Existing law generally regulates the use of pesticides, and requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide, except as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Pesticide Regulation before the pesticide is offered for sale. Existing law requires a pesticide use report to be submitted to a county agricultural commissioner or the Director of Pesticide Regulation, as provided.

This bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, or on or before the posting of the pesticide use reporting database containing 2026 data, whichever occurs first, and annually thereafter, to indicate if a pesticide contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pesticide ingredients, as defined, in the pesticide use reporting database on its internet website, include PFAS as a category of interest for purposes of that database, and include pesticide use trends of PFAS pesticide ingredients from the pesticide database in the pesticide use annual report and other relevant pesticide use reporting documents. The bill would also require the department to, on or before January 1, 2028, publish a list of all registered pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients and submit this list to the commissioner of each county, and to, within 60 calendar days of the registration of a new pesticide containing PFAS pesticide ingredients, update the list on its internet website and submit the updated list to the commissioner of each county.

Existing law generally regulates the use of pesticides, and requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide, except as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Pesticide Regulation before the pesticide is offered for sale. Existing law requires a pesticide use report to be submitted to a county agricultural commissioner or the Director of Pesticide Regulation, as provided.

This bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, or on or before the posting of the pesticide use reporting database containing 2026 data, whichever occurs first, and annually thereafter, to indicate if a pesticide contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pesticide ingredients, as defined, in the pesticide use reporting database on its internet website, include PFAS as a category of interest for purposes of that database, and include pesticide use trends of PFAS pesticide ingredients from the pesticide database in the pesticide use annual report and other relevant pesticide use reporting documents. The bill would also require the department to, on or before January 1, 2028, publish a list of all registered pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients and submit this list to the commissioner of each county, and to, within 60 calendar days of the registration of a new pesticide containing PFAS pesticide ingredients, update the list on its internet website and submit the updated list to the commissioner of each county.

Existing law generally regulates the use of pesticides, and requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide, except as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Pesticide Regulation before the pesticide is offered for sale. Existing law requires a pesticide use report to be submitted to a county agricultural commissioner or the Director of Pesticide Regulation, as provided.

This bill would require the department department, on or before January 1, 2028, or on or before the posting of the pesticide use reporting database containing 2026 data, whichever occurs first, and annually thereafter, to indicate if a pesticide contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pesticide ingredients, as defined, in the pesticide use reporting database on its internet website, include PFAS as a category of interest for purposes of that database, and include pesticide use trends of PFAS pesticide ingredients from the pesticide database in the pesticide use annual report and other relevant pesticide use reporting documents. The bill would also require the department to to, on or before January 1, 2028, publish a list of all registered pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients, as specified. ingredients and submit this list to the commissioner of each county, and to, within 60 calendar days of the registration of a new pesticide containing PFAS pesticide ingredients, update the list on its internet website and submit the updated list to the commissioner of each county.

Existing law generally regulates the use of pesticides, and requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide, except as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Pesticide Regulation before the pesticide is offered for sale. Existing law requires the Director of Pesticide Regulation to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. a pesticide use report to be submitted to a county agricultural commissioner or the Director of Pesticide Regulation, as provided.

This bill would prohibit the department from registering a pesticide that has not been previously registered by the department and contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pesticide ingredients, defined as PFAS that are intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients, unless an application for registration of that pesticide was submitted to the department before January 1, 2027. The bill would require the department to indicate if a pesticide contains PFAS perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pesticide ingredients ingredients, as defined, in the pesticide use reporting database on its internet website, include PFAS as a category of interest for purposes of that database, and include pesticide use trends of PFAS pesticide ingredients from the pesticide database in the pesticide use annual report and other relevant pesticide use reporting documents. The bill would also require the department to publish a list of all registered pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients, as specified.

Existing law generally regulates the use of pesticides, and requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide, except as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Pesticide Regulation before the pesticide is offered for sale. Existing law requires the Director of Pesticide Regulation to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. Existing law prohibits, except as provided, a person from using or possessing a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the county agricultural commissioner, as specified. Existing law provides that a violation of certain provisions relating to pesticides, or regulations issued pursuant to those provisions, is a misdemeanor.

This bill would prohibit the department from registering a pesticide that has not been previously registered by the department and contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pesticide ingredients, defined as PFAS that are intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients, unless an application for registration of that pesticide was submitted to the department before January 1, 2027. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2028, classify a pesticide registered for agricultural use that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients as a restricted material subject to the above-described permitting requirement, and would require specified statements to be included on the permit and in a public disclosure by the department of its use. would require the department to indicate if a pesticide contains PFAS pesticide ingredients in the pesticide use reporting database on its internet website, include PFAS as a category of interest for purposes of that database, and include pesticide use trends of PFAS pesticide ingredients from the pesticide database in the pesticide use annual report and other relevant pesticide use reporting documents. The bill would also require the department to publish a list of all registered pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients, as specified.

Existing law generally regulates the use of pesticides, and requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide, except as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Pesticide Regulation before the pesticide is offered for sale. Existing law requires the Director of Pesticide Regulation to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. Existing law prohibits, except as provided, a person from using or possessing a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the county agricultural commissioner, as specified. Existing law provides that a violation of certain provisions relating to pesticides, or regulations issued pursuant to those provisions, is a misdemeanor.

This bill would prohibit the department from registering a pesticide that has not been previously registered by the department and contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pesticide ingredients, defined as PFAS that are intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients. ingredients, unless an application for registration of that pesticide was submitted to the department before January 1, 2027. The bill would, commencing July January 1, 2028, classify a pesticide registered for agricultural use that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients as a restricted material subject to the above-described permitting requirement, and would require specified statements to be included on the permit and in a public disclosure by the department of its use.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law generally regulates the use of pesticides, and requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide, except as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Pesticide Regulation before the pesticide is offered for sale. Existing law requires the Director of Pesticide Regulation to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. Existing law prohibits, except as provided, a person from using or possessing a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the county agricultural commissioner, as specified. Existing law provides that a violation of certain provisions relating to pesticides, or regulations issued pursuant to those provisions, is a misdemeanor.

This bill would prohibit the department from registering a pesticide that has not been previously registered by the department and contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pesticide ingredients, defined as PFAS that are intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients. The bill would, commencing July 1, 2028, classify a registered pesticide registered for agricultural use that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients as a restricted material subject to the above-described permitting requirement, and would require specified statements to be included on the permit and in a public disclosure by the department of its use.

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2030, prohibit a person from using or marketing, marketing for agricultural use a pesticide, and from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce, for agricultural use commerce a pesticide registered for agricultural use, that contains specified PFAS pesticide ingredients and prohibit the registration for agricultural use of any pesticides containing these specified PFAS pesticide ingredients. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2035, prohibit those actions for any pesticide for agricultural use that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients and would prohibit the registration of pesticides for agricultural use containing PFAS pesticide ingredients.

Because a violation of these prohibitions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law generally regulates the use of pesticides, and requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide, except as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Pesticide Regulation before the pesticide is offered for sale. Existing law requires the Director of Pesticide Regulation to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. Existing law prohibits, except as provided, a person from using or possessing a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the county agricultural commissioner, as specified. Existing law provides that a violation of certain provisions relating to pesticides, or regulations issued pursuant to those provisions, is a misdemeanor.

This bill would prohibit the department from registering a pesticide that has not been previously registered by the department and contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as defined, that are intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients. (PFAS) pesticide ingredients, defined as PFAS that are intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients. The bill would, commencing July 1, 2028, classify a registered pesticide that contains PFAS that are intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients pesticide ingredients as a restricted material subject to the above-described permitting requirement, and would require specified statements to be included on the permit and a public disclosure by the department of its use.

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2030, prohibit a person from using a pesticide that contains, and a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any pesticide that contains, any of the specified PFAS that are intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients. using or marketing, and manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce, for agricultural use a pesticide that contains specified PFAS pesticide ingredients and prohibit the registration for agricultural use of any pesticides containing these specified PFAS pesticide ingredients. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2035, prohibit those actions for any pesticide that contains PFAS that are intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients. for agricultural use that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients and would prohibit the registration of pesticides for agricultural use containing PFAS pesticide ingredients.

Because a violation of these prohibitions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law generally regulates the use of pesticides, and requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide, except as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Pesticide Regulation before the pesticide is offered for sale. Existing law requires the Director of Pesticide Regulation to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. Existing law prohibits, except as provided, a person from using or possessing a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the county agricultural commissioner, as specified. Existing law provides that a violation of certain provisions relating to pesticides, or regulations issued pursuant to those provisions, is a misdemeanor.

This bill would prohibit the department from registering or reregistering a pesticide that has not been previously registered by the department and contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as defined, that are intentionally added as active active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2028, prohibit a person from manufacturing, distributing, or selling those pesticides unless a specified statement is included on the label. The bill would commencing July 1, 2028, classify a registered pesticide that contains PFAS that are intentionally added as active active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients as a restricted material subject to the above-described permitting requirement, and would require specified statements to be included on the permit and a public disclosure by the department of its use. The bill would require the director, on or before January 1, 2028, to prescribe the time when, and the conditions under which, a PFAS-restricted material may be used or possessed in different areas of the state, and would authorize the director to prohibit the use or possession of a PFAS-restricted material in those areas.

