When did the EPA approve the PFAS pesticides?
Executive summary
The EPA approved multiple pesticides containing PFAS-like fluorinated ingredients in November 2025: cyclobutrifluram was finalized on November 5, 2025, and isocycloseram approvals were announced later in mid-to-late November 2025 (announcements appear Nov. 20–26 in reporting) [1] [2] [3] [4]. Environmental groups and several news outlets report these actions as the Trump Administration’s second and subsequent PFAS-related pesticide approvals within weeks, and the agency says its risk assessments found “no human‑health risks of concern when used as directed” [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. What the calendar shows: two approvals in November 2025
The timeline in the public reporting centers on November 2025: a pesticide approval announced November 5, 2025 (cyclobutrifluram), followed by additional approvals later that month—most notably isocycloseram reported around Nov. 20–26, 2025—resulting in multiple PFAS‑related pesticide actions in the same month [1] [2] [3] [4].
2. How reporters and advocates describe the chemicals
Multiple outlets and environmental groups characterize these active ingredients as PFAS or PFAS‑qualifying fluorinated compounds, calling them “forever chemicals” because of their persistence; the Center for Biological Diversity and others frame the approvals as introducing PFAS into food and farm systems [2] [1] [3] [4].
3. EPA’s public position and technical framing
The EPA defended its decisions by pointing to product‑specific risk assessments and a new web page explaining its “Pesticides Containing a Fluorinated Carbon” approach. The agency states its evaluations found no human‑health risks of concern when the products are used according to label directions and issued biological evaluations under the Endangered Species Act that did not predict jeopardy to listed species [3] [5] [6].
4. The dispute over definitions and regulatory scope
Reporting highlights a dispute over definitions: advocacy groups use a commonly accepted scientific definition of PFAS to label these pesticides “PFAS pesticides,” while the EPA is relying on chemical‑by‑chemical risk evaluation and has published a narrower regulatory framing [7] [6]. Critics argue the narrower framing and product‑by‑product review can underplay persistence and cumulative exposure risks [7] [4].
5. Critics’ core concerns: persistence, accumulation and food exposure
Scientists and environmental advocates warn that applying fluorinated pesticides to fields, turf and food crops creates a new exposure pathway that could lead to long‑term soil and water contamination and food chain accumulation. They emphasize that PFAS persist and can bioaccumulate, and that standard pesticide review processes may not fully account for long‑term environmental mobility and accumulation [4] [2] [3].
6. Supporters’ and EPA’s rationale: agricultural need and “no risk” findings
Industry and EPA materials frame the approvals as responding to pest pressures and an “innovation backlog,” offering tools against crop pests and structures for indoor pest control. The EPA repeatedly cited its finding of no human‑health risks of concern when products are used as labeled; some agency spokespeople and reports argue that some fluorinated compounds involved are less toxic than other PFAS [8] [5] [6].
7. Scale and sequence: how many approvals and what’s next
Coverage indicates that the November actions were part of a broader push: the agency had proposed or approved multiple PFAS‑type active ingredients during 2025, with reporting naming at least five such pesticides proposed or finalized during the year and additional products under review [9] [10] [11] [12].
8. Limitations of the available reporting
Available sources document dates of announcements and the EPA’s stated conclusions but do not give the underlying raw risk‑assessment data in the cited reporting. They do not provide long‑term monitoring results showing environmental accumulation from these specific approvals; such empirical follow‑up is “not found in current reporting” [3] [4] [2].
9. Competing perspectives you should weigh
Weigh EPA and industry claims of product‑specific safety and agricultural benefit [3] [8] against scientists’ and advocacy groups’ warnings about persistence, ecological harm and unexamined exposure routes [4] [2] [1]. News outlets document both the agency’s “no risk of concern” findings and sustained criticism that the approvals signal regulatory rollback or narrowing of PFAS definitions [5] [7] [13].
10. What to watch next
Watch for EPA posting of full risk‑assessment documents, peer‑review or independent studies of environmental fate for these specific active ingredients, legal challenges or state responses, and monitoring data showing whether residues appear in soil, water or crops after field use—items not yet present in the current reporting [4] [10] [12].