EPA Sprays Forever Chemicals On Your Food – FDA Stays Quiet

The vegetables on your dinner table may soon carry an unwelcome guest—PFAS “forever chemicals” deliberately sprayed onto crops through newly approved pesticides that promise to revolutionize agriculture while potentially contaminating your food supply for generations.

Story Snapshot

EPA approved two PFAS-containing pesticides for use on broccoli, potatoes, and romaine lettuce in 2025
These “forever chemicals” persist indefinitely in the environment and have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and immune system damage
The approval coincides with EPA’s decision to relax reporting requirements for PFAS-containing products
Scientists warn about environmental accumulation even if these specific PFAS don’t build up in human bodies
Multiple additional PFAS pesticides await approval despite growing health concerns

The EPA’s Controversial Green Light

The Environmental Protection Agency approved cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram for agricultural use, marking the first time PFAS chemicals have been intentionally introduced into the food supply through crop treatments. Unlike historical PFAS contamination through water supplies and food packaging, these pesticides represent a deliberate pathway for forever chemicals to enter what Americans eat daily.

EPA spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch defended the decision, claiming these fluorinated compounds “offer unique benefits for farmers, users, and the public.” She dismissed scientific criticism as “partisan organizations peddling mistruths,” a response that reveals how politicized this supposedly scientific decision has become.

The Science Behind Forever Chemicals

PFAS earned their ominous nickname because they resist natural breakdown processes that eliminate other chemicals from the environment. These synthetic compounds have been manufactured since the 1940s for non-stick cookware, water-resistant textiles, and industrial applications. Their extraordinary persistence means they accumulate indefinitely in soil, water, and living organisms.

Doug Van Hoewyk, a toxicologist with Maine’s Department of Agriculture, argues for distinguishing between “highly toxic PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS” and “less toxic PFAS in pesticides that help maintain food security.” His position represents the regulatory rationale: not all PFAS pose equal risks, so some agricultural applications may be acceptable.

Environmental Persistence Versus Human Accumulation

Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, acknowledges that these ultrashort-chain PFAS “do not accumulate in the human body” like their longer-chain cousins. However, she warns that “environmental persistence is still a concern” because high environmental concentrations could eventually impact human health regardless of bioaccumulation patterns.

This distinction highlights a critical gap in current risk assessment. While individual exposure may remain low initially, the cumulative environmental burden of persistent chemicals could reach dangerous thresholds over time. The EPA’s approval essentially conducts a real-world experiment with the American food supply as the laboratory.

Protecting Your Family From PFAS Contamination

Consumers face limited options for avoiding PFAS exposure from treated produce, but several strategies can reduce risk. Thoroughly washing fruits and vegetables removes surface contamination, though systemic uptake by plants presents ongoing challenges. Choosing organic produce eliminates synthetic pesticide exposure, including these new PFAS compounds.

Water filtration systems designed for PFAS removal provide protection from drinking water contamination, while avoiding fast food packaging reduces exposure from another major source. Supporting local farmers practicing sustainable agriculture creates market pressure for PFAS-free growing methods and builds community resilience against industrial contamination.