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2030, prohibit a person from using a pesticide that contains, and a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any pesticide that contains, any of the specified PFAS that are intentionally added as active active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2035, prohibit those actions for pesticides any pesticide that contain contains PFAS that are intentionally added as active active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients.

Because a violation of these prohibitions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation to prepare and submit to specified Senate and Assembly committees and the Office of the Surgeon General quarterly reports containing information, as prescribed, regarding granular chlorpyrifos use, monitoring, and exposure during the quarter.

This bill would require the department to post those quarterly reports on its internet website, as specified.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1603

Author:(Schultz)

As Amended Ver:August 19, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to indicate if a pesticide contains per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the pesticide use reporting database; include any use trends of PFAS pesticides in the pesticide use annual report; and publish on its website and submit to the County Agricultural Commissioners (CACs) a list of all registered pesticides that contain PFAS.

Senate Amendments

1. Delete provisions that would have:
2. Prohibited, commencing January 1, 2035, the marketing, use, manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offer for sale in commerce of any pesticide registered for agricultural use that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients, as specified; and, would have prohibited DPR from registering new pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients for agricultural use.
3. Prohibited, commencing January 1, 2030, the marketing, use, manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offer for sale in commerce of any pesticide registered for agricultural use that contains one of 23 specified PFAS pesticide ingredients, as specified; and, would have prohibited DPR from registering pesticides that contain the 23 specified PFAS pesticide ingredients for agricultural use.
4. Deemed, commencing July 1, 2028, a pesticide registered for agricultural use that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients to be a restricted material.
5. Required, commencing July 1, 2028, the use permit for a PFAS-restricted material to state: "This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment."
6. Required, commencing July 1, 2028, any public disclosure by DPR of the use of a PFAS-restricted material, including through DPR's SprayDays California program, to state: "This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment."
7. Prohibited DPR from registering a pesticide that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients that had not been previously registered by DPR.
8. Require, on or before January 1, 2028, or on or before the posting of the pesticide use reporting database containing 2026 data, whichever occurs first, and annually thereafter, DPR to do both of the following:
   1. Indicate if a pesticide contains PFAS pesticide ingredients, as defined, in the pesticide use reporting database on its internet website and include PFAS as a category of interest for purposes of the pesticide use reporting database.
   2. Include any pesticide use trends of PFAS pesticide ingredients from the pesticide use reporting database in the pesticide use annual report and include these pesticide use trends in other relevant pesticide use reporting documents.
9. Require, on or before January 1, 2028, DPR to publish a list of all registered pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients on its internet website and submit this list to each CAC.
10. Require DPR, after the publication and submission of the above list, to update the list of all registered pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients on its internet website, and submit the updated list to each CAC within 60 calendar days of registration of a new pesticide containing PFAS pesticide ingredients.

COMMENTS

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): PFAS are synthetic, highly fluorinated substances that have been widely used in industrial and consumer applications for their heat, water, and lipid resistance properties for more than seven decades. During production, use, and disposal, PFAS can migrate into the soil, water, and air. Some PFAS are volatile, and can be carried long distances through the air, leading to contamination of soils and groundwater far from the emission source. Researchers have found PFAS in indoor and outdoor environments, plants, soil, food, drinking water, wildlife, companion animals, production animals, and humans at locations across the nation and around the globe. PFAS are extremely persistent and degrade very slowly over time, which has resulted in their accumulation in the environment since the onset of their production in the late 1940s. Currently, nearly 15,000 PFAS chemicals are included in the chemicals database CompTox, which is maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).

Hazard traits of PFAS: According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), all PFAS display at least one of the hazard traits identified in California's Safer Consumer Products Hazard Traits Regulations. An intrinsic property of PFAS is the extreme environmental persistence of the individual compounds, their degradation products, or both, resulting in their classification as "forever chemicals." Most PFAS are mobile in environmental media such as air and water, and thus are widespread in living organisms and the environment.

Scientific studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS can lead to adverse health outcomes in humans and animals. DTSC states that if humans are exposed to PFAS through diet, drinking water, or inhalation, some of these chemicals remain in the body for a long time. As people continue to be exposed to PFAS, the PFAS levels in their bodies may increase to the point that they suffer adverse health effects. According to the US EPA, current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to: reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; reduced ability of the body's immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response; interference with the body's natural hormones; and, increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity. In addition to direct human health impacts, some PFAS may have high global warming potential. Also, several PFAS bioaccumulate significantly in animals or plants and emerging evidence points to their phytotoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity.

The persistence and proliferation of PFAS chemicals makes it challenging to study and assess the cumulative potential human health and environmental risks of PFAS exposure.

PFAS in pesticides: The Environmental Health Perspective article, "Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment," reveals that of the 471 unique, conventional pesticide active ingredients (AIs) that were then registered in the U.S., 107 (23%) contained at least one carbon-fluorine bond and 66 (14%) are PFAS. The study also found that fluorination is a recent trend among new registrations of pesticide AIs. Of the 54 conventional AIs that had been approved from 2012 to 2021, the proportion of fluorination increased dramatically with 33 (61%) classified as organofluorines and 16 (30%) as PFAS. In addition to the AIs identified by the study as "intentional" PFAS pesticides, eight inert ingredients are PFAS registered for use in pesticides. Additionally, the authors of the study found that pesticides likely further accumulate PFAS contamination from leaching from fluorinated containers and other as-yet-undetermined sources.

DPR indicates there are 53 pesticides with at least one fully fluorinated carbon registered for use in California, and 1,153 products currently registered for use in California that contain at least one of the 53 pesticides. US EPA appears to have registered nearly 20 additional PFAS pesticides that have not yet been approved for use in California.

PFAS pesticide use in California: A 2025 analysis by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that California agricultural fields are treated with an average of 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides every year, and that between 2018 and 2023, nearly 15 million pounds of PFAS pesticides were applied to California farmland, according to data from DPR. Through their analysis, EWG found that PFAS pesticides are being used most heavily on some of California's most iconic and lucrative crops, such as almonds, pistachios, wine grapes, alfalfa and tomatoes. The analysis further revealed that 85% of PFAS pesticides used in the state were used for crop production. The remaining 15% were used for various structural practices, such as insecticide for termite control, herbicide for landscape maintenance, and rodenticide. EWG reports that among the most frequently applied pesticides are bifenthrin and trifluralin, which it states have been banned in the European Union due to health and environmental concerns.

Potential impacts of PFAS in pesticides: The authors of the 2021 Environmental Health Perspective article state, "It is our view that PFAS in pesticides, particularly PFAS active ingredients, may be having unintended impacts on environmental and public health that must be mitigated or eliminated to prevent irreversible impacts… The long-term impacts of using mixtures of extremely persistent chemicals on potentially hundreds of millions of acres of US land every year is, to us, a cause for concern. Most, if not all, PFAS in pesticide products or their degradates are going to be chronic persistent pollutants for the foreseeable future of humanity, and their ultimate impact on human and environmental health are largely unknown." The authors identified examples of potential consequences of PFAS in pesticides such as immunotoxicity (studies of impacts on the immune system indicate that it is one of the most sensitive targets of PFAS exposure, and both the US EPA and the European Food Safety Authority have identified immunotoxicity as the most potent adverse effect to humans from exposure to certain PFAS); environmental fate (all PFAS contain perfluoroalkyl moieties that are highly stable in the environment); water contamination (PFAS have been found in US streams, lakes, and rivers, often at levels that exceed aquatic safety thresholds); and, total organic fluorine in the environment (new or unidentified PFAS are increasingly contributing to the overall organofluorine exposure to people and the environment).

Intentionally added chemicals in products: This bill largely focuses on PFAS pesticide ingredients that are intentionally added to a pesticide as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients. Similarly, to protect human health and the environment, several provisions of state law prohibit or limit other substances in specific products. Some of these provisions restrict intentionally added substances, but establish different, potentially less stringent, requirements for unintentionally added substances. These statutes include limitations on, prohibitions of, or disclosure of specified chemicals in cosmetics and cleaning products; PFAS in textiles, juvenile products, and plant-based food packaging; and, Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) in intravenous tubing. To a large extent, legislators treated intentionally added and non-intentionally added substances differently to account for unavoidable environmental contamination of products, such as PFAS contamination from municipal water. However, recent discussions about this differential treatment of intentionally added versus non-intentionally added substances have raised critical policy questions, including whether these provisions are enforceable and truly capture the Legislature's intent to protect public health and the environment from harmful substances in products. Discussions should continue about how to ensure that concerning substances in products are restricted or prohibited, regardless of when in the manufacturing and distribution process the substances become present in the product.

According to the Author

"PFAS pesticides are being spread in large quantities across our most valuable agricultural land and on our most popular crops. These chemicals are highly persistent, take a very long time to break down, and can contaminate soil and ground water for years to come. In addition, PFAS are associated with a range of serious health harms. Very low doses of PFAS in drinking water have been linked to the suppression of the immune system and are associated with an elevated risk of cancer, increased cholesterol, and reproductive and developmental harms, among other serious health concerns. For most people, food and drinking water are the primary routes of exposure to PFAS. That makes the use of these chemicals in agriculture especially concerning; PFAS do not belong on our food or dinner tables. We should not eat them. We need to end the use of these very problematic pesticides now."

