Bill to bar new PFAS pesticides advances after committee hears health warnings and industry concerns

Assemblymember Schultz presented AB 1603 to prohibit the registration of new PFAS-containing pesticides in California and to require that the Department of Pesticide Regulation list PFAS pesticides in the states Pesticide Use Reporting database, asking the committee for an aye vote.

Schultz told the committee that PFAS are long-lasting, widely used and tied to serious health outcomes. "There are no good PFAS, if you will, when it comes to impacts on human health and our environment," he said, and said the state currently allows 53 PFAS pesticides and that "more than 2,500,000 pounds of this PFAS is deposited on our agricultural and urban lands every year." He accepted committee amendments listed in the analysis.

Scientists and public-health witnesses emphasized the risks of PFAS and the limits of current monitoring. Varun Zubramanian, a science analyst affiliated with the Environmental Working Group, testified that PFAS pesticides and their transformation products are often detected in produce, surface water and soil and that immunotoxicity and small-molecule breakdown products such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) are not being adequately accounted for in regulatory reviews. "These PFAS pesticides fall into a regulatory blind spot," he said. Andrea Ventura, legislative and policy director at Clean Water Action, told the committee that limited drinking-water testing misses many pesticide-related PFAS and that TFA has been found where it has been measured.

Agricultural and industry groups urged caution about a categorical ban on future registrations. Taylor Trifo, representing a coalition of California agricultural associations, said the premarket review system and evolving pest pressures mean growers may need access to new tools: "By prohibiting new products, this bill could deny California farmers access to the next generation of crop protection tools that are safer, more targeted, [and] require lower use rates." Nicole Quinones, speaking for household and commercial product manufacturers and the CalChamber, said the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has expertise to weigh benefits and risks and warned that a ban could hinder innovations that reduce PFAS use.

Committee members questioned technical links between pesticide applications and drinking-water contamination and pressed both sides on attribution studies and monitoring costs; witnesses acknowledged limited attribution work but cited modeling and federal data estimating that California PFAS pesticides can produce substantial TFA formation. The committee also discussed whether DPR and state water boards have been aligned on PFAS definitions and whether agency review processes sufficiently consider immunotoxicity and cumulative effects.

After discussion, the committee moved the bill forward to the Agriculture Committee with amendments. The committee recorded a 4-2 vote on the motion to pass the bill to the next committee (motion moved by Senator Gonzales). The committee report and the author accepted several amendments to add transparency provisions (Pesticide Use Reporting) and to refine definitions in the analysis.

What happens next: AB 1603 was ordered to the Agriculture Committee with amendments; any further changes and formal amendments will be reflected in subsequent analyses and hearings.