On July 22, 2024, the Center for Food Safety and several other entities submitted a petition to EPA relating to the potential presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in pesticide products registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The petition cites to studies and reports showing the presence of PFAS in registered pesticide products, EPA’s finding that PFAS can leach into pesticide products from fluorinated pesticide containers, and EPA’s acknowledgement of human health and environmental dangers associated with PFAS exposure. The petition requests that EPA take a broad range of actions to address the potential presence of PFAS in FIFRA-registered products, their active/inert ingredients, and fluorinated containers. The requested relief includes cancellation and/or suspension of existing pesticide ingredients alleged to be PFAS, updating regulatory definitions to more specifically define/address PFAS content, and expanded consideration of PFAS impacts during the pesticide registration process.

Why are the Petitioners Focused on PFAS?

PFAS are a group of manmade chemicals that have been used for decades in industrial/consumer products because of properties like resistance to heat, fire, stains, and water. However, PFAS have been linked to serious health concerns, such as cancer, and have been detected in water, soil, air, food, household and workplace materials, and human blood across the world.

Petitioners allege that EPA has approved “hundreds” of pesticide ingredients that qualify as PFAS, despite acknowledging that PFAS is a public health and environmental concern. Center for Food Safety Demands EPA Act to Protect Public Health and Environment from PFAS Chemicals in Pesticides. Petitioners also allege that EPA previously identified issues with leaching of PFAS chemicals from fluorinated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers into the pesticides packaged in those containers. Petition, p. 77.

What Actions Do Petitioners Request from EPA?

To address concerns about the alleged presence of PFAS in pesticides, petitioners request EPA take the following actions:

  1. Cancel registrations for all pesticide products containing active/inert ingredients that qualify as PFAS pursuant to FIFRA § 136d(b), in accordance with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) definition for PFAS (found at 15 U.S.C. § 8931(2)(B), and state-based definitions of PFAS, and refrain from approving future registrations that meet these definitions.
  1. Suspend registrations for all pesticide products containing active/inert ingredients that qualify as PFAS under 15 U.S.C. § 8931(2)(B), pending completion of cancellation proceedings under FIFRA.
  1. Amend 40 CFR § 158.300 (Product Chemistry Definitions) to define PFAS as “a class of fluorinated organic chemicals that contain at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”
  1. Amend 40 CFR § 165.25 (Nonrefillable Container Standards) to prohibit use of fluorinated HDPE, polyethylene, and polypropylene containers. Petitioners allege that these storage containers contain PFAS as a result of the fluorination process and leach those PFAS into pesticides. Id. at pp. 4-10.

As alternatives to petitioners’ requests in (1) and (2) above, petitioners request that EPA:

  1. Amend 40 CFR § 152.112 to explicitly require EPA to consider the long-term impacts of PFAS chemicals on human health and the environment.
  1. Amend 40 CFR § 158.630(d) to require registrants to submit data on the persistence of their PFAS ingredients in the environment as well as other toxicity data specific to PFAS chemicals.
  1. Create a Guidance Document for PFAS in Pesticides that (i) recommends reporting any PFAS contamination in pesticides to EPA as part of FIFRA reporting obligations, (ii) specifies that EPA finds PFAS contamination “toxicologically significant”, requiring registrants to report contamination to EPA immediately, and (iii) provides guidance to risk assessors for evaluating the potential risk of PFAS in pesticides to the environment and public health. Id.

This petition highlights growing public awareness and concern of PFAS exposure and associated health risks from pesticide use. For further information on PFAS and EPA pesticide regulations, contact a member of Taft’s Environmental group.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Chase Dressman Chase Dressman

Chase has worked for more than a decade on PFAS-related matters, including with groundbreaking environmental attorneys at Taft responsible for precedent-setting PFAS decisions and outcomes, including the seminal work of Rob Bilott and other Taft team members on major PFAS contamination and exposure…

Chase has worked for more than a decade on PFAS-related matters, including with groundbreaking environmental attorneys at Taft responsible for precedent-setting PFAS decisions and outcomes, including the seminal work of Rob Bilott and other Taft team members on major PFAS contamination and exposure cases that were detailed in the motion picture “Dark Waters.”  Chase routinely advises clients with managing PFAS implications for product sourcing and supply decisions (including related contractual and transactional considerations), and with responding to and managing demands for investigation and remediation of PFAS contamination.  

Photo of Jack Hawkins Jack Hawkins

Jack is an associate in Taft’s Cincinnati office and focuses his practice on all aspects of environmental law. His blended background in business, engineering, and environmental law gives him the ability to provide creative solutions when advising and representing clients.

Photo of Michael Meyer Michael Meyer

Michael is an experienced litigator and trial lawyer and represents clients in civil matters in state and federal courts across Ohio, Indiana, and in multiple other jurisdictions nationwide. He has considerable experience representing manufacturers in a variety of industries in cases involving product…

Michael is an experienced litigator and trial lawyer and represents clients in civil matters in state and federal courts across Ohio, Indiana, and in multiple other jurisdictions nationwide. He has considerable experience representing manufacturers in a variety of industries in cases involving product liability and personal injury claims. He has also represented clients in the commercial development and construction industries in matters involving construction defect and delay claims. Michael also counsels clients in a wide range of commercial and industrial settings on issues involving insurance coverage for a variety of claims under general commercial liability policies.