Arguments in Support

A coalition of over one hundred environmental, environmental justice, labor, public health, public interest, community, and other organizations, write in support of this bill,

"The widespread presence of PFAS pesticides on California-grown produce underscores a concerning and largely unaddressed gap in pesticide oversight and PFAS use reductions. The California Legislature has recognized the need to drastically curb the use of PFAS by enacting numerous laws prohibiting PFAS in various consumer products, food packaging and firefighting foam. However, widespread use of PFAS pesticides—which contaminate our food—has gone unfettered. Assembly Bill 1603 calls for greater transparency around PFAS pesticide usage in California and will set the stage for better oversight of the use of these forever pesticides.

While we were disappointed that in order to secure the necessary Assembly and Senate committee votes, Assemblymember Schultz had to commit to remove sections of AB 1603 that would have banned all agricultural uses of PFAS pesticides, and that would have required county agricultural commission oversight, we strongly believe this bill—with newly required transparency—remains critically important to protecting Californians’ health and environment."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill has minor, if any, costs, and therefore meets the criteria of Senate Rule 28.8.

VOTES:

ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 5-2-0

YES: Connolly, Bauer-Kahan, Lee, McKinnor, Papan

NO: Ellis, Castillo

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-4-1

YES: Wicks, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache

NO: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Pacheco

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 42-21-17

YES: Addis, Ahrens, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Caloza, Connolly, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Jackson, Kalra, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Ransom, Rogers, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Stefani, Ward, Wicks, Zbur, Rivas

NO: Alanis, Ávila Farías, Castillo, Chen, Davies, DeMaio, Ellis, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Hoover, Johnson, Lackey, Macedo, Pacheco, Patterson, Soria, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Aguiar-Curry, Bains, Calderon, Carrillo, Gipson, Irwin, Krell, Nguyen, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Solache, Valencia, Wilson

UPDATED

VERSION: August 19, 2026

CONSULTANT: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0004207

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1603

Author: Schultz (D)

Amended: 8/19/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 4-2, 6/24/26

AYES: Blakespear, Allen, Gonzalez, Menjivar

NOES: Valladares, Dahle

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado

SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/30/26

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, McNerney, Padilla

NOES: Alvarado-Gil

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 42-21, 5/27/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): Department of Pesticide Regulation

SOURCE: Environmental Working Group

DIGEST:

This bill requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to indicate if a pesticide contains per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pesticide ingredients in the pesticide use reporting database and submit a list of those pesticides to the County Agricultural Commissioners (CACs).

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/19/26 provide a deadline for the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to indicate if a pesticide contains PFAS in its reporting database, require updates to the published list upon registration of new pesticides containing PFAS, and move definitions to the appropriate chapter.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Provides for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); requires that all pesticides distributed or sold in the United States be registered (licensed) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); and requires, before U.S. EPA registers a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant to show that using the pesticide according to specifications will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. (Title 7 United States Code (USC) §§ 136 et seq.)
2. Defines, under FIFRA, “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean the following:
   1. Any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide; or
   2. A human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food, as defined. (Title 7 USC § 136(bb))

Existing state law:

1. Authorizes the state’s pesticide regulatory program and mandates the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber, for the protection of public health and safety, for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides, and to assure agricultural and pest control workers safe working conditions where pesticides are present by prohibiting, regulating, or otherwise ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) §§ 11401 et seq.)
2. Requires the Director of DPR to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold or is misrepresented. (FAC § 12824)
3. Authorizes the Director of DPR, after a hearing, to cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, any pesticide that fulfills these, among other, criteria:
   1. That has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment;
   2. The use of which is of less public value or greater detriment to the environment than the benefit received by its use;
   3. For which there is a reasonable, effective, and practicable alternate material or procedure that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment; or
   4. That, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds, to domestic animals, or to the public health and safety. (FAC § 12825)
4. Requires a registrant to submit scientific evidence to DPR if during or after the registration of a pesticide the registrant has factual or scientific evidence of any adverse effect or risk of the pesticide to human health, livestock, crops, or the environment that has not been previously submitted. (FAC § 12825.5)
5. Authorizes the director of DPR to, at any time, evaluate a registered pesticide to carry out specified statutory requirements; requires the director to investigate all reported episodes and information received by the director that indicate a pesticide may have caused, or is likely to cause, a significant adverse impact, or that indicate there is an alternative that may significantly reduce an adverse environmental impact; and requires, if the director finds from the investigation that a significant adverse impact has occurred or is likely to occur or that such an alternative is available, the pesticide involved to be reevaluated. (Title 3 California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 6220)
6. Prohibits the use, sale, and manufacturing of PFAS in many consumer and industrial products, including menstrual products, juvenile products, textiles, food packaging, cosmetics, and firefighting foam. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) §§ 25258 et seq.; HSC §§ 108945 et seq.; HSC §§ 108970 et seq.; HSC §§ 109000 et seq.; HSC §§ 108980 et seq.; and HSC §§ 13061, 13062)

This bill:

1. Requires, on or before January 1, 2028, or on or before the posting of the pesticide use reporting database containing 2026 data, whichever occurs first, and annually thereafter, DPR to do both of the following:
   1. Indicate if a pesticide contains PFAS pesticide ingredients in the pesticide use reporting (PUR) database and include PFAS as a category of interest.
   2. Include any pesticide use trends of PFAS pesticide ingredients from the PUR database in the pesticide use annual report and include these pesticide use trends in other relevant reporting documents.
2. Requires, on or before January 1, 2028, DPR to publish a list of all registered pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients on its internet website and submit this list to the CACs.
3. Requires DPR to update the list of all registered pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients on its internet website and submit the updated list to the CACs within 60 days of the registration of a new pesticide containing PFAS.
4. Defines “Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances” or “PFAS” to mean a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
5. Defines “PFAS pesticide ingredients” to mean PFAS that are intentionally added to a pesticide as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients.

Background

The problem with PFAS. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a broad class of man-made chemicals consisting of chains with bonded carbon and fluorine atoms. Because of their physical and chemical nature, PFAS are very durable, making them extremely useful in many industrial and commercial applications. As a consequence of their durability, they are persistent, meaning that they do not degrade easily in the environment and can bioaccumulate in living things.^[1],[2],[3] According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), there are nearly 15,000 PFAS compounds.

PFAS compounds have been detected globally in soil, groundwater, and surface water. Plants can uptake PFAS and bioaccumulation can occur within their tissues and the animals that eat them. Primarily, human exposure occurs through consuming food and drinking water. Exposure to certain PFAS may lead to adverse health outcomes, including reproductive and developmental effects, increased risk of cancer, suppressed immune systems, and endocrine disruption.^[4] It has been estimated that the cost associated with the contribution of PFAS exposure to disease and disability in the United States is at least $5.5 billion and upwards of $62 billion.^[5]

Because of its hazard and prevalence, the Legislature has previously taken action to ban PFAS as a class from products that were more likely to release PFAS into the environment, come into close physical contact with the human body, were considered unnecessary for the products’ function, and led to higher potential exposures. The category of products ranged, including, but not limited to: a ban on PFAS in menstrual products (AB 2515, Papan, Chapter 1008, Statutes of 2024); textiles (AB 1817, Ting, Chapter 762, Statutes of 2022); cosmetic products (AB 2771, Friedman, Chapter 804, Statutes of 2022); food packaging (AB 1200, Ting, Chapter 503, Statutes of 2021); new juvenile products (AB 652, Friedman, Chapter 500, Statutes of 2021); and firefighting foam (SB 1044, Allen, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2020). PFAS is typically regulated as a class, because regulating a subset of PFAS tends to lead to their replacement with other chemistries within the class that have similar hazards, thus becoming regrettable substitutions.^[6]

PFAS in pesticides. Pesticides are used to kill or suppress unwanted organisms in homes, on farmland, in the environment, and in other areas where people live and work. Although pesticides are often efficacious at exterminating or thwarting the growth of target organisms, they can also cause serious unintended harm to both humans and nontarget plants and animals. Over 1,000 types of pesticides are approved for use in California, and approximately 176 million pounds of pesticides were used in California in 2023 alone.

In pesticide products, there are active and “inert” ingredients and PFAS can be utilized for either purpose. Active ingredients are the primary ingredients that kill or suppress the targeted organism and are disclosed on a pesticide’s label. Inert ingredients are added to increase the efficacy of the active ingredient, and include emulsifiers, solvents, carriers, propellants, fragrances, and dyes.^[7]

For active ingredients, the fluorination in PFAS is used to improve stability and increase residual activity in pesticides. Of the 471 unique conventional pesticide active ingredients that are registered in the United States, 23% contained at least one carbon-fluorine bond and 14% met the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development definition of PFAS.^[8] DPR indicates that there are 53 active ingredients with at least one fully fluorinated carbon registered in California, and 1,153 products currently registered for use in California that contain at least one of those 53 pesticide active ingredients.

