Landmark California bill that would track and disclose PFAS pesticide use heads to Newsom’s desk

Groundbreaking legislation that would address the widespread use of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” pesticides on California produce today passed the state Legislature.

It now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for his signature.

If enacted, Assembly Bill 1603, by Assemblymember Nick Schultz, would require the state to monitor and disclose PFAS pesticide use. State agencies were not tracking the concerning use of toxic PFAS on crops until the Environmental Working Group raised concerns.

Click here to read AB 1603.

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

EWG research 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.

“As a father, I don’t want my kids eating strawberries contaminated with chemicals that will stay in their bodies for decades,” said Schultz.

“AB 1603 is a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation, not by the accumulation of toxic PFAS in our soil and water,” he added.

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

“The state cannot act on this newly revealed PFAS problem if it ignores the issue and pretends it doesn’t exist,” said Susan Little, EWG California legislative director.

“Right now, the state has no comprehensive picture of where these chemicals are being sprayed or in what quantities,” she added.

The bill would also establish a class-based definition of PFAS pesticides, consistent with other California law 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.

Other AB 1603 sponsors include Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.

Why tracking and monitoring matter
If enacted, AB 1603 will require the Department of Pesticide Regulation to begin systematically tracking and publicly disclosing PFAS pesticide use across the state, marking the first time California has required this level of visibility about where the chemicals are applied.

“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.”

“We need to stop spraying our produce with toxic ‘forever chemicals.’ With this bill, we are telling it like it is, so farmers and the public alike can be aware of the extent of this hidden PFAS use,” 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,” 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 authority to protect its residents – power it has largely chosen not to use when it comes to PFAS pesticides.

That authority matters more than ever because of what is happening at the federal level. The EPA has continued to approve new PFAS pesticides at an accelerating pace, greenlighting three more in July.

With the EPA fast-tracking approvals, California taking the lead in informing the public and local officials about the pesticides that do contain PFAS, while monitoring the pesticides’ use, is necessary.

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.

AB 1603, if enacted, will put California in line with these other states and jurisdictions, 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. “But we’ve been silent on PFAS pesticides, even though we are one of the biggest users.

“AB 1603 can begin to change that. This is the least we can do for families and communities struggling to contain widespread PFAS contamination in our soil, air, water and food,” she added.