PFAS by Any Other Name: The EPA’s Definition Doesn’t Let Nature Off the Hook
Updated
Unwelcome words like “forever chemicals,” “new pesticides on our food,” along with “EPA approval,” have once again appeared in the headlines, with the EPA accused of playing chemist. In today’s toxic world, this phrasing is concerning and necessitates scrutiny. One recent article reported that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had approved ten pesticides containing dangerous PFAS, the notorious per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances that environmental scientists and concerned citizens have long cautioned against because of their persistence, toxicity, and tendency to accumulate in ecosystems and the human body. The article pointed to proven known long‑term risks, such as reproductive and liver toxicity and ecological toxicity to bees and pollinators, arguing that this recent EPA move ignores the real dangers and compounds a sad legacy of chemical contamination in our soil and water.
On the surface, the headlines certainly feel like déjà vu of a subject that appeared to have already been heard. Remember, PFAS are nicknamed “forever chemicals” for good reason because they resist breaking down in the environment. Indeed, they have been detected around the world in air, water, soil, wildlife, and even human blood at alarming rates. Their persistence and links to adverse health effects like immune disruption, hormonal imbalance, elevated cholesterol, and certain cancers are well-documented by environmental toxicology research and federal water safety studies.
In response to the recent concerning headlines, the EPA has pushed back hard against the specific claim that it recently green‑lit new “forever chemical” pesticides. In an official fact check statement, titled “FACT CHECK: EPA Debunks False Claims that Agency Recently Approved “Forever Chemical” Pesticides,” the agency clarified that the compounds it recently approved—technically single fluorinated carbon pesticides like isocycloseram and cyclobutrifluram—do not meet its current regulatory definition of PFAS.
In their press release, the EPA referenced a 2023 rule change, saying that only compounds with two or more fluorinated carbon atoms qualify as PFAS. Their reasoning? According to the agency, chemicals with just one fluorinated carbon don’t behave the same—they don’t last as long in the environment or build up in the body the way traditional PFAS do. Hmm. Under this definition, the recent approvals aren’t “forever chemicals,” and according to the EPA’s toxicity evaluations, no concerning human health risks were identified when these pesticides are used according to labeled instructions.
Let’s pause there, because true meaning lives between those blurred lines. Yes, there is an EPA‑approved, official position stating that these pesticides are not PFAS under the regulatory definition and that they have passed required toxicity testing under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The EPA insists that the pesticides are essential for crop protection and food security, framing modern poisonous compounds as safer than older, truly persistent toxins such as DDT.
But there is a catch because definitions matter—and what do we really know? Many independent scientists and environmental groups argue that the EPA’s definition of PFAS is narrower than the one used by other regulatory bodies and by the scientific community. Under a broader definition, specifically the one based on “one fully fluorinated carbon atom,” which is accepted by institutions like the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development and several state agencies, these same pesticides would qualify as PFAS. According to this view, the EPA’s approach effectively defines away the problem rather than confronting its implications across ecosystems and food chains. The implications here are more than just the manipulation of semantics and deserve to be addressed further.
If you accept the broader scientific definition, then we are indeed still talking about chemicals that don’t readily break down, can traverse soil and water, and accumulate in living organisms, including the human body. In other words, we are again dealing with precisely the characteristics that make PFAS so dangerous in the first place. According to an analysis by EWG, following EPA administrator Lee Zeldin’s claims that the latest round of news chatter about forever chemicals is “fake news,” millions of pounds of dangerous PFAS pesticides are already being applied annually in agricultural regions, from almonds to tomatoes, potentially contaminating soil and food systems at a large scale.
Let’s be clear. Whether or not a chemical has two fluorinated carbons or one, it seems that the underlying concern remains the same. These substances are synthetic, persistent, and difficult for nature to assimilate without leaving its toxic footprint. That is surely why environmental advocates aren’t just nitpicking definitions. They are also raising alarm bells about long‑term exposures, ecological damage, and the precedent this wishy-washy regulatory framing sets for chemical oversight in general.
Partisan spin does not matter in this situation and official statements on the topic lack a robust accounting of the ecological context, and that is concerning. Specifically, we are talking about the microbial life in soil that gets wiped out by persistent synthetics, the super-important pollinators whose survival underpins a third of our crops, and the watersheds that carry these compounds far beyond their points of application. Even when short-term studies suggest these pesticides are “safe” when used as instructed, those tests miss the bigger picture. They don’t account for what happens after years of buildup in soil and water, or how these chemicals interact with everything else already in the mix. They certainly don’t track what happens to pollinators, wildlife, or human health two or three generations down the line. That’s why so many scientists and concerned citizens keep calling for caution—not because they’re alarmist, but because they’ve seen this pattern before.
We should all be interested in healthy ecosystems that function in sync with nature, in uncontaminated soil that feeds us without poisoning us, and in a future where innovation doesn’t mean outsourcing toxicity to the air, the water, and the bodies of the amazing creatures that keep our food webs alive. With that in mind, the EPA’s assurances about compliance and safety testing are part of the story, but they are not the whole story—not when or if definitions are reshaped to fit regulatory convenience, and not when independent science and public health advocates are sounding an alarm.
Critically, let’s not treat PFAS definition changes as a shield against reasonable concern, because it seems like this wordplay is yet another experiment hoping for the best-case scenario outcome. If single-fluorinated carbon pesticides are safe, then obviously time will prove that. Still, in today’s contaminated world, it is crucial to demand clarity, transparency, and a precautionary outlook that clearly acknowledges the known harms of persistent toxic pesticides, with the future health of our children at the forefront of all decisions. Because even if something is labeled as “safe,” nature doesn’t negotiate on these changing definitions. No indeed, nature responds accordingly to what we put into its ecosystems, and to the poisons that disrupt its delicate balance.
Clearly, the concern is based on more than just pesticides. It is also about who decides what is deemed safe when it comes to food and the poisons that impact our health, how did they reach the conclusion that these toxins are safe, and what is the reaction when there is push back against systems that seem more invested in technical loopholes than in the health and well-being of the land, water, and life forms that can’t advocate for themselves.