In contrast, PFAS ingredients that are inert can expedite the dispersal of sprayed pesticides and facilitate the penetration of the pesticide into the target pest.⁸ A 2022 public records request to the U.S. EPA revealed that there were 24 registered inert ingredients that were identified as PFAS or suspected to be PFAS.⁸

Pesticides are composed of a small fraction of the active ingredients, as those ingredients can be considered the most toxic, while inert ingredients make up the majority of a product.⁷ Inert ingredients can influence the toxicity or alter the bioavailability of the active ingredient. Inert ingredients can also increase mobility and persistence in the environment.⁷ These ingredients are not required to be disclosed on the label and minimal testing is conducted.⁸

A 2025 analysis found that California agricultural fields are treated with an average of 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides every year, and that between 2018 and 2023, nearly 15 million pounds of PFAS pesticides were applied to California farmland.^[9] The analysis further revealed that 85% of PFAS pesticides used in the state were used for crop production. The remaining 15% were used for various structural practices, such as insecticide for termite control, herbicide for landscape maintenance, and rodenticide.⁹

PFAS pollution through pesticides. PFAS contamination is ubiquitous in the environment, with various sources contributing to pollution of the air, water, and soils. The vast majority of pesticides containing PFAS have three fluorine molecules. It is possible that these pesticide ingredients could degrade into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which are part of a subclass of PFAS known as ultrashort-chain perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs).^[10] TFAs are extremely persistent and mobile substances that can be found in the environment at concentrations that are orders of magnitude higher than that of other PFAS.^[11] TFA has been found to be ubiquitous in drinking water sources and bioaccumulates most readily in plants. While some studies have concluded that the risk of TFA to humans and the environment is negligible, other studies have indicated that TFA could be toxic to the liver and reproductive systems in humans. It has been classified in the EU as harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects.¹¹ The toxicity of TFA is still being understood and it is possible that there are other unknown environmental health impacts uncovered by the current science.

This bill increases transparency of the use of pesticides with PFAS pesticide ingredients by requiring DPR to indicate whether a pesticide includes these ingredients and communicate to CACs the list of pesticides that contain these ingredients.

Comments

Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “PFAS pesticides are being spread in large quantities across our most valuable agricultural land and on our most popular crops. These chemicals are highly persistent, take a very long time to break down, and can contaminate soil and ground water for years to come. In addition, PFAS are associated with a range of serious health harms. Very low doses of PFAS in drinking water have been linked to the suppression of the immune system and are associated with an elevated risk of cancer, increased cholesterol, and reproductive and developmental harms, among other serious health concerns. For most people, food and drinking water are the primary routes of exposure to PFAS. That makes the use of these chemicals in agriculture especially concerning; PFAS do not belong on our food or dinner tables. We should not eat them. We need to end the use of these very problematic pesticides now.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/19/2026)

Environmental Working Group (Source)

1000 Grandmothers for Future Generation
2100 Iff Strategies
350 Bay Area Action
Access to Thrive, INC
Acevedo Media LLC
Active San Gabriel Valley
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
American Nurses Association/california
Bay Area System Change Not Climate Change
Benicia Good Neighbor Steering Committee
Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry
Beyond Pesticides
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Environmental Justice Coalition
California Environmental Voters
California Farmer Justice Collaborative
California Federation of Teachers
California Food and Farming Network
California Health Coalition Advocacy
California Nurses Association
California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California Water Association
Californians for Pesticide Reform
California Public Interest Research Group
Campaign for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture
Campesinas Unidas Del Valle De San Joaquin
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Environmental Health
Center for Farmworker Families
Center for Food Safety
Center for Public Environmental Oversight
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Central California Asthma Collaborative
Central California Environmental Justice Network
Ceres Community Project
Cft- a Union of Educators & Classified Professionals
Children Now
City of Sacramento Department of Utilities
Clean Air Coalition of North Whittier and Avocado Heights
Clean Water Action
Cleanearth4kids.org
Climate Action California
Climate Health Now Action Fund
Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety - Tulare
Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety 805
Comite Civico Del Valle
Communitiy Water Center
Consumer Attorneys of California
Cool Petaluma
Earthjustice
Encampment for Citizenship
Endangered Habitats League
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
Environmental Protection Information Center
Erin Brockovich Foundation
Erin Brockovich, INC.
Facts Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety
Farm2people
Feather River Action!
Foodwise
Fresh Approach
Fresnans Against Fracking
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of the Earth
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

Gmo Science
Go Green Initiative
Green Science Policy Institute
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
Indivisible: LA Honda and Coastal Communities
Integrated Resource Management
Jacobs Farm
Jacobs Farm Del Cabo
Klamath Forest Alliance
LA Waterkeeper
Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability
Lideres Campesinas
Lift Economy
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Lymphoma Foundation of America
Mamavation - Non-toxic Products for Healthy Families
Maryland Pesticide Education Network
Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Project
Mixteco/indigena Community Organizing Project
Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, Afl-cio
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley
Natural Resources Defense Council
Non-toxic Neighborhoods
Northcoast Environmental Center
Parents Against Ssfl
Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network
Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Sacramento Chapter
Physicians for Social Responsibility/sacramento
Poison Free Malibu
Re:wild Your Campus
Recolte Energy
Resource Renewal Institute
Safe Ag Safe Schools
Safe Alternatives for Our Forest Environment
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
San Francisco Baykeeper
Seiu 521
Sierra Club California
Sierra Harvest
Socal 350 Climate Action
Sonoma County Conservation Action
Sonoma County Youth Environmental Action Committee
South Yuba River Citizens League
Sunflower Alliance
Sustainable Agriculture Education
Teamsters Local 856
The 5 Gyres Institute
The Transformation Co.
Topanga Town Council
Toxic Free North Carolina
Ufcw Local 5
Union of Concerned Scientists
Unite Here Local 11
Unite Here, Local 19
Valley Improvement Projects
Water Replenishment District
West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs
Wholly H2o

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/19/2026)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 42-21, 5/27/26

AYES: Addis, Ahrens, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Caloza, Connolly, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Jackson, Kalra, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Ransom, Rogers, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Stefani, Ward, Wicks, Zbur, Rivas

NOES: Alanis, Ávila Farías, Castillo, Chen, Davies, DeMaio, Ellis, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Hoover, Johnson, Lackey, Macedo, Pacheco, Patterson, Soria, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis

NO VOTE RECORDED: Aguiar-Curry, Bains, Calderon, Carrillo, Gipson, Irwin, Krell, Nguyen, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Solache, Valencia, Wilson

Prepared by: Taylor McKie / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108

8/20/26 10:42:31

**** END ****

1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (2025). Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. ↑

2. Henry, B. J., et. al. (2018). A critical review of the application of polymer of low concern. ↑

3. Jacobs, S. A., et. al. (2024). Assessment of Fluoropolymer Production and Use With Analysis of Alternative Replacement Materials. ↑

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2026). Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS. ↑

5. Obsekov, V. (2023). Leveraging Systematic Reviews to Explore Disease Burden and Costs of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Exposures in the United States. ↑

6. Balan, S.A., et. al. (2021). Regulating PFAS as a Chemical Class under the California Safer Consumer Products Program. ↑

7. Bruce A. B., et. al. (2023). Assessing the scientific support for U.S. EPA pesticide regulatory policy governing active and inert ingredients. ↑

8. Donley, N., et. al. (2024). Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment. ↑

9. Environmental Working Group. (2025). 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides spread on California farmland annually. ↑

10. Joerss, H., et. al. (2024). Pesticides can be a substantial source of TFA to water resources. ↑

11. Arp, H. P. H., et. al. (2024). The Global Threat from the Irreversible Accumulation of Trifluoroacetic Acid. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1603

Author: Schultz (D)

Amended: 7/8/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 4-2, 6/24/26

AYES: Blakespear, Allen, Gonzalez, Menjivar

NOES: Valladares, Dahle

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado

SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/30/26

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, McNerney, Padilla

NOES: Alvarado-Gil

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 42-21, 5/27/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): Department of Pesticide Regulation

SOURCE: Environmental Working Group

DIGEST:

This bill requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to indicate if a pesticide contains per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pesticide ingredients in the pesticide use reporting database and submit a list of those pesticides to the County Agricultural Commissioners (CACs).

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Provides for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); requires that all pesticides distributed or sold in the United States be registered (licensed) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); and requires, before U.S. EPA registers a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant to show that using the pesticide according to specifications will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. (7 United States Code (USC) §§ 136 et seq.)
2. Defines, under FIFRA, “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean the following:
   1. Any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide; or
   2. A human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food, as defined. (7 USC § 136(bb))

Existing state law:

1. Authorizes the state’s pesticide regulatory program and mandates the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber, for the protection of public health and safety, for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides, and to assure agricultural and pest control workers safe working conditions where pesticides are present by prohibiting, regulating, or otherwise ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) §§ 11401 et seq.)
2. Requires the Director of DPR to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold or is misrepresented. (FAC § 12824)
3. Authorizes the Director of DPR, after a hearing, to cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, any pesticide that fulfills these, among other, criteria:
   1. That has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment;
   2. The use of which is of less public value or greater detriment to the environment than the benefit received by its use;
   3. For which there is a reasonable, effective, and practicable alternate material or procedure that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment; or
   4. That, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds, to domestic animals, or to the public health and safety. (FAC § 12825)
4. Requires a registrant to submit scientific evidence to DPR if during or after the registration of a pesticide the registrant has factual or scientific evidence of any adverse effect or risk of the pesticide to human health, livestock, crops, or the environment that has not been previously submitted. (FAC § 12825.5)
5. Authorizes the director of DPR to, at any time, evaluate a registered pesticide to carry out specified statutory requirements; requires the director to investigate all reported episodes and information received by the director that indicate a pesticide may have caused, or is likely to cause, a significant adverse impact, or that indicate there is an alternative that may significantly reduce an adverse environmental impact; and requires, if the director finds from the investigation that a significant adverse impact has occurred or is likely to occur or that such an alternative is available, the pesticide involved to be reevaluated. (3 California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 6220)
6. Prohibits the use, sale, and manufacturing of PFAS in many consumer and industrial products, including menstrual products, juvenile products, textiles, food packaging, cosmetics, and firefighting foam. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) §§ 25258 et seq.; HSC §§ 108945 et seq.; HSC §§ 108970 et seq.; HSC §§ 109000 et seq.; HSC §§ 108980 et seq.; and HSC §§ 13061, 13062)

This bill:

1. Requires DPR to indicate if a pesticide contains PFAS pesticide ingredients in the pesticide use reporting (PUR) database and include PFAS as a category of interest.
2. Requires DPR to include any pesticide use trends of PFAS pesticide ingredients from the PUR database in the pesticide use annual report and other relevant reporting documents.
3. Requires DPR to publish a list of all registered pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients on its internet website and submit this list to the CACs.

