Has the EPA approved the new PFAS chemical
Executive summary
The EPA has recently approved multiple pesticide products that environmental groups and some media outlets say contain PFAS "forever chemicals," including approvals for products with isocycloseram and earlier approvals such as cyclobutrifluram; reporting cites approvals of ten isocycloseram products and two PFAS-containing pesticides for crops [1] [2]. The EPA disputes that these single‑fluorinated compounds are PFAS under its 2023 definition and says its reviews found no human‑health risks when products are used as directed [3] [4].
1. What the headlines are saying: “EPA approved new PFAS pesticides”
Multiple news outlets and environmental groups report that the EPA has approved pesticide products containing chemicals that scientists and advocates classify as PFAS — most prominently isocycloseram — and that the approvals cover agricultural crops, turf and indoor uses; Food & Wine says the agency approved ten isocycloseram products and Conduit Street reports two PFAS‑containing pesticides approved for crops with more under review [1] [2]. Advocacy organizations have framed the approvals as an expansion of so‑called “forever chemical” pesticides under the current EPA leadership [5] [6].
2. EPA’s rebuttal: a narrower technical definition and safety claims
The agency has pushed back, pointing to a 2023 rule that defines PFAS to require two or more fluorinated carbons and contends that single‑fluorinated compounds approved in recent pesticide registrations do not meet that PFAS definition; the EPA’s fact check states these single‑fluorinated compounds “are NOT Forever Chemicals” and that its safety reviews found no human‑health risks when labels are followed [3]. The EPA also published materials aimed at explaining its chemical‑specific review process for pesticides that contain fluorinated carbons [7].
3. Scientists and advocates: persistence, transformation and health concerns
Environmental scientists and groups dispute the agency’s conclusion, arguing some approved pesticides are highly persistent or transform into other persistent PFAS — for example, isocycloseram and cyclobutrifluram have been described by advocates as persistent and capable of forming other PFAS breakdown products [5] [6]. Critics say the pesticide registration process is ill‑suited to evaluate chemicals that accumulate in soil and water over decades and that EPA’s assessments may not fully account for long‑term environmental or food‑chain exposure [4] [5].
4. Scope and scale: where the pesticides would be used
Reporting shows these approvals would allow use on major commodity crops and broad settings: isocycloseram approvals would permit application on corn, soybeans, wheat and turf and be used in commercial, industrial and household contexts, while other approved PFAS‑linked pesticides have been cleared for crops like cotton, soy and lettuce and for turf and golf courses [8] [6]. Local and state officials are already weighing how to respond given PFAS concerns at the county and state level [2].
5. Competing framings and implicit agendas to watch
Advocacy groups frame the approvals as industry‑driven and point to a rapid approval cadence under the current EPA, while the agency frames its actions as science‑based and limited by the technical PFAS definition it adopted [5] [3]. Some outlets emphasize environmental and public‑health risks; others repeat EPA assurances about risk management and label use. Readers should note the source perspectives: activist press releases stress danger and persistence [5] [6], whereas EPA communications stress regulatory definitions and safety findings [3].
6. What reporting does not settle: unresolved technical and exposure questions
Available sources report disagreements about whether specific approved molecules meet broader scientific or public conceptions of PFAS and whether registration analyses capture long‑term accumulation and transformation into other PFAS; however, current reporting does not provide independent, peer‑reviewed data quantifying environmental accumulation or human exposure from these specific approvals [4] [5] [3]. The sources do not settle whether long‑term dietary exposures from these specific products will materially alter population PFAS burdens — not found in current reporting.
7. Bottom line for the public and policymakers
Fact: the EPA has registered new pesticide products containing fluorinated compounds that many scientists and advocacy groups classify as PFAS-like and have cleared uses on major crops and turf [1] [8]. Counterfact: the EPA says these single‑fluorinated compounds are outside its PFAS definition and that its reviews found no health risks if labels are followed [3]. The debate now centers on definitions, chemical persistence and whether pesticide registration processes adequately assess cumulative environmental and food‑chain risks [4] [5].