Printer-friendly version
By Alexander J Schorr
Image: Harmful health effects of PFAS, via European Enviornmental Agency
November 30, 2025— The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently approved new pesticide products containing “forever chemicals” (PFAS) for use on major food crops, sparking significant controversy. The approvals, announced this month, have been met with criticism from scientists and environmental advocates due the potential long-term health and environmental risks that they can pose.
Additionally, the Trump administration has withdrawn a proposed rule that would have required testing of cosmetics and talc products for asbestos, effectively deregulating asbestos in cosmetics.
This rule will also phase out asbestos use in products like brake blocks and gaskets over a period of several years, with an immediate ban on imports.
The EPA’s latest Decision
The EPA approved ten pesticide products containing the active ingredient isocycloseram, a type of PFAS, for use in agriculture, turf and indoor pest control, as well as cyclobutrifluram. These intended pesticides are meant for use on a wide range of crops, including but not limited to romaine lettuce, broccoli, potatoes, corn, soybeans, and wheat.
Common sources for PFAS include grease-resistant fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, clothing (rain jackets), carpets, furniture, certain upholstery cleaners, and some cosmetics like dental floss. Contamination is a significant concern near manufacturing sites, airports, military bases, and wastewater treatment plants.
PFASs are ubiquitous and have been detected in the air, water, soil, food, and the blood of nearly all Americans. Common sources and products include increased risk of certain cancers, including kidney, testicular, prostate, and liver cancer, and have numerous effects including:
- Reproductive issues, such as decreased fertility and high blood pressure during pregnancy (preeclampsia).
- Interference with the body’s natural hormones and immune system function, potentially reducing vaccine effectiveness.
- Potential developmental effects in children, such as low birth rate, accelerated puberty, or behavioral changes.
The EPA argues that its assessments found no human health risks when these products were used as directed on the label and that they provide tools for farmers to manage pests and boost yields. The agency also emphasized a chemical-specific evaluation process for all pesticides, regardless of whether they contain a chemical-specific fluorinated carbons.
Scientists and environmental groups are raising alarms because PFAS have high persistence in the environment and are very difficult to break down. These chemicals have been linked to seriousl health problems, including certain cancers, birth defects, and liver damage. Critics warn that the chemicals can build up in soil, water, and food over time and are toxic to pollinators.
The EPA is responsible for registering pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIRFA). Before a pesticide can be sold or used in the US, the manufacturer must provide extensive test data to the EPA. The EPA can only register that its use will not pose “unreasonable adverse effects” on human health or the environment, with the approved product label then becoming legally binding instructions for use. The EPA maintains a public process for evaluating pesticides, which includes opportunities for public comment on proposed registrations of new active ingredients. Further information can be found on the Regulations.gov website.
A History of PFAS
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and general “forever chemicals” were first developed in the 1930s and increased within industrial and consumer products from the 1940s onwards due to their resistance to heat, oil, and water:
- 1938— Roy J. Plunket, a chemist at DuPont, accidentally discovered polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), a key compound, while researching refrigerants.
- 1945— DuPont trademarked PTFE as Teflon and began using it in the Manhattan Project.
- 1947— 3M mass produced a variant of PFAS called perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
- 1950s— PFAS use expanded into a wide range of consumer goods, including non-stick cookware, stain resistant carpets and fabrics like Scotchgard, and other food packaging materials.
- 1960s— 3M and the US Navy collaborate to develop aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a highly effective firefighting foam containing PFOS and PFOA, which saw widespread use at military bases and airports.
- 1970s to 1990s— Internal studies at 3M and DuPont began to reveal that PFAS chemicals are toxic and can accumulate in human blood and the environment, and yet, this formation was largely withheld from the public and regulatory agencies for decades.
- 1998— A farmer in Parksburg, West Virginia, sued DuPont after his cattle died from drinking contaminated water downstream from the company’s plant, leading to major litigation and public awareness.
- 2000s to the present day— Following increased regulatory pressure and scientific evidence of their persistence and toxicity, major manufacturers like 3M and DuPont voluntarily began phasing out the production of PFOA andPFOS in the US. Awareness of the widespread environmental contamination and health risks posed by PFAS has led to growing regulatory action, including the EPA’s establishment of national drink water standard in April 2024 and the designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law.
- Dangers of PFAS were brought to the public’s attention in the 2019 movie Dark Waters, a true story of a corporate lawyer who sued a chemical company after discovering the chemicals were causing birth defects in children and livestock deaths in his hometown.
Deregulating Asbestos
Inhaling asbestos fibers can cause several serious and often fatal diseases that primarily affect the lungs and lining of the chest abdomen. Symptoms usually do not appear until 10 to 40 or more years after initial exposure. Asbestos exposure is linked to an estimated 40,000 deaths annually in the US from diseases like mesothelioma and lung cancer.
The Trump administration initially planned to reconsider the Biden-era ban on the last form of asbestos used in the US, but reversed course in July 2025 and will allow the existing ban to remain in place. The ban, implemented in March 2024 under President Biden, restricts the use, manufacture, and import of chrysotile asbestos.
The Biden-era rule is a 2024 rule from the EPA which was a major step towards fully prohibiting the known carcinogen after decades of advocacy and previous regulatory challenges. It targets the last type of asbestos used in the US, which is found in products like brake pads and industrial gaskets, as well as in facilities for chlorine productions. In June 2025, the EPA under President Trump filed a motion in court to put litigation on hold while it reevaluated the rule, a process that was expected to take around 30 months. The move drew criticism from public health advocates who warned it could lead to years of delays and increased health risks.
The Status Now
After the Trump administration withdrew its plan for a rewrite, the EPA stated that it would not initiate new rulemaking to change the ban, but would instead focus on providing guidance for industry compliance and strengthening worker protections. The 2024 ban remains in effect, and while the core regulation stands, industry groups continue to challenge the rule in court, some manufacturers were granted phase-out periods for asbestos of up to 12 years, particularly on the chlor-alkali industry which accounts for nearly all current US consumption of raw asbestos.
Industry groups like the American Chemistry Council, continue to challenge the ban in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, meaning that the ruling still faces a legal fight. The Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now (ARBAN) act— a comprehensive bipartisan bill, has been reintroduced in Congress this year which could ban all commercial and all six forms of asbestos. Advocates for the bill argue that the current EPA rule, while important, does not go far enough because it only covers chrysotile asbestos and has delayed phase-out periods. Additionally— and in separate but related news— the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is facing criticism after withdrawing a proposed rule that would mandate standardized testing for asbestos in talc-containing cosmetics. This proposed rule was mandated by the 2022 Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA).
The FDA cited concerns that the rule could have unintended consequences for other products considered drugs, but stated that it intends to issue a new and separate proposal with a “more comprehensive approach” at a later date. Public health and advocacy groups, such as the Environmental Working Group (EWG), have heavily criticized this move, arguing that it leaves consumers at risk of exposure to known carcinogens and is a step backward for consumer safety.
The likelihood of developing an asbestos disease depends on several factors: The more asbestos a person is exposed to and the longer the exposure time, the higher the risk. Smoking drastically increases the lung cancer risk for exposed individuals. Diseases have a long latency period, appearing many years after the first exposure. While all types are considered hazardous, some studies suggest that amphibole forms may be more harmful than chrysotile, especially concerning mesothelioma risk, because they remain in the lungs longer.
If you believe that you have been exposed to asbestos, you should inform your doctor about your exposure history to monitor your health. You can find more information from the CDC or the EPA.
Recent comments