EPA Approves Three New 'Forever Chemical' Pesticides for Major Crops

The Environmental Protection Agency approved three new pesticide active ingredients this week, all belonging to a class of persistent chemicals commonly called "forever chemicals"—a move that has drawn immediate criticism from environmental health advocates and raised questions about long-term agricultural and ecological impacts in Texas and nationwide.

The approvals, announced June 30 and July 1, mark the third, fourth, and fifth PFAS-based pesticides greenlit by the Trump administration since January. The newly approved chemicals—trifludimoxazin, diflufenican, and epyrifenacil—are now cleared for application on some of the most widely grown crops in the United States, including wheat, corn, soybeans, oranges, apples, and almonds.

"This is the PFAS presidency brought to you by Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin," said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Waiting to open the floodgates on new pesticide approvals until after the Supreme Court granted immunity to pesticide companies takes a special kind of callousness."

The New Chemicals and Their Uses

All three approved substances are herbicides designed to control broadleaf weeds and grasses in agricultural settings. Their approval expands the toolkit available to farmers battling herbicide-resistant weeds, but introduces persistent fluorinated compounds into agricultural ecosystems.

Trifludimoxazin, approved July 1, targets wheat, oats, oranges, apples, and almonds. The chemical is notable for its persistence in the environment and its ability to be combined with saflufenacil, another PFAS pesticide already in use. Environmental scientists warn that combining multiple PFAS compounds in single products creates complex chemical mixtures that are poorly understood and difficult to remediate.

Diflufenican and epyrifenacil, both approved June 30, are entirely new to the U.S. market. Diflufenican can break down into 2,4-difluoroaniline malonate, a fluorinated compound with structural and toxicity similarities to aniline, a component found in tobacco smoke. Both chemicals are approved for corn and soybeans—the two most widely cultivated crops in American agriculture. Epyrifenacil additionally carries approval for wheat applications.

The EPA maintains that these chemicals do not meet the agency's regulatory definition of PFAS, which requires a specific chain length of fluorinated carbon atoms. However, environmental chemists note that the compounds contain multiple fluorinated groups and demonstrate the persistence characteristics that have made PFAS a global contamination concern.

The Forever Chemical Problem

PFAS—perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances—have earned the nickname "forever chemicals" because their carbon-fluorine bonds resist natural degradation processes. Once released into the environment, these compounds can persist for decades, accumulating in soil, water, wildlife, and human tissue.

The chemicals have been linked to a range of health effects including thyroid disease, decreased fertility, developmental delays in children, increased cholesterol, reduced immune function, and certain cancers. While the specific toxicity profiles of the newly approved pesticides differ from well-studied PFAS like PFOA and PFOS, the structural similarities raise concerns among public health researchers.

"The EPA's hands-off approach to pesticide mixtures is leaving families exposed to cocktails of toxic chemicals that have never been tested together," said Donley. "These aren't just theoretical concerns—we're introducing persistent compounds into the food system without understanding how they interact with each other or with the PFAS already contaminating our water and soil."

Implications for Texas Agriculture

Texas ranks among the nation's top producers of the crops targeted by these new herbicides. The state leads U.S. cotton production, ranks sixth in wheat, and maintains significant acreage in corn and sorghum. While sorghum is not specifically listed on the new labels, crop rotation patterns and regional weed pressures mean Texas farmers will likely encounter these chemicals through standard agricultural supply channels.

The timing of the approvals coincides with growing herbicide resistance challenges across the Southern Plains. Palmer amaranth, waterhemp, and other troublesome weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate and other widely used herbicides, creating demand for new chemical modes of action. The new PFAS herbicides offer novel mechanisms for weed control—but at the cost of introducing persistent fluorinated compounds into Texas agricultural soils.

For pest control professionals and agricultural consultants, the approvals create new compliance and safety considerations. Applicators will need training on the specific handling requirements for these chemicals, and businesses may face questions from clients concerned about PFAS contamination.

Regulatory Context and Controversy

The EPA approvals came just days after the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell that shielded pesticide manufacturers from state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits when their products carry federal labels. The decision effectively limits the liability of chemical companies for health impacts associated with their products, provided they meet federal registration requirements.

Critics argue the timing suggests coordinated regulatory relief for the pesticide industry. The EPA disputes this characterization, maintaining that its approval decisions are based solely on scientific review of safety and efficacy data.

"By the prior administration's own regulatory definition, they are not PFAS," an EPA spokesperson told The Hill, referring to the structural criteria established by the Biden administration for identifying perfluoroalkyl substances.

However, the distinction offers limited comfort to environmental advocates who note that the compounds' environmental persistence and potential for bioaccumulation mirror the concerns that have driven PFAS regulation in other sectors.

What This Means for Pest Control and Agriculture

For the pest control industry, the new approvals represent both opportunity and complexity. The chemicals offer new options for vegetation management in agricultural settings and along rights-of-way. However, the PFAS association may trigger increased scrutiny from environmentally conscious clients and regulatory agencies.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practitioners may find themselves navigating questions about chemical persistence and ecological impacts that were less prominent with older herbicide chemistries. The approvals also raise the stakes for proper application training and stewardship, as off-target movement of persistent compounds creates long-term liability concerns.

The Texas Department of Agriculture, which oversees pesticide regulation at the state level, has not yet issued specific guidance on the new chemicals beyond standard registration requirements. Licensed applicators should monitor TDA communications for any state-specific restrictions or training mandates that may emerge.

Looking Forward

The EPA approvals are final, but the controversy surrounding them is unlikely to fade quickly. Environmental groups have indicated they may challenge the registrations through administrative or judicial channels. Congressional Democrats have already signaled interest in investigating the approval timeline and its relationship to the Supreme Court ruling.

For Texas farmers and pest control professionals, the immediate practical impact is the availability of new tools for weed management. The longer-term implications—potential soil and water contamination, regulatory backlash, and evolving public perceptions of chemical agriculture—remain to be seen.

What is clear is that "forever chemicals" have entered the agricultural pesticide mainstream, and the industry will need to adapt to operating in an environment where persistence, once considered a desirable trait for chemical efficacy, now carries significant regulatory and reputational baggage.