admin
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has sparked widespread condemnation and bewilderment following a series of controversial decisions, including the rapid approval of multiple new pesticides, several of which are classified as "forever chemicals," and the issuance of less restrictive guidance on PFAS in sewage sludge used as fertilizer. These actions directly contradict President Donald Trump’s recent executive order championing regenerative agriculture and arrive on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling that significantly bolstered pesticide manufacturers’ immunity from liability. Critics argue that the agency’s moves signal a profound deregulation shift, prioritizing corporate interests over public health and environmental protection.
The contentious approvals emerged less than a week after President Trump signed an executive order intended to promote regenerative agriculture practices, which he explicitly stated would "reduce overall use" of chemical pesticides. This executive order, hailed by the administration as a commitment to sustainable farming, now appears to be starkly at odds with the EPA’s immediate subsequent actions. On June 30, regulators granted final approval for four new pesticides and expanded the permissible uses of two existing chemicals. Among the newly approved substances, three are identified as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) based on an internationally recognized definition.
Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, a prominent environmental advocacy group, characterized the EPA’s recent approvals as unprecedented. "The single biggest mass approval of pesticides I’ve ever seen," Donley stated, underscoring the scale of the agency’s decisions. He further condemned the timing, asserting, "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." Donley was referring to the Supreme Court’s June 25 decision, which sided with Bayer, the manufacturer of Roundup, and the Trump administration in a high-profile case concerning glyphosate’s alleged links to cancer risks. This ruling has been widely interpreted as a significant victory for chemical companies, potentially shielding them from future liability claims related to their products.
A Contradictory Stance Amidst Deregulation Pledges
The timing of these EPA decisions has amplified concerns among environmental advocates, who view them as a calculated rollback of environmental safeguards. President Trump has consistently advocated for widespread deregulation across industries, a promise he reiterated at the outset of his second term with a "massive 10-to-1 deregulation initiative" aimed at reducing governmental oversight on corporations. The EPA, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, had previously committed to accelerating the pesticide registration process, aligning with the administration’s broader agenda.
Environmental Working Group (EWG) President Ken Cook echoed Donley’s sentiments, expressing little surprise at the turn of events. "If anyone is left to be surprised, I would love to meet them. This is exactly what Trump campaigned on," Cook told Civil Eats. He dismissed the executive order on regenerative agriculture as a "cheap political play," devoid of substantive support. Cook elaborated that the order lacked "no new money, no regulatory direction, no guardrails, no nothing," framing it as a superficial gesture against a backdrop of unwavering support for the chemical agriculture industry. "I think these are good farming practices, but it’s against the backdrop of this massive commitment to anything chemical agriculture wants," he added, highlighting the perceived hypocrisy.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin at the White House in Washington, D.C. in May. (Photo credit: Kent Nishimura/AFP via Getty Images)
While environmental groups reacted with dismay, agricultural industry stakeholders, such as the National Corn Growers Association, publicly celebrated the new pesticide approvals. These groups often argue that new herbicides and insecticides are crucial for managing evolving agricultural challenges, particularly the increasing resistance of weeds to widely used chemicals like glyphosate. They contend that access to a broader range of chemical tools is essential for maintaining crop yields and ensuring food security, framing these approvals as vital for farmers’ economic viability.
Conversely, some proponents of the "Make America Healthy Again (MAHA)" movement, a loosely organized coalition often critical of chemical exposure, voiced their anger online, reflecting a growing fissure within conservative and populist movements regarding environmental health issues.
The Flurry of Pesticide Approvals: Details and Concerns
The EPA’s specific pesticide approvals include three new herbicides: trifludimoxazin, diflufenican, and epyrifenacil. Trifludimoxazin has been authorized for use on a variety of crops, including wheat, oats, oranges, apples, and almonds, while diflufenican is approved for corn and soybeans. Epyrifenacil, the third herbicide, was proposed for approval in November of the previous year. Two of these herbicides, trifludimoxazin and diflufenican, had been initially proposed for approval approximately a year prior.
A significant point of contention is that these three new herbicides qualify as PFAS, or "forever chemicals," according to the widely adopted definition established by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). PFAS are a class of synthetic chemicals known for their extreme persistence in the environment and their potential adverse health effects, including developmental issues, reproductive problems, and cancer. While experts acknowledge that these newer PFAS chemicals may not possess the same acute toxicity as some older, legacy PFAS compounds, they still raise considerable alarm due to their long environmental half-lives and the limited understanding of their breakdown products and long-term impacts. The science regarding the environmental behavior and health effects of these newer PFAS variants is still nascent, leading to calls for a more precautionary approach.
The EPA, however, has consistently challenged the classification of these chemicals as PFAS based on its own, more restrictive internal definition. The agency maintains that, irrespective of their chemical structure or international classification, it has deemed these substances safe for use when applied strictly according to their labels. This divergence in PFAS definitions creates a regulatory loophole, allowing chemicals that are internationally recognized as problematic to be approved by the EPA without being subject to the more stringent scrutiny typically applied to PFAS.
