6 July 2026

We know that certain chemicals, namely per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), persist in the environment (and our bodies) for a long time. It’s the reason for the great non-stick pan scare around the turn of the century. DuPont realized 50 years ago that Teflon caused health problems in its factory workers, but it took three more decades for advocacy groups to bring the dangers to consumer awareness.

Health risks of these “forever chemicals” may include “altered immune and thyroid function, liver disease, lipid and insulin dysregulation, kidney disease, adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes, and cancer.”

By the way, non-stick pans are probably safe, if you follow a few precautions: avoid using metal utensils, avoid heating above 482°F, and replace if coating becomes damaged. The danger, as far as I’m concerned, is in their production.

Two years ago, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set legally enforceable rules on PFAS in drinking water. The Trump administration has removed and delayed these, citing legal flaws and high costs. Personally, I think the other problem with them is they don’t eliminate the root cause of the problem. Why should communities have to “clean up” their own water supply (a difficult and expensive task, when it comes to PFAS) after chemical companies externalize their costs?

Which brings me to today’s topic. Did you know that the EPA has approved for use in our food system five new pesticide chemicals that break down into PFAS? This includes three approvals June 30, less than a week after Bayer won its case in the Supreme Court (a case that effectively eliminated accountability for chemical companies in warning consumers about their products’ risks).

If you want to know more about these - and comments are still open to the public on two of them (despite the fact that they are approved for use now) - click links below:

• Trifludimoxazin
• Diflufenican - comments open until August 31
• Epyrifenacil - comments open until August 31
• Cyclobutrifluram
• Isocycloseram

While international guidelines consider these PFAS, the US EPA seems to have a different standard that refutes that. Environmental advocates warn that the decision ignores evidence of long-term risks to humans and pollinators (including the bees!). The ecological and public health impacts of “forever chemicals” are not fully understood, but there is good reason to be concerned.

These chemicals have been approved for direct use on commonly consumed crops: potatoes, tomatoes, citrus, wheat, oats, apples, peanuts, tree nuts and even my beloved legumes. I’ve always said that, conventional or organic, eating more plant foods is always protective for overall health (BTW, if you’re thinking animal foods would be safer, remember what these animals eat), but if things continue this way, recommendations could get murky.

I’m not a biologist, but this decision would seem unwise. The cumulative nature of PFAS means that no level is safe. PFAS levels are already growing in the air, water and even human blood. I’m no alarmist, but, rather than bailing out the tub later, can we please just turn off the tap?

We use them on the food. They don’t break down for a very long time. Pollinators are poisoned. Birds and other animals consume them. Residues get washed into our water sources. And, of course, we eat the food. Bioaccumulation means the more - and longer - we consume them, the greater their concentration in our bodies.

As I see it, this is a tax on everyone who’s not growing their own food. Chemical companies use their power [and money] to “legally advocate” [lobby] for their own interests and rake in billions; farmers and consumers literally eat the cost [in health impacts].

Makers of these pesticides say we need them to protect the food system. Do the long term risks outweigh short term agricultural benefits? And is the decision really this binary - more food vs less chemicals? Or should we support continued research into new [old] regenerative and organic “technologies” that have already been demonstrated as (or more) effective on many farms.

The makers of Cyclobutrifluran, Chinese-owned Syngenta - the world’s largest ag tech company by revenue, who also won a lawsuit against Bayer in 2001 for patent infringement in neonicotinoid insecticides (remember, the ones that are decimating bee populations?) - tout on their website, “cutting edge science to tackle herbicide resistance.'“

It’s an arms race against nature.

And we know who wins.