Background

1. The problem with PFAS. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a broad class of man-made chemicals consisting of chains with bonded carbon and fluorine atoms. Because of their physical and chemical nature, PFAS are very durable making them extremely useful in many industrial and commercial applications. As a consequence of their durability, they are persistent, meaning that they do not degrade easily in the environment and can bioaccumulate in living things.^[1],[2],[3] According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), there are nearly 15,000 PFAS compounds.

PFAS compounds have been detected globally in soil, groundwater, and surface water. Plants can uptake PFAS and bioaccumulation can occur within their tissues and the animals that eat them. Primarily, human exposure occurs through consuming food and drinking water. Exposure to certain PFAS may lead to adverse health outcomes, including reproductive and developmental effects, increased risk of cancer, suppressed immune systems, and endocrine disruption.^[4] It has been estimated that the cost associated with the contribution of PFAS exposure to disease and disability in the United States is at least $5.5 billion and upwards of $62 billion.^[5]

Because of its hazard and prevalence, the Legislature has previously taken action to ban PFAS as a class from products that were more likely to release PFAS into the environment, come into close physical contact with the human body, were considered unnecessary for the products’ function, and led to higher potential exposures. The category of products ranged, including, but not limited to: a ban on PFAS in menstrual products (AB 2515, Papan, Chapter 1008, Statutes of 2024); textiles (AB 1817, Ting, Chapter 762, Statutes of 2022); cosmetic products (AB 2771, Friedman, Chapter 804, Statutes of 2022); food packaging (AB 1200, Ting, Chapter 503, Statutes of 2021); new juvenile products (AB 652, Friedman, Chapter 500, Statutes of 2021); and firefighting foam (SB 1044, Allen, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2020). PFAS is typically regulated as a class, because regulating a subset of PFAS tends to lead to their replacement with other chemistries within the class that have similar hazards, thus becoming regrettable substitutions.^[6]

1. PFAS in pesticides. Pesticides are used to kill or suppress unwanted organisms in homes, on farmland, in the environment, and in other areas where people live and work. Although pesticides are often efficacious at exterminating or thwarting the growth of target organisms, they can also cause serious unintended harm to both humans and nontarget plants and animals. Over 1,000 types of pesticides are approved for use in California, and approximately 176 million pounds of pesticides were used in California in 2023 alone.

In pesticide products, there are active and “inert” ingredients and PFAS can be utilized for either purpose. Active ingredients are the primary ingredients that kill or suppress the targeted organism and are disclosed on a pesticide’s label. Inert ingredients are added to increase the efficacy of the active ingredient, and include emulsifiers, solvents, carriers, propellants, fragrances, and dyes.^[7]

For active ingredients, the fluorination in PFAS is used to improve stability and increase residual activity in pesticides. Of the 471 unique conventional pesticide active ingredients that are registered in the United States, 23% contained at least one carbon-fluorine bond and 14% met the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development definition of PFAS.^[8] DPR indicates that there are 53 active ingredients with at least one fully fluorinated carbon registered in California, and 1,153 products currently registered for use in California that contain at least one of those 53 pesticide active ingredients.

In contrast, PFAS ingredients that are inert can expedite the dispersal of sprayed pesticides and facilitate the penetration of the pesticide into the target pest.⁸ A 2022 public records request to the U.S. EPA revealed that there were 24 registered inert ingredients that were identified as PFAS or suspected to be PFAS.⁸

Pesticides are composed of a small fraction of the active ingredients, as those ingredients can be considered the most toxic, while inert ingredients make up the majority of a product.⁷ Inert ingredients can influence the toxicity or alter the bioavailability of the active ingredient. Inert ingredients can also increase mobility and persistence in the environment.⁷ These ingredients are not required to be disclosed on the label and minimal testing is conducted.⁸

A 2025 analysis found that California agricultural fields are treated with an average of 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides every year, and that between 2018 and 2023, nearly 15 million pounds of PFAS pesticides were applied to California farmland.^[9] The analysis further revealed that 85% of PFAS pesticides used in the state were used for crop production. The remaining 15% were used for various structural practices, such as insecticide for termite control, herbicide for landscape maintenance, and rodenticide.⁹

1. PFAS pollution through pesticides. PFAS contamination is ubiquitous in the environment, with various sources contributing to pollution of the air, water, and soils. The vast majority of pesticides containing PFAS have three fluorine molecules. It is possible that these pesticide ingredients could degrade into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which are part of a subclass of PFAS known as ultrashort-chain perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs).^[10] TFAs are extremely persistent and mobile substances that can be found in the environment at concentrations that are orders of magnitude higher than that of other PFAS.^[11] TFA has been found to be ubiquitous in drinking water sources and bioaccumulates most readily in plants. While some studies have concluded that the risk of TFA to humans and the environment is negligible, other studies have indicated that TFA could be toxic to the liver and reproductive systems in humans. It has been classified in the EU as harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects.¹¹ The toxicity of TFA is still being understood and it is possible that there are other unknown environmental health impacts uncovered by the current science.

This bill increases transparency of the use of pesticides with PFAS pesticide ingredients by requiring DPR to indicate whether a pesticide includes these ingredients and communicate to CACs the list of pesticides that contain these ingredients.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “PFAS pesticides are being spread in large quantities across our most valuable agricultural land and on our most popular crops. These chemicals are highly persistent, take a very long time to break down, and can contaminate soil and ground water for years to come. In addition, PFAS are associated with a range of serious health harms. Very low doses of PFAS in drinking water have been linked to the suppression of the immune system and are associated with an elevated risk of cancer, increased cholesterol, and reproductive and developmental harms, among other serious health concerns. For most people, food and drinking water are the primary routes of exposure to PFAS. That makes the use of these chemicals in agriculture especially concerning; PFAS do not belong on our food or dinner tables. We should not eat them. We need to end the use of these very problematic pesticides now.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/26)

Environmental Working Group (source)
1000 Grandmothers for Future Generation
2100 Iff Strategies
350 Bay Area Action
Access to Thrive, INC
Acevedo Media LLC
Active San Gabriel Valley
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
American Nurses Association/california
Bay Area System Change Not Climate Change
Bay Area-system Change Not Climate Change
Benicia Good Neighbor Steering Committee
Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry
Beyond Pesticides
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Environmental Justice Coalition
California Environmental Voters
California Farmer Justice Collaborative
California Federation of Teachers
California Food and Farming Network
California Health Coalition Advocacy
California Nurses Association
California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice
California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (crla Foundation)
California Water Association
Californians for Pesticide Reform
Calpirg, California Public Interest Research Group
Campaign for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture
Campesinas Unidas Del Valle De San Joaquin
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Environmental Health
Center for Farmworker Families
Center for Food Safety
Center for Public Environmental Oversight
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Central California Asthma Collaborative
Central California Asthma Collaborative
Central California Environmental Justic Network
Central California Environmental Justice Network
Ceres Community Project
Cft
Cft- a Union of Educators & Classified Professionals
Children Now
City of Sacramento Department of Utilities
Clean Air Coalition of North Whittier and Avocado Heights
Clean Water Action
Cleanearth4kids.org
Climate Action California
Climate Health Now Action Fund
Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety - Tulare
Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety 805
Comite Civico Del Valle
Communitiy Water Center
Consumer Attorneys of California
Cool Petaluma
Earthjustice
Encampment for Citizenship
Endangered Habitats League
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
Environmental Protection Information Center
Environmental Protection Information Center
Erin Brockovich Foundation
Erin Brockovich, INC.
Facts Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety
Facts: Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety
Farm2people
Feather River Action!
Foodwise
Fresh Approach
Fresnans Against Fracking
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of the Earth
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives
Gmo Science
Go Green Initiative
Green Science Policy Institute
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
Indivisible: LA Honda and Coastal Communities
Integrated Resource Management
Jacobs Farm
Jacobs Farm Del Cabo
Klamath Forest Alliance
LA Waterkeeper
Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Lideres Campesinas
Lift Economy
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Lymphoma Foundation of America
Mamavation - Non-toxic Products for Healthy Families
Maryland Pesticide Education Network
Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Project
Mixteco/indigena Community Organizing Project
Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, Afl-cio
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley
Natural Resources Defense Council
Non-toxic Neighborhoods
Northcoast Environmental Center
Parents Against Ssfl
Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network
Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Sacramento Chapter
Physicians for Social Responsibility/sacramento
Poison Free Malibu
Re:wild Your Campus
Recolte Energy
Resource Renewal Institute
Safe Ag Safe Schools
Safe Alternatives for Our Forest Environment
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
San Francisco Baykeeper
Seiu 521
Sierra Club California
Sierra Harvest
Socal 350 Climate Action
Sonoma County Conservation Action
Sonoma County Youth Environmental Action Committee
South Yuba River Citizens League
Sunflower Alliance
Sustainable Agriculture Education
Sustainable Agriculture Education
Teamsters Local 856
The 5 Gyres Institute
The Transformation Co.
Topanga Town Council
Toxic Free North Carolina
Ufcw Local 5
Union of Concerned Scientists
Unite Here Local 11
Unite Here, Local 19
Valley Improvement Projects
Valley Improvement Projects
Water Replenishment District
West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs
Wholly H2o

