admin
Less than a week after President Donald Trump signed an executive order ostensibly supporting regenerative agriculture practices, which he claimed would "reduce overall use" of chemical pesticides, his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unleashed a flurry of controversial approvals for new chemical pesticides and significantly loosened regulations concerning "forever chemicals" in sewage sludge. This series of actions, coming just days after a Supreme Court decision that granted broad immunity to pesticide companies in glyphosate-related lawsuits, has ignited a fierce debate among environmental advocates, public health experts, and agricultural stakeholders, drawing sharp contrasts between stated policy goals and regulatory realities.
The EPA’s decisions, finalized on June 30, 2026, included the approval of four new pesticides—three of which are classified as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under an international definition—and the expanded use of two existing chemicals. Concurrently, the agency issued new guidance proposing a less restrictive approach to regulating PFAS in sewage sludge used as fertilizer, a practice known to cause widespread environmental contamination. Environmental watchdogs have described these moves as an unprecedented rollback, challenging the administration’s stated commitment to sustainable agriculture and raising profound concerns about public health and ecological integrity.
A Flurry of Chemical Approvals: New Pesticides and Expanded Uses
The EPA’s June 30 announcement represented what Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, termed "the single biggest mass approval of pesticides I’ve ever seen." Donley, a veteran observer of EPA pesticide policy, criticized the timing, stating, "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." This sentiment underscores a perception among critics that the agency’s actions were strategically timed to minimize corporate liability following a significant legal victory for the chemical industry.
Among the newly approved chemicals were three herbicides, trifludimoxazin, diflufenican, and epyrifenacil. Trifludimoxazin is authorized for use on a wide range of crops including wheat, oats, oranges, apples, and almonds. Diflufenican is approved for corn and soybeans, while epyrifenacil received approval after being proposed in November of the previous year. These approvals were, in part, a response to calls from farm groups like the National Corn Growers Association, which argue that new herbicides are essential to combat increasing weed resistance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer’s Roundup.
However, a major point of contention is the classification of these new herbicides. Under the widely recognized definition developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), trifludimoxazin, diflufenican, and epyrifenacil all qualify as PFAS, or "forever chemicals," due to their persistent chemical structure. Experts warn that while these newer PFAS compounds may not possess the immediate toxicity profiles of older, more infamous PFAS like PFOA and PFOS, their environmental persistence means they accumulate over time and break down into other chemicals, whose long-term effects remain largely unknown and under-researched.
The EPA, however, has maintained a more restrictive definition of PFAS, asserting that these chemicals do not meet its criteria. The agency insists that, regardless of their chemical structure, the approved pesticides have been deemed safe for use when applied according to label instructions. This definitional divergence creates a significant regulatory loophole, allowing chemicals that international bodies identify as highly persistent and potentially harmful to be introduced into the environment under a less stringent domestic classification.
Beyond the novel compounds, the EPA also expanded the use of bifenthrin, an insecticide that also qualifies as a PFAS under the OECD definition. Bifenthrin’s expanded application now includes coffee and certain varieties of peas and beans. This is particularly concerning given its established environmental impact. In 2018, approximately 1.4 million pounds of bifenthrin were used in the U.S. A 2014 study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found concentrations of bifenthrin in 40 percent of sampled Midwest streams, noting its known harmful effects on aquatic ecosystems. Its widespread use and persistence make its expanded approval a significant ecological concern.
Completing the round of approvals, the EPA greenlit 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. Chlormequat has been linked to developmental and reproductive toxicity in animal studies, yet the EPA maintains its safety when used in accordance with label guidelines, a standard assertion that often fails to reassure public health advocates.
The Retreat on Sewage Sludge: A Blow to Contamination Prevention
Compounding the concerns over pesticide approvals, the EPA also issued new guidance last week that significantly alters the approach to regulating PFAS in sewage sludge, often referred to as biosolids, which is widely used as agricultural fertilizer. This guidance marks a stark departure from the previous administration’s efforts to address a growing environmental crisis.
In January 2025, the Biden administration’s EPA had issued the first comprehensive assessment of PFAS in sewage sludge used as fertilizer. That report concluded that the practice posed "serious risks" and proposed new regulations to manage PFAS contamination in biosolids. 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), praised this initial step, despite advocating for more aggressive action. Maine has experienced devastating contamination from PFAS in sewage sludge, which has led to the closure of farms, pollution of surface and drinking water, and contamination of local wildlife, including fish, deer, and turkeys. Pluecker recounted, "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."
However, the new guidance issued by the Trump-era EPA dismisses the Biden administration’s assessment, claiming it "exhibited a number of serious flaws that have caused confusion among the public and the regulated community." According to Jessica Kramer, the current assistant administrator in the EPA’s Office of Water, the previous assessment focused exclusively on scenarios with a high potential for human health risk, which she argued did not accurately reflect the majority of land application practices across the U.S. Crucially, the new guidance makes no mention of regulation, instead characterizing the application of sewage sludge as a "cost-effective strategy" and offering only recommendations to applicators, wastewater treatment plants, and the general public for self-protection.
This shift has been widely condemned by environmental and farming advocates. Pluecker views the guidance as effectively discarding any progress toward preventing the type of widespread contamination that has crippled Maine’s agricultural sector. 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 new guidance, therefore, represents a significant setback for efforts to protect farms and communities from these persistent and harmful chemicals.
The Broader Context: Deregulation, Court Rulings, and Political Maneuvering
These recent EPA actions are not isolated incidents but rather unfold against a backdrop of the Trump administration’s broader deregulation agenda and significant legal developments. President Trump has consistently vowed to remove regulations on corporations, launching a "massive 10-to-1 deregulation initiative" at the start of his second term. The EPA, under his direction, had already pledged to accelerate new pesticide approvals, signaling a clear policy direction that prioritizes industry interests over environmental safeguards.
