwiatkowski CF, Pelch KE, Reade A, Varshavsky JR. Public Health Risks of PFAS-Related Immunotoxicity Are Real. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2024 Jun;11(2):118-127. doi: 10.1007/s40572-024-00441-y. Epub 2024 Mar 25. PMID: 38526771; PMCID: PMC11081924.
[7] Qiu J, Huo X, Dai Y, Huang Y, Xu X. Potential effects of PFAS exposure on trained immunity: From mechanisms to health risks. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2025 Sep 1;302:118757. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.118757. Epub 2025 Jul 28. PMID: 40729912.
[8] Barron A, Dickens AM, Tuulari JJ, Hyötylainen T, Kortesluoma S, Merisaari H, Pulli EP, Silver E, Kumpulainen V, Copeland A, Saukko E, Lewis JD, Karlsson L, Orešič M, Karlsson H. Prenatal exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances predicts multimodal brain structural and functional outcomes in children aged 5 years: a birth cohort study. Lancet Planet Health. 2025 Sep;9(9):101309. doi: 10.1016/j.lanplh.2025.101309. Epub 2025 Oct 10. PMID: 41077058.
[9] Massari P. Before ‘Forever.’ Harvard Griffin GSAS. February 22, 2024. Online. Last accessed on December 15, 2025.
[10] Polychronidou V, Nag R. Human health risk assessment of Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Sci Total Environ. 2025 Oct 20;1000:180428. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.180428. Epub 2025 Sep 12. PMID: 40945080.
[11] Gkika IS, Arie Vonk J, Ter Laak TL, van Gestel CAM, Dijkstra J, Groffen T, Bervoets L, Kraak MHS. Strong bioaccumulation of a wide variety of PFAS in a contaminated terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem. Environ Int. 2025 Aug;202:109629. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2025.109629. Epub 2025 Jun 21. PMID: 40578111.
[12] Li S, Goodrich JA, Costello E, Walker DI, Cardenas-Iniguez C, Chen JC, Alderete TL, Valvi D, Rock S, Eckel SP, McConnell R, Gilliland FD, Wilson J, MacDonald B, Conti DV, Smith AL, McCurry DL, Childress AE, Simpson AM, Golden-Mason L, Maretti-Mira AC, Chen Z, Goran MI, Aung M, Chatzi L. Examining disparities in PFAS plasma concentrations: Impact of drinking water contamination, food access, proximity to industrial facilities and superfund sites. Environ Res. 2025 Jan 1;264(Pt 1):120370. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2024.120370. Epub 2024 Nov 14. PMID: 39549910; PMCID: PMC11631652.
[13] Denmark’s PFAS Ban for Food Packaging: What Changes January 2026. SGS Digitallycomply.Insights. November 21, 2025. Online. Last accessed on December 15, 2025.
[14] Denmark Introduces National Ban on PFAS in Clothing and Footwear. SGS. September 30, 2025. Online. Last accessed on December 15, 2025.
[15] Denmark bans 23 PFAS pesticide products because they pollute groundwater. Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe). July 19, 2025. Online. Last accessed on December 15, 2025.
[16] ECHA publishes updated PFAS restriction proposal. European Chemicals Agency. Online. Last accessed on December 15, 2025.
[17] Heatley A. PFAS Regulation in the UK and European Union: November 2025 Overview Fieldfisher. November 7, 2025. Online. Last accessed on December 15, 2025.
[18] Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). November 5, 2025. Online. Last accessed on December 15, 2025.
[19] Reconciling Terminology of the Universe of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Recommendations and Practical Guidance Series on Risk Management
No. 61. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/UNEP Global PFC Group. 2021. Online. Last accessed December 15, 2025.
[20] Partsch L. EPA says it did not approve pesticides with PFAS. Farm and Dairy, December 3, 2025. Online. Last accessed on December 15, 2025.
Featured image: BioLabs NYU fireside chat. © 2025 the Author. Used with permission.
DOI