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/26)

None received.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 42-21, 5/27/26

AYES: Addis, Ahrens, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Caloza, Connolly, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Jackson, Kalra, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Ransom, Rogers, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Stefani, Ward, Wicks, Zbur, Rivas

NOES: Alanis, Ávila Farías, Castillo, Chen, Davies, DeMaio, Ellis, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Hoover, Johnson, Lackey, Macedo, Pacheco, Patterson, Soria, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis

NO VOTE RECORDED: Aguiar-Curry, Bains, Calderon, Carrillo, Gipson, Irwin, Krell, Nguyen, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Solache, Valencia, Wilson

Prepared by: Taylor McKie / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108

8/13/26 15:15:18

**** END ****

1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (2025). Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. ↑

2. Henry, B. J., et. al. (2018). A critical review of the application of polymer of low concern. ↑

3. Jacobs, S. A., et. al. (2024). Assessment of Fluoropolymer Production and Use With Analysis of Alternative Replacement Materials. ↑

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2026). Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS. ↑

5. Obsekov, V. (2023). Leveraging Systematic Reviews to Explore Disease Burden and Costs of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Exposures in the United States. ↑

6. Balan, S.A., et. al. (2021). Regulating PFAS as a Chemical Class under the California Safer Consumer Products Program. ↑

7. Bruce A. B., et. al. (2023). Assessing the scientific support for U.S. EPA pesticide regulatory policy governing active and inert ingredients. ↑

8. Donley, N., et. al. (2024). Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment. ↑

9. Environmental Working Group. (2025). 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides spread on California farmland annually. ↑

10. Joerss, H., et. al. (2024). Pesticides can be a substantial source of TFA to water resources. ↑

11. Arp, H. P. H., et. al. (2024). The Global Threat from the Irreversible Accumulation of Trifluoroacetic Acid. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1603

Author: Schultz (D)

Amended: 7/8/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 4-2, 6/24/26

AYES: Blakespear, Allen, Gonzalez, Menjivar

NOES: Valladares, Dahle

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado

SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/30/26

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, McNerney, Padilla

NOES: Alvarado-Gil

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 42-21, 5/27/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): Department of Pesticide Regulation

SOURCE: Environmental Working Group

DIGEST:

This bill requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to indicate if a pesticide contains per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pesticide ingredients in the pesticide use reporting database and submit a list of those pesticides to the County Agricultural Commissioners (CACs).

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Provides for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); requires that all pesticides distributed or sold in the United States be registered (licensed) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); and requires, before U.S. EPA registers a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant to show that using the pesticide according to specifications will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. (7 United States Code (USC) §§ 136 et seq.)
2. Defines, under FIFRA, “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean the following:
   1. Any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide; or
   2. A human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food, as defined. (7 USC § 136(bb))

Existing state law:

1. Authorizes the state’s pesticide regulatory program and mandates the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber, for the protection of public health and safety, for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides, and to assure agricultural and pest control workers safe working conditions where pesticides are present by prohibiting, regulating, or otherwise ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) §§ 11401 et seq.)
2. Requires the Director of DPR to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold or is misrepresented. (FAC § 12824)
3. Authorizes the Director of DPR, after a hearing, to cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, any pesticide that fulfills these, among other, criteria:
   1. That has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment;
   2. The use of which is of less public value or greater detriment to the environment than the benefit received by its use;
   3. For which there is a reasonable, effective, and practicable alternate material or procedure that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment; or
   4. That, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds, to domestic animals, or to the public health and safety. (FAC § 12825)
4. Requires a registrant to submit scientific evidence to DPR if during or after the registration of a pesticide the registrant has factual or scientific evidence of any adverse effect or risk of the pesticide to human health, livestock, crops, or the environment that has not been previously submitted. (FAC § 12825.5)
5. Authorizes the director of DPR to, at any time, evaluate a registered pesticide to carry out specified statutory requirements; requires the director to investigate all reported episodes and information received by the director that indicate a pesticide may have caused, or is likely to cause, a significant adverse impact, or that indicate there is an alternative that may significantly reduce an adverse environmental impact; and requires, if the director finds from the investigation that a significant adverse impact has occurred or is likely to occur or that such an alternative is available, the pesticide involved to be reevaluated. (3 California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 6220)
6. Prohibits the use, sale, and manufacturing of PFAS in many consumer and industrial products, including menstrual products, juvenile products, textiles, food packaging, cosmetics, and firefighting foam. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) §§ 25258 et seq.; HSC §§ 108945 et seq.; HSC §§ 108970 et seq.; HSC §§ 109000 et seq.; HSC §§ 108980 et seq.; and HSC §§ 13061, 13062)

This bill:

1. Requires DPR to indicate if a pesticide contains PFAS pesticide ingredients in the pesticide use reporting (PUR) database and include PFAS as a category of interest.
2. Requires DPR to include any pesticide use trends of PFAS pesticide ingredients from the PUR database in the pesticide use annual report and other relevant reporting documents.
3. Requires DPR to publish a list of all registered pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients on its internet website and submit this list to the CACs.

Background

1. The problem with PFAS. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a broad class of man-made chemicals consisting of chains with bonded carbon and fluorine atoms. Because of their physical and chemical nature, PFAS are very durable making them extremely useful in many industrial and commercial applications. As a consequence of their durability, they are persistent, meaning that they do not degrade easily in the environment and can bioaccumulate in living things.^[1],[2],[3] According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), there are nearly 15,000 PFAS compounds.

PFAS compounds have been detected globally in soil, groundwater, and surface water. Plants can uptake PFAS and bioaccumulation can occur within their tissues and the animals that eat them. Primarily, human exposure occurs through consuming food and drinking water. Exposure to certain PFAS may lead to adverse health outcomes, including reproductive and developmental effects, increased risk of cancer, suppressed immune systems, and endocrine disruption.^[4] It has been estimated that the cost associated with the contribution of PFAS exposure to disease and disability in the United States is at least $5.5 billion and upwards of $62 billion.^[5]

Because of its hazard and prevalence, the Legislature has previously taken action to ban PFAS as a class from products that were more likely to release PFAS into the environment, come into close physical contact with the human body, were considered unnecessary for the products’ function, and led to higher potential exposures. The category of products ranged, including, but not limited to: a ban on PFAS in menstrual products (AB 2515, Papan, Chapter 1008, Statutes of 2024); textiles (AB 1817, Ting, Chapter 762, Statutes of 2022); cosmetic products (AB 2771, Friedman, Chapter 804, Statutes of 2022); food packaging (AB 1200, Ting, Chapter 503, Statutes of 2021); new juvenile products (AB 652, Friedman, Chapter 500, Statutes of 2021); and firefighting foam (SB 1044, Allen, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2020). PFAS is typically regulated as a class, because regulating a subset of PFAS tends to lead to their replacement with other chemistries within the class that have similar hazards, thus becoming regrettable substitutions.^[6]

1. PFAS in pesticides. Pesticides are used to kill or suppress unwanted organisms in homes, on farmland, in the environment, and in other areas where people live and work. Although pesticides are often efficacious at exterminating or thwarting the growth of target organisms, they can also cause serious unintended harm to both humans and nontarget plants and animals. Over 1,000 types of pesticides are approved for use in California, and approximately 176 million pounds of pesticides were used in California in 2023 alone.

In pesticide products, there are active and “inert” ingredients and PFAS can be utilized for either purpose. Active ingredients are the primary ingredients that kill or suppress the targeted organism and are disclosed on a pesticide’s label. Inert ingredients are added to increase the efficacy of the active ingredient, and include emulsifiers, solvents, carriers, propellants, fragrances, and dyes.^[7]

For active ingredients, the fluorination in PFAS is used to improve stability and increase residual activity in pesticides. Of the 471 unique conventional pesticide active ingredients that are registered in the United States, 23% contained at least one carbon-fluorine bond and 14% met the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development definition of PFAS.^[8] DPR indicates that there are 53 active ingredients with at least one fully fluorinated carbon registered in California, and 1,153 products currently registered for use in California that contain at least one of those 53 pesticide active ingredients.

