California lawmakers have declined to pass a bill that aimed to ban the use of pesticides containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly known as “forever chemicals,” on the state’s farms. Assembly Bill 1603, introduced by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), proposed phasing out the use of PFAS in agricultural pesticides due to concerns over their long-lasting environmental presence and potential health risks.

PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals known for their persistence in the environment and resistance to breakdown. Exposure to certain PFAS compounds has been linked by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to decreased fertility, developmental delays in children, and increased cancer risks, although most PFAS substances have yet to be fully evaluated for health effects.

The legislation, which stalled in committee, faced strong opposition from California’s agricultural sector, a multibillion-dollar industry that provides nearly half of the nation’s vegetables and more than three-quarters of its fruits and nuts. Representatives of agricultural groups argued that the ban would disrupt domestic food production by increasing reliance on out-of-state imports and hinder the development of innovative pesticides designed to meet emerging pest challenges. Taylor Triffo, representing a coalition of these associations, warned that prohibiting new PFAS-based pesticides could limit farmers’ access to “safer, more targeted” crop protection tools requiring lower usage rates.

While the original bill sought a phaseout of PFAS-containing pesticides, its latest version focused on requiring the state to list such pesticides in a publicly accessible database. Advocates on both sides appeared to accept enhanced transparency measures, although the broader ban remained contentious. Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Salinas), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, underscored the need for a balanced approach to pest management given the recent influx of agricultural pests into California, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the state’s unique crop production capabilities.

Environmental groups, including the Environmental Working Group (EWG), supported the bill’s initial goals. A March EWG study identified PFAS residues in nearly 40% of California’s conventionally grown fruits and vegetables, with contamination found in 90% of peaches and nectarines tested. The group’s broader definition of PFAS, however, contrasts with the narrower criteria employed by state regulators. David Andrews, EWG’s chief science officer, criticized state agencies for regulatory gaps, particularly regarding the evaluation of immune system harm and cumulative effects of low-level PFAS exposure.

California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), which oversees pesticide use, acknowledged the presence of PFAS but bases its assessments on how detected levels compare to federal tolerance standards. The department did not comment directly on Schultz’s bill but reaffirmed confidence in its science-based regulatory framework that includes residue studies, groundwater monitoring, and periodic reassessments. Isabella Quinonez of the California Farm Bureau expressed the organization’s trust in DPR’s processes and opposed the bill’s approach of banning chemical classes rather than evaluating individual product risks.

Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed similar PFAS-related legislation last year that targeted popular consumer products containing the chemicals, citing concerns about affordability, though his administration has supported other restrictions, such as banning PFAS in food packaging and firefighting foam.

Despite the recent legislative setback, Schultz has expressed his intention to continue pursuing efforts to phase out PFAS in agriculture, highlighting ongoing scientific uncertainty and potential risks associated with their use. He indicated a desire to collaborate with the Department of Pesticide Regulation to strengthen oversight in the coming years.