A critical precursor to the EPA’s recent approvals was the Supreme Court’s June 25 decision in a glyphosate case. The Court sided with Bayer, the manufacturer of Roundup, and the Trump administration, effectively granting pesticide companies significant immunity from lawsuits related to cancer risks associated with their products. This ruling severely limits the ability of individuals harmed by pesticides to seek redress, thereby reducing the financial risk for manufacturers. Nathan Donley’s comment about the EPA "opening the floodgates" immediately after this decision highlights the perception that the Court’s ruling emboldened the agency to proceed with approvals that might otherwise have faced greater legal scrutiny.
Adding another layer of complexity is President Trump’s executive order on regenerative agriculture, signed less than a week before the EPA’s controversial approvals. While the order championed practices aimed at reducing chemical pesticide use, critics, including Ken Cook, President of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), dismissed it as a "cheap political play." Cook pointed out that the order lacked "no new money, no regulatory direction, no guardrails, no nothing," rendering it largely symbolic. He argued that while regenerative practices are valuable, the executive order exists "against the backdrop of this massive commitment to anything chemical agriculture wants," exposing a fundamental contradiction in the administration’s environmental policy.
Industry Perspectives and Environmental Alarm Bells
The EPA’s actions have elicited predictable responses from various stakeholders. Farm groups, such as the National Corn Growers Association, celebrated the new pesticide approvals. Their perspective is rooted in the practical challenges faced by farmers, particularly the increasing resistance of weeds to existing herbicides like glyphosate. The introduction of new chemical tools, even those classified as PFAS by international bodies, is seen by these groups as necessary for maintaining crop yields and economic viability in an evolving agricultural landscape.
Conversely, environmental and public health organizations have sounded urgent alarm bells. Donley’s and Cook’s statements reflect a deep concern that the EPA is systematically dismantling environmental protections. The approval of PFAS-containing pesticides, despite their known persistence and potential for long-term harm, is viewed as particularly reckless. These groups emphasize the scientific consensus on the dangers of PFAS, which are linked to various health issues including cancer, developmental problems, and immune system dysfunction. The agency’s insistence on a narrower definition of PFAS, they argue, is a deliberate strategy to circumvent more stringent regulations.
The rollback on sewage sludge guidance further amplifies these concerns. The vivid example of Maine’s widespread contamination serves as a stark warning of the real-world consequences of lax regulation. Advocates like Pluecker are fighting not only for the health of their farms and communities but also for a regulatory framework that genuinely protects against such environmental disasters.
The Politics of Pesticides: MAHA and the Shifting Landscape
The issue of chemical exposure and pesticide regulation is increasingly spilling into the political arena, influencing the discourse around upcoming midterm elections and even creating internal tensions within political movements. The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which often aligns with anti-establishment and health-conscious viewpoints, has reacted with anger to the EPA’s decisions. While many MAHA supporters traditionally back figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is a vocal critic of chemical industry practices, Trump’s pro-deregulation policies present a challenging contradiction for the movement. Ken Cook observed, "If anyone is left to be surprised, I would love to meet them. This is exactly what Trump campaigned on," highlighting the consistency of Trump’s actions with his long-held promises of deregulation, regardless of potential conflicts with segments of his base.
Cook further noted the growing difficulty for MAHA supporters to reconcile Kennedy’s promises of chemical reduction with Trump’s actual policies. He believes that while the issue of pesticides may not be a single deciding factor in national elections, it could sway individual candidates’ positions and, given its demonstrated popularity, potentially push the Democratic party to adopt a stronger stance.
Historically, the Democratic party has not made pesticide regulation a central pillar of its platform since 1993, when President Bill Clinton signed a landmark bill regulating pesticide residues in foods consumed by babies and children. Cook expressed frustration at this perceived inaction: "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.’ They’re not saying that." This suggests a vacuum in political leadership on an issue of growing public concern, which the MAHA movement, despite its internal contradictions, is beginning to fill.
Future Implications and Unanswered Questions
The recent actions by the EPA carry profound implications for the future of agriculture, environmental health, and public policy in the United States. The approval of new "forever chemicals" for agricultural use, coupled with a loosening of regulations on PFAS in sewage sludge, signals a regulatory environment increasingly permissive of chemical industry practices. This approach risks exacerbating existing environmental contamination, particularly in water systems and agricultural soils, and could contribute to a rise in chronic health issues linked to long-term chemical exposure.
The Supreme Court’s decision on glyphosate further shifts the balance of power, diminishing corporate accountability and potentially encouraging a more aggressive rollout of new chemical products without adequate consideration of liability. This could have a chilling effect on future legal challenges against chemical manufacturers, leaving affected communities and individuals with fewer avenues for justice.
The dissonance between the executive order on regenerative agriculture and the EPA’s subsequent actions highlights a critical challenge in environmental governance: the gap between rhetoric and regulatory reality. While the idea of sustainable farming gains traction, the actual policy mechanisms appear to favor conventional, chemical-intensive agriculture.
As legal battles continue, such as MOFGA’s lawsuit against the EPA, and as public awareness of PFAS and pesticide risks grows, the political landscape may indeed shift. The internal debates within movements like MAHA and the potential for the Democratic party to embrace a more robust platform on chemical regulation could yet bring about changes. However, for now, the path charted by the EPA appears to prioritize deregulation and chemical industry interests, leaving a trail of environmental and public health concerns in its wake. The long-term consequences of these decisions will undoubtedly continue to unfold, shaping the health of the nation’s farms, communities, and ecosystems for decades to come.