In contrast, PFAS ingredients that are inert can expedite the dispersal of sprayed pesticides and facilitate the penetration of the pesticide into the target pest.⁸ A 2022 public records request to the U.S. EPA revealed that there were 24 registered inert ingredients that were identified as PFAS or suspected to be PFAS.⁸

Pesticides are composed of a small fraction of the active ingredients, as those ingredients can be considered the most toxic, while inert ingredients make up the majority of a product.⁷ Inert ingredients can influence the toxicity or alter the bioavailability of the active ingredient. Inert ingredients can also increase mobility and persistence in the environment.⁷ These ingredients are not required to be disclosed on the label and minimal testing is conducted.⁸

A 2025 analysis found that California agricultural fields are treated with an average of 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides every year, and that between 2018 and 2023, nearly 15 million pounds of PFAS pesticides were applied to California farmland.^[9] The analysis further revealed that 85% of PFAS pesticides used in the state were used for crop production. The remaining 15% were used for various structural practices, such as insecticide for termite control, herbicide for landscape maintenance, and rodenticide.⁹

1. PFAS pollution through pesticides. PFAS contamination is ubiquitous in the environment, with various sources contributing to pollution of the air, water, and soils. The vast majority of pesticides containing PFAS have three fluorine molecules. It is possible that these pesticide ingredients could degrade into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which are part of a subclass of PFAS known as ultrashort-chain perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs).^[10] TFAs are extremely persistent and mobile substances that can be found in the environment at concentrations that are orders of magnitude higher than that of other PFAS.^[11] TFA has been found to be ubiquitous in drinking water sources and bioaccumulates most readily in plants. While some studies have concluded that the risk of TFA to humans and the environment is negligible, other studies have indicated that TFA could be toxic to the liver and reproductive systems in humans. It has been classified in the EU as harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects.¹¹ The toxicity of TFA is still being understood and it is possible that there are other unknown environmental health impacts uncovered by the current science.

This bill increases transparency of the use of pesticides with PFAS pesticide ingredients by requiring DPR to indicate whether a pesticide includes these ingredients and communicate to CACs the list of pesticides that contain these ingredients.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “PFAS pesticides are being spread in large quantities across our most valuable agricultural land and on our most popular crops. These chemicals are highly persistent, take a very long time to break down, and can contaminate soil and ground water for years to come. In addition, PFAS are associated with a range of serious health harms. Very low doses of PFAS in drinking water have been linked to the suppression of the immune system and are associated with an elevated risk of cancer, increased cholesterol, and reproductive and developmental harms, among other serious health concerns. For most people, food and drinking water are the primary routes of exposure to PFAS. That makes the use of these chemicals in agriculture especially concerning; PFAS do not belong on our food or dinner tables. We should not eat them. We need to end the use of these very problematic pesticides now.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/10/26)

Environmental Working Group (source)
1000 Grandmothers for Future Generation
2100 Iff Strategies
350 Bay Area Action
Access to Thrive, INC
Acevedo Media LLC
Active San Gabriel Valley
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
American Nurses Association/california
Bay Area System Change Not Climate Change
Bay Area-system Change Not Climate Change
Benicia Good Neighbor Steering Committee
Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry
Beyond Pesticides
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Environmental Justice Coalition
California Environmental Voters
California Farmer Justice Collaborative
California Federation of Teachers
California Food and Farming Network
California Health Coalition Advocacy
California Nurses Association
California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice
California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (crla Foundation)
California Water Association
Californians for Pesticide Reform
Calpirg, California Public Interest Research Group
Campaign for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture
Campesinas Unidas Del Valle De San Joaquin
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Environmental Health
Center for Farmworker Families
Center for Food Safety
Center for Public Environmental Oversight
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Central California Asthma Collaborative
Central California Asthma Collaborative
Central California Environmental Justic Network
Central California Environmental Justice Network
Ceres Community Project
Cft
Cft- a Union of Educators & Classified Professionals
Children Now
City of Sacramento Department of Utilities
Clean Air Coalition of North Whittier and Avocado Heights
Clean Water Action
Cleanearth4kids.org
Climate Action California
Climate Health Now Action Fund
Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety - Tulare
Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety 805
Comite Civico Del Valle
Communitiy Water Center
Consumer Attorneys of California
Cool Petaluma
Earthjustice
Encampment for Citizenship
Endangered Habitats League
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
Environmental Protection Information Center
Environmental Protection Information Center
Erin Brockovich Foundation
Erin Brockovich, INC.
Facts Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety
Facts: Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety
Farm2people
Feather River Action!
Foodwise
Fresh Approach
Fresnans Against Fracking
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of the Earth
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives
Gmo Science
Go Green Initiative
Green Science Policy Institute
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
Indivisible: LA Honda and Coastal Communities
Integrated Resource Management
Jacobs Farm
Jacobs Farm Del Cabo
Klamath Forest Alliance
LA Waterkeeper
Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Lideres Campesinas
Lift Economy
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Lymphoma Foundation of America
Mamavation - Non-toxic Products for Healthy Families
Maryland Pesticide Education Network
Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Project
Mixteco/indigena Community Organizing Project
Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, Afl-cio
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley
Natural Resources Defense Council
Non-toxic Neighborhoods
Northcoast Environmental Center
Parents Against Ssfl
Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network
Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Sacramento Chapter
Physicians for Social Responsibility/sacramento
Poison Free Malibu
Re:wild Your Campus
Recolte Energy
Resource Renewal Institute
Safe Ag Safe Schools
Safe Alternatives for Our Forest Environment
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
San Francisco Baykeeper
Seiu 521
Sierra Club California
Sierra Harvest
Socal 350 Climate Action
Sonoma County Conservation Action
Sonoma County Youth Environmental Action Committee
South Yuba River Citizens League
Sunflower Alliance
Sustainable Agriculture Education
Sustainable Agriculture Education
Teamsters Local 856
The 5 Gyres Institute
The Transformation Co.
Topanga Town Council
Toxic Free North Carolina
Ufcw Local 5
Union of Concerned Scientists
Unite Here Local 11
Unite Here, Local 19
Valley Improvement Projects
Valley Improvement Projects
Water Replenishment District
West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs
Wholly H2o

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/10/26)

African American Farmers of California
Agricultural Council of California
Almond Alliance of California
American Chemistry Council
California Agricultural Aircraft Association
California Agricultural Commissioners & Sealers Association
California Association of Pest Control Advisers
California Association of Wheat Growers
California Bean Shippers Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grain & Feed Association
California League of Food Producers
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Pear Growers Association
California Seed Association
California Strawberry Commission
California Table Grape Commission
California Walnut Commission
California Warehouse Association
Chemical Industry Council of California
Croplife America
Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
Household and Commercial Products Association
Nisei Farmers League
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment - Rise
United Ag
Western Growers Association
Western Plant Health Association
Western Tree Nut Association

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 42-21, 5/27/26

AYES: Addis, Ahrens, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Caloza, Connolly, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Jackson, Kalra, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Ransom, Rogers, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Stefani, Ward, Wicks, Zbur, Rivas

NOES: Alanis, Ávila Farías, Castillo, Chen, Davies, DeMaio, Ellis, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Hoover, Johnson, Lackey, Macedo, Pacheco, Patterson, Soria, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis

NO VOTE RECORDED: Aguiar-Curry, Bains, Calderon, Carrillo, Gipson, Irwin, Krell, Nguyen, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Solache, Valencia, Wilson

Prepared by: Taylor McKie / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108

8/12/26 16:18:49

**** END ****

1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (2025). Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. ↑

2. Henry, B. J., et. al. (2018). A critical review of the application of polymer of low concern. ↑

3. Jacobs, S. A., et. al. (2024). Assessment of Fluoropolymer Production and Use With Analysis of Alternative Replacement Materials. ↑

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2026). Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS. ↑

5. Obsekov, V. (2023). Leveraging Systematic Reviews to Explore Disease Burden and Costs of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Exposures in the United States. ↑

6. Balan, S.A., et. al. (2021). Regulating PFAS as a Chemical Class under the California Safer Consumer Products Program. ↑

7. Bruce A. B., et. al. (2023). Assessing the scientific support for U.S. EPA pesticide regulatory policy governing active and inert ingredients. ↑

8. Donley, N., et. al. (2024). Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment. ↑

9. Environmental Working Group. (2025). 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides spread on California farmland annually. ↑

10. Joerss, H., et. al. (2024). Pesticides can be a substantial source of TFA to water resources. ↑

11. Arp, H. P. H., et. al. (2024). The Global Threat from the Irreversible Accumulation of Trifluoroacetic Acid. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 1603 Hearing Date: 6/30/26

Subject: Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): Department of Pesticide Regulation

SUMMARY

:

This bill prohibits registration of new pesticides that contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), beginning January 1, 2027. This bill also requires the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to post and annually update on its website a list of all registered pesticides containing PFAS pesticide ingredients, distribute the list annually to the county agricultural commissioners, and identify them within the annual Pesticide Use Report (PUR).

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

:

Existing federal law:

1. Provides for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); requires that all pesticides distributed or sold in the United States be registered (licensed) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); and requires, before U.S. EPA registers a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant to show that using the pesticide according to specifications will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment (7 United States Code (USC) Sections 136 et seq.).
2. Defines, under FIFRA, “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean the following:
   1. Any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide; or
   2. A human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food, as defined (7 USC Section 136(bb)).