Beyond the new herbicides, the EPA also expanded the approved uses of bifenthrin, an insecticide that also falls under the international PFAS definition. Bifenthrin can now be used on additional crops, including coffee and certain varieties of peas and beans. In 2018, approximately 1.4 million pounds of bifenthrin were applied across the United States. A 2014 study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) revealed the widespread presence of this chemical, finding concentrations in 40 percent of sampled Midwestern streams. Bifenthrin is scientifically recognized for its harmful effects on aquatic ecosystems, posing risks to fish and other aquatic organisms.
Additionally, the EPA approved fluoxapiprolin, a non-PFAS fungicide, and, for the first time, permitted the use of chlormequat, a plant growth regulator, on wheat and oat crops intended for human consumption. Animal studies have linked chlormequat to developmental and reproductive toxicity, though the EPA maintains its safety when used according to label instructions. Critics argue that relying solely on "label instructions" for safety is insufficient, given the potential for off-label use, environmental runoff, and cumulative exposure.
The Sewage Sludge Controversy: A Retreat from PFAS Regulation
The EPA’s actions extended beyond pesticide approvals to include new guidance on the use of sewage sludge, or biosolids, as agricultural fertilizer. This guidance has further intensified fears among advocates confronting widespread PFAS contamination on farms nationwide. Maine, in particular, has experienced devastating consequences from PFAS in sewage sludge, leading to extensive contamination of farm soils, surface water, drinking water, and affecting local wildlife, including fish, deer, and turkeys.
Bill Pluecker, a state legislator and organic farmer in Maine, who also serves as the public policy organizer for the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), articulated the profound impact of this contamination. "We saw how widespread the damage was not only to our agricultural industry and farm families, but also to our communities that were living near where the sludge was spread," Pluecker stated, highlighting the systemic nature of the problem. He added, "It gives the appearance that they’re working hand in hand with these folks who are making millions of dollars from poisoning us and poisoning our farms."
In January 2025, the Biden administration had released the first comprehensive assessment of PFAS in sewage sludge used as fertilizer. This report unequivocally identified "serious risks" associated with the practice and proposed issuing new regulations to manage PFAS levels in biosolids, among other protective measures. Pluecker recalled that assessment as a positive, albeit insufficient, first step. "It was the first step, and we’re really pleased to see it, though of course we would have loved for it to go much further," he said.
However, the guidance issued by the Trump-era EPA last week effectively dismisses the Biden administration’s assessment. The new document states that the agency determined the previous assessment "exhibited a number of serious flaws that have caused confusion among the public and the regulated community." Jessica Kramer, the current assistant administrator in the EPA’s Office of Water, justified this reversal by asserting that the Biden administration’s assessment only evaluated "scenarios that had a high potential for human health risk but that don’t reflect most of the land application in the U.S." Crucially, the new guidance conspicuously omits any mention of regulation, instead focusing on recommendations for wastewater treatment plants, applicators, and the general public to "protect themselves." Kramer explicitly frames the application of sewage sludge as a "cost-effective strategy," downplaying the environmental and health risks identified previously.
Pluecker interpreted the new guidance as a significant setback, effectively discarding any progress toward regulating PFAS in sludge. MOFGA is currently engaged in a lawsuit against the EPA, arguing that the Clean Water Act mandates the agency to regulate PFAS in sewage sludge with the same rigor applied to other hazardous substances like heavy metals.
The Politics of Pesticides: Electoral Crossroads and Shifting Alliances
These regulatory skirmishes are unfolding amidst an increasingly charged political climate, with debates over chemical exposure spilling into the highest levels of government and influencing the discourse around upcoming midterm elections. While the EPA typically refrains from approving multiple pesticides simultaneously, a report by The Washington Post in April indicated that the agency had previously stalled planned approvals, ostensibly to avoid alienating MAHA supporters who advocate for reduced chemical use.
The MAHA movement, spearheaded in part by figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has historically championed causes related to public health and environmental protection, often criticizing the widespread use of chemicals. However, the EPA’s recent pro-industry decisions under the Trump administration are creating a dilemma for MAHA supporters, forcing them to reconcile Kennedy’s stated positions with Trump’s deregulatory policies. Ken Cook of EWG highlighted this tension, observing, "This is what happens when you elect Trump, no matter what role Kennedy has."
While Cook doubts that the issue of pesticide regulation alone will be a decisive factor in national elections, he acknowledges its potential to influence individual candidates’ positions, particularly given the demonstrated public concern over chemical exposure. This raises questions about whether the Democratic Party will eventually adopt a more robust platform on pesticide reform. Cook pointed out that despite individual efforts by progressive figures like Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) to draw attention to these issues, the Democratic Party leadership has not undertaken a significant legislative initiative on pesticides since 1993. That year, President Bill Clinton signed a landmark bill regulating pesticide residues in foods consumed by infants and children.
"I have yet to see Democrats step up with a platform at the leadership level and say, ‘Hey, you know what? This is going to ruffle some feathers in corn and soybean country. This is going to ruffle some feathers in the Central Valley. But we have got to do something about this pesticide exposure issue,’" Cook lamented. "They’re not saying that." This perceived reticence from mainstream Democratic leadership leaves a vacuum that critics argue could be filled by more radical voices or exploited by those who prioritize industrial interests over environmental health. The current EPA actions, therefore, not only represent a significant policy shift but also underscore the complex and often contradictory political dynamics surrounding environmental regulation in the United States.
