Landmark bill in California now requires state to disclose PFAS pesticide use

A new law in California requires the state to track and publicly disclose the use of PFAS pesticides.

AB 1603, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 28, addresses growing concerns over pesticides containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are also known as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS are known to persist in the environment and build up in the bodies of humans and animals, with some PFAS linked to health problems  that include cancers, fertility issues, high cholesterol and liver damage. 

“As a father, I don’t want my kids eating strawberries contaminated with chemicals that will stay in their bodies for decades, and I’m thankful that Governor Newsom agrees that families deserve to know what’s being sprayed on their food,” Assemblymember Nick Schultz, who authored the bill, said in a press release.

Under the new law, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) must track pesticides containing PFAS in its publicly accessible pesticide use reporting database and monitor how these pesticides are used over time. 

The DPR must also publish a full list of registered pesticides containing PFAS on its website and distribute it to county agricultural commissioners on or before Jan. 1, 2028.

The law is sponsored by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), whose March 2026 analysis found that 37% of non-organic California produce samples had PFAS pesticide residues, including  more than 90% of  non-organic peaches, nectarines and plums tested by the state.

An earlier analysis from EWG also found that 2.5 million pounds of active ingredient PFAS pesticides are applied to California crops each year. 

Other sponsors of the new law include Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.

“Less than a year ago, growers and the public were largely unaware that some pesticides used to grow our food may contain these harmful ‘forever chemicals,’” said Mayra Sánchez, Associate Director of Californians for Pesticide Reform.

“While tracking PFAS-containing pesticides is not a solution on its own, it is an important step toward understanding and addressing this growing threat to our health, other living beings, and the environment,” Sánchez added.

Varying definitions of PFAS

The new law establishes a class-based definition of PFAS pesticides, defining them broadly as “a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”

California and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) do not share the same definition of PFAS. EPA’s working definition requires a molecule to have at least two adjacent fully fluorinated carbon atoms instead of one.

For example, in June, EPA approved three new herbicides – trifludimoxazin, diflufenican and epyrifenacil—to be sprayed directly on major food crops. 

However, the EPA did not consider the chemicals to fit within the definition of PFAS, but that stance conflicts with California state law and international bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which defines the three new chemicals as PFAS. 

While many fluorinated pesticides meet the OECD definition of a PFAS, not all meet the EPA’s definition.

Susan Little, EWG California legislative director, said that keeping the definition as broad as scientifically possible was important in order to “ensure that we’re capturing as much of the PFAS as possible when identifying it and reporting about it.” 

Other states are moving to ban PFAS pesticides altogether, with Maine enacting the country’s first ban on PFAS pesticides by 2030, and Minnesota phasing out nonessential PFAS uses, including pesticides, by 2032.

Sponsors of the California bill hope it will lay the groundwork for further action—including awareness of which PFAS pesticides persist in California agriculture.

“We’re hoping that that new information and the larger transparency around their use will lead toward some constructive conversations about how to get rid of them and how to get them out of use altogether,” said Little.

Featured Image: Leo_Visions/Unsplash