California moves closer to joining Maine and Minnesota in banning PFAS chemicals—so-called “forever chemicals”—from all pesticides used in the state. Newly proposed legislation would phase out their use by 2035.
Assembly Bill 1603, introduced by State Assembly Member Nick Schultz, would completely ban PFAS pesticides in California by 2035 while requiring warning labels on foods grown with these chemicals in the interim. These compounds, which take hundreds or even thousands of years to fully break down, have been linked to serious health effects, including cancer, developmental disorders, liver and kidney disease, as well as reproductive issues.
The scope of the problem has become increasingly clear through recent research. Nearly 40% of California produce contains PFAS residue, with contamination rates reaching 80% in strawberries and grapes and 90% in peaches, plums and nectarines.
State Assembly Member Nick Schultz expressed concern about the widespread use of these harmful chemicals.
“I have to admit, I was really shocked to learn that PFAS-containing pesticides are regularly used on California’s crops,” said Schultz.
The health dangers associated with PFAS chemicals have drawn attention from environmental scientists. Varun Subramaniam, a scientist with the Environmental Working Group, emphasized the severity of the issue.
“The science is clear and undeniable — PFAS pesticides pose a huge threat to our environment and health,” said Subramaniam.
He added that “research has documented that exposure to PFAS chemicals even at low doses can be linked to altered immune and thyroid function, liver and kidney disease, limited reproductive development, cancer and adverse developmental outcomes among many other effects.”
Farmers and consumers have largely embraced the proposed legislation. Eduardo Diaz, who has grown and sold his produce at farmers’ markets for 35 years, backs the ban.
“It gets into the soil, and then it gets into the food, and we eat it. So we just try to do the best we can to keep it healthy,” Diaz said.
He expressed confidence in the legislation’s ultimate benefits, stating, “Eventually it will be worth it.”
San Diego consumer Chase MacPherson, who deliberately purchases organic produce at the farmer’s market, supports the measure.
“I purposely try to not buy things with those pesticides, so I think it’d be great if everybody could have that option,” MacPherson said.
Questions about potential costs to consumers and farmers have surfaced. Macpherson acknowledged the short-term economic challenges while remaining optimistic about long-term benefits.
“Because there would be a whole lot more produce lost without those kinds of pesticides, so it would be hard on the farmers as well. And so prices may be raised in the short term for us as well. But in the long term, if it can go down to the prices we’re paying now or less, that’s always the hope, then I think it’s a good idea completely,” he said.
The potential impact of the legislation on produce costs has not yet been determined.
If approved by the Assembly and State Senate, AB 1603 would make California the third state to ban PFAS from pesticides, joining Maine and Minnesota. California already prohibits these chemicals in clothing, cosmetics and cleaning products.
The Environmental Safety Committee will hold the legislation’s first hearing in Sacramento next Tuesday.