Home to the nation’s largest agricultural industry, California produces nearly half of the country’s vegetables and more than three-quarters of its fruits and nuts.
And, on average, 2.5 million pounds of pesticides containing toxic perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – so-called “forever chemicals” – get sprayed on these crops every year, according to some environmental advocates.
To address growing concerns about the adverse impacts these substances have on the environment and human health, Assemblymember Nick Schultz, D-Burbank, has introduced a bill to phase out the use of PFAS pesticides in the state.
Fifty-three PFAS pesticides are approved for use in California, including 23 that are banned by the European Union, according to sponsors of the bill. AB 1603 would prohibit the use of these 23 EU-banned pesticides in California by 2030. The remaining 30 pesticides would also be banned in the state by 2035.
In addition, the proposed legislation would immediately put a stop to state approval of new PFAS pesticides.
“I was really shocked to learn that PFAS-containing pesticides are regularly used on California’s crops. I was even more startled to find out that these PFAS pesticides are present on the fruit and vegetables that we purchase at the grocery store – on the fruits and vegetables that we feed our families,” Schultz said during a call with reporters this week.
PFAS are called “forever chemicals” because the substances often take decades, if not hundreds of years or longer, to break down. That slow process results in a build-up of the toxic substances in the environment and inside our bodies.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PFAS exposure can increase cholesterol levels or the risk of obesity, decrease fertility and impact development, including causing low birth weight, bone variations or behavioral changes.
These substances have also been linked to altered immune and thyroid function, cancer and liver or kidney disease, said Varun Subramaniam, a science analyst with the Environmental Working Group.
EWG, a D.C.-based nonprofit that advocates for healthier environments, is one of a handful of groups co-sponsoring Schultz’s legislation.
An analysis by EWG found that traces of PFAS pesticides were detected in over a third (37%) of non-organic produce samples tested in 2023 by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
And two of the most commonly used pesticides, bifenthrin and trifluralin, have been banned elsewhere, Subramaniam said. Found in about 20% of berries grown in the state, bifenthrin has been banned in the European Union because of concerns over disruptions to the nervous system and preliminary links to cancer, he said.
“PFAS pesticides have largely been used in California with no limitations, and we’re only just beginning to understand the long-lasting effects,” he said.
Besides bans on some of these pesticides in the European Union, Schultz said Maine and Minnesota have already taken steps to ban or largely restrict the use of PFAS pesticides.
The Assembly member acknowledged there’s been pushback from some in the agricultural industry to his bill.
He’s willing to work with those opposed to the legislation to revise it, he said, as long as there’s agreement on the underlying principle that all possible measures should be taken to reduce the amount of PFAS ending up in the food supply and, ultimately, “in our bodies and in our soil.”
“I’m not trying to upend or demoralize or make it harder than it has to be (for) an industry that is the cornerstone of California’s economy,” Schultz said of the agricultural industry.
“But,” he added, “certainly if the European Union can do it, if Maine can take steps, if other states can meet this moment … we can certainly do better in California.”
He also expressed optimism that the legislature would pass the bill.
But whether Gov. Gavin Newsom is on board remains to be seen.
The governor, who is eyeing a potential run for president, signed a bill in 2021 that banned PFAS from disposable food packaging and required cookware manufacturers to disclose the use of PFAS and other harmful chemicals on product labels and online.
He also signed legislation last October to phase out the use of PFAS in firefighting gear.
At the same time, Newsom vetoed another bill last year that would have banned PFAS from cookware, cleaning products and dental floss, among other products.
He wrote in his veto message that while he agreed with protecting human health and the environment, he was concerned the legislation, which covered a broad range of products, would impact “the availability of affordable options in cooking products.”
Subramaniam, of EWG, said there’s no evidence a ban on PFAS pesticides will increase the cost of produce for consumers. But the cost of not taking action, including if government agencies must later deal with contaminated water supplies, is great, he said.
“PFAS use is estimated to create enormous societal costs, including from increased health care costs and ratepayer impacts via water agencies,” Subramaniam said. “All of these costs need to be considered when discussing any costs growers might face to move away from them.”
AB 1603 is scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials on Tuesday.