Newsom signs landmark bill to track and disclose PFAS pesticide use in California

SACRAMENTO – Gov. Gavin Newsom today signed groundbreaking legislation that takes a first step in addressing the widespread use of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” pesticides on California produce. 

The new law, AB 1603, authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), requires the state to monitor and disclose PFAS pesticide use. State agencies do not track the concerning use of toxic PFAS on crops – but that will change now that the Environmental Working Group has raised concerns.

EWG found that more than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied to Golden State crops each year, contaminating produce – in addition to soil and water – sold in the state and throughout the U.S. 

EWG’s research also found PFAS pesticides on nine in 10 California-grown samples of non-organic peaches, nectarines and plums tested by the state, as well as in local waterways and sediment.

“I want to thank Gov. Newsom for recognizing that families deserve to know what’s being sprayed on their food,” said Schultz.

“Signing AB 1603 into law is a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation. Tracking and monitoring is the crucial first step. You can’t fix what you can’t see,” he added.

“We’re grateful to Gov. Newsom for highlighting PFAS pesticide use and signing this bill into law,” said Susan Little, EWG California legislative director. 

“Now, for the first time, we’ll have a comprehensive picture of where these chemicals are being sprayed and in what quantities.

“We need to help our farmers transition away from these persistent chemicals so California can be a global leader in food safety,” Little said.

Along with EWG, other sponsors of the new law include Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.

Defining PFAS pesticides

The new law establishes a class-based definition of PFAS pesticides, consistent with other California laws and regulations already addressing these chemicals. That definition matters: It ensures tracking and disclosure requirements can’t be sidestepped with chemical-by-chemical loopholes.

The definition would also lay the groundwork for action that avoids “regrettable substitutions” – PFAS replacements that can also have health concerns.

Though thousands of PFAS are used today, comprehensive toxicity data is available about very few. But what is known is alarming: The health harms linked to the most well-studied PFAS, including cancer, suppression of the immune system and reproductive and developmental harm, show up at doses far lower than regulators once considered safe.

The tracking and disclosure law Newsom signed is narrower than what Schultz first proposed, following almost $900,000 in agricultural and chemical industry lobbying. 

That included roughly $179,000 from the American Chemistry Council and more than $20,000 from PFAS pesticide maker Syngenta, both targeting AB 1603 specifically. The spending also paid for meals and gift baskets for lawmakers, according to state campaign finance disclosures reviewed by Inside Climate News.  

Why tracking and monitoring matter

Despite the narrowing, the law still requires first-time Department of Pesticide Regulation systematic tracking and public disclosure of PFAS pesticides use in the state.

“Because of their chemical structures, all PFAS share the core characteristics of extreme environmental persistence and potential harm to immune and reproductive systems,” said Varun Subramaniam, EWG science analyst. “That raises serious concerns about the long-term health risks of using PFAS pesticides on food crops.

“Thanks to Gov. Newsom, we’re finally telling it like it is, so farmers, regulators and the public alike can be aware of the extent of this hidden PFAS use. This kind of tracking and monitoring has to come first, before we can talk about what comes next,” said Subramaniam. 

Collecting reliable, ongoing tracking data will end the long-running gap in data about PFAS pesticide use in the state. Access to this data will help build a foundation for action that could include use restrictions, farmer transition support, water monitoring and more. 

“The United States depends on California for its fruits and vegetables, but right now that produce is being seasoned with chemicals that never break down,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. 

“We cannot claim to lead the world in public health while allowing millions of pounds of toxic PFAS to be deliberately sprayed on our most iconic crops. Getting a handle on where and how much is being used is the essential first step,” she said.

States leading on regulation

The federal Environmental Protection Agency regulates and approves pesticides for national use, but states aren’t required to follow suit. 

California operates its own approval system: Its Department of Pesticide Regulation must independently evaluate and authorize each chemical before farmers can use it. That gives the state the power to protect its residents – authority Newsom has now put to greater use with this new tracking and disclosure requirement.

That authority matters more than ever because of federal developments. The EPA has continued to approve new PFAS pesticides at an accelerating pace, greenlighting three more in July. Many carry documented health harms, including links to cancer and reproductive toxicity.

With the EPA fast-tracking approvals, it’s necessary for California to take the lead in informing the public and local officials about the pesticides that do contain PFAS, while monitoring the pesticide use.

Banning PFAS pesticides

While California remains one of the world’s largest users of PFAS pesticides, other jurisdictions have moved to restrict or ban them. In 2023, Maine enacted the nation’s first ban on PFAS pesticides, starting in 2030. In the same year, Minnesota banned nonessential PFAS uses, including pesticides, phasing them out by 2032.

Other countries are also acting. The European Union has prohibited 23 of the PFAS pesticides heavily used in California, including bifenthrin, trifluralin and flufenacet.

With AB 1603 now law, California joins these other states and jurisdictions in laying the groundwork for the nation’s salad bowl to once again be a public health leader. 

“California has been a public health bellwether for decades, from car emissions to chemical safety,” said Del Chiaro. “This new law is the least we can do for families and communities struggling to contain widespread PFAS contamination in our soil, air, water and food.

“It’s the foundation for everything,” she added.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. 

Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) is a diverse, statewide coalition of 200+ member groups working to strengthen pesticide policies in California to protect public health and the environment. Member groups include public and children’s health advocates, clean air and water groups, health practitioners, environmental justice groups, labor, education, farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates from across the state.

The Center for Environmental Health believes everything people consume, from the water they drink to the toys their children handle, should put health first. We insist on laws and policies that protect the public from harm, work to make communities more aware of risks, and push to transform corporate behavior. CEH advances environmental health and justice for the greater good, from the courtroom to the boardroom.

Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN) North America, is the North America Regional Center for the international PAN network. We work with those on the frontlines to tackle the pesticide problem and reclaim the future of food and farming from the pesticide and biotech corporations that have, for far too long, dictated how we grow food, placing the health and economic burdens of pesticide use on farmers, farmworkers and rural communities.