Existing state law:

1. Authorizes the state’s pesticide regulatory program and mandates the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber, for the protection of public health and safety, for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides, and to assure agricultural and pest control workers safe working conditions where pesticides are present by prohibiting, regulating, or otherwise ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides (Food and Agricultural Code Section 11401 et seq.).
2. Requires the Director of DPR to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented (Food and Agricultural Code, Section 12824).
3. Authorizes the Director of DPR, after a hearing, to cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, any pesticide that fulfills these, among other, criteria:
   1. That has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment.
   2. The use of which is of less public value or greater detriment to the environment than the benefit received by its use.
   3. For which there is a reasonable, effective, and practicable alternate material or procedure that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment; or
   4. That, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds, to domestic animals, or to the public health and safety (Food and Agricultural Code Section 12825).
4. Requires a registrant to submit scientific evidence to DPR if during or after the registration of a pesticide the registrant has factual or scientific evidence of any adverse effect or risk of the pesticide to human health, livestock, crops, or the environment that has not been previously submitted (Food and Agricultural Code Section 12825.5).
5. Requires the director to develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides registered (Food and Agricultural Code Section 12824).
6. Prohibits a person from using or possessing a pesticide designated as a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) (Food and Agricultural Code Section 14006.5).
7. Authorizes the director of DPR to, at any time, evaluate a registered pesticide to carry out specified statutory requirements; requires the director to investigate all reported episodes and information received by the director that indicate a pesticide may have caused, or is likely to cause, a significant adverse impact, or that indicate there is an alternative that may significantly reduce an adverse environmental impact; and requires, if the director finds from the investigation that a significant adverse impact has occurred or is likely to occur or that such an alternative is available, the pesticide involved to be reevaluated (3 California Code of Regulations, Section 6220).

PROPOSED LAW

:

This bill, as amended on 6/24/26 in the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality:

1. Would prohibit the registration of new pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients unless an application was received by the department no later than January 1, 2027.
2. Would require DPR to identify and list pesticides that contain PFAS in the Pesticide Use Reporting database, list all pesticides that contain PFAS, provide the list to county agricultural commissioners, and publicly post the list on their website.
3. Would define “perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances” to mean a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
4. Would define “PFAS pesticide ingredients” to mean PFAS that are intentionally added to a pesticides active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author:

“PFAS are a large class of chemicals that are used in many consumer products and industries because they are long-lasting and waterproof. However, they are also associated with numerous serious human health effects and build up in water, soil, and our bodies – they don’t go away. Because of PFAS’ very problematic properties, the California legislature has acted in recent years to prohibit their use in many consumer products, such as textiles, food packaging, and cosmetics. And state officials have limited PFAS use in carpets and upholstery and are about to regulate PFAS in cleaners. All prior state legislation banning PFAS in products bans PFAS as a class. There are no “good” PFAS when it comes to impacts on human health and our environment.

PFAS pesticides are being spread in large quantities across our most valuable agricultural land and on our most popular crops. These chemicals are highly persistent, take a very long time to break down, and can contaminate soil and ground water for years to come. In addition, PFAS are associated with a range of serious health harms. Very low doses of PFAS in drinking water have been linked to the suppression of the immune system and are associated with an elevated risk of cancer, increased cholesterol, and reproductive and developmental harms, among other serious health concerns. For most people, food and drinking water are the primary routes of exposure to PFAS. That makes the use of these chemicals in agriculture especially concerning; PFAS do not belong on our food or dinner tables. We should not eat them. We need to end the use of these very problematic PFAS pesticides now.

To start, California should prohibit new PFAS pesticides from being registered for use in the state. There are PFAS pesticides not only being used for agriculture but in consumer goods used in our homes. By reducing PFAS at the source, we can begin to stop this pollution from entering our bodies, the soil and the state’s waterways.”

A coalition letter from various organizations wrote in support of the bill stating, among other things:

“…On behalf of our hundreds of thousands of members and supporters, the undersigned organizations write today to express strong support for AB 1603 (Schultz), a bill that would:

• Beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit registration of all new PFAS pesticides, except for any PFAS pesticide registration applications submitted to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation before January 1, 2027.
• Recognize PFAS pesticides by using the definition of PFAS that is consistent with the international scientific consensus, and is in line with California’s, the majority of other state’s, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s, and the Biomonitoring California’s definitions.
• Require the California Department of Pesticide Regulation indicate, in the Pesticide Use Reporting database, that a pesticide contains PFAS pesticide ingredients, and that DPR include, in its Pesticide Use Reports and other relevant pesticide use reporting documents, PFAS as a category of interest and any associated PFAS pesticide use trends…

…Assembly Bill 1603 calls for greater transparency around PFAS pesticide usage in California and halts new approvals of PFAS pesticides. The bill will begin the process of shielding Californians and people in other states from additional PFAS exposure, bioaccumulation and chronic, environmental persistence.

While we were disappointed that in order to secure the necessary Assembly votes, Assemblymember Schultz had to commit to remove sections of AB 1603 that would have banned all agricultural uses of PFAS pesticides, we strongly believe this bill—with a moratorium on new PFAS pesticides and increased transparency—remains critically important to protecting Californians’ health and environment.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

A coalition letter from various organizations wrote in opposition to the bill, stating, among other things:

“On behalf of a coalition representing farm, commercial, residential and industrial users, pest management professionals, and manufacturers, we respectfully oppose AB 1603 (Schultz), which would broadly restrict pesticides containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for use in agriculture, and prohibit the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) from registering any new pesticides containing PFAS ingredients. We recognize the June 19th amendments taken by the author removes the ban on existing pesticides on the market, however, we still oppose the remaining provisions that will still have significant consequences for California agriculture, public health, and pest management.

California’s agricultural industry produces nearly $50 billion in revenue annually, and grows half of the country’s fruits and vegetables, including 400 commodity crops. However, growers in the state face significant and increasing challenges including competition from growers out of state and out of the country. AB 1603 would leave California growers unable to access new innovate products that will be available to growers in other states and countries, creating another significant obstacle to growing crops economically and with a high enough yield to remain profitable. The same will be said for commercial and industrial products that will not be accessible in a safe manner to California consumers. In short, AB 1603 will not change consumer exposure to PFAS on pesticides, which falls below federally established tolerance levels.”

COMMENTS

:

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), a pesticide cannot be registered unless USEPA determines its use will not pose unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. The same standard applies to pesticides that contain a single fluorinated carbon. Regardless of whether a chemical meets a specific structural definition or is part of a category or class of chemicals, the Agency utilizes a comprehensive assessment process under FIFRA to evaluate the potential risks of pesticide use. This robust, chemical-specific process considers both hazard and exposure in determining whether the pesticide under review may pose risk to human health and the environment.

USEPA's rigorous evaluation process concludes no human health risks of concern when approved pesticides are used according to their approved labels. This assessment includes comprehensive toxicity studies across multiple species and life stages, specific evaluation of children's safety and developmental effects, assessment of reproductive and chronic health impacts and environmental fate and exposure analysis.

These pesticides undergo the same scientific evaluation required for all EPA pesticide registrations, including studies mandated by 40 CFR 158. Uses of single fluorinated carbon compounds can represent significantly reduced risks and greater benefits over older alternatives^[1].

A February, 2026 study conducted by USGS^[2] assessed pesticide application contributions of PFAS in agricultural streams. While the analysis of California surface-water monitoring data found PFAS contamination in waterways across multiple agricultural counties and pointed to PFAS pesticides as a likely contributor, it also noted that additional investigation of pesticide transformations into terminal and ultra-short-chain PFAS is needed to fully quantify pesticide contributions to environmental PFAS contamination.

What is the role of DPR? Pest management is critical to protecting Californians and the environment. DPR was established in 1991 to act as an independent department to manage the state’s pesticide regulatory programs, which were previously housed under CDFA. The purpose of DPR is to protect human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use. They accomplish this by:

• Evaluating pesticides for potential risks, and impacts to people and the environment,
• Evaluating pesticides for efficacy, before they are registered for use in California.
• Continuously evaluating pesticide risks and impacts following registration.
• Mitigating risks to people and the environment.
• Protecting worker health and safety.
• Enforcing pesticide use laws and regulations.
• Advancing the availability and adoption of sustainable pest management.

All pesticides must be registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) before they can be used in any state. DPR evaluates all pesticides before they can be used in California.

DPRs pesticide use report (PUR) data greatly increases the accuracy and efficiency of continuous evaluation of pesticides by providing details on each application, including date, location, site (e.g., crop), time, acres and units treated, and the

identity and quantity of each pesticide product applied. This data allows scientists and others to identify trends in pesticide use, compare use locations with other geographical information and data, and perform quantitative assessments and evaluations of risks that pesticides may pose to human health and the environment.

In 1990, DPR significantly expanded the quantity and quality of pesticide use data

collected across the state. Prior to this expansion, the regulatory program’s estimates of pesticide use frequently assumed pesticide use to be equivalent to the maximum rates and number of applications as listed on the label, which was

not always the case. Use of the PUR data allowed risk assessments and policy decisions to be based on the actual reported pesticide use rates from the PUR database, rather than the label rate assumptions previously used. Over the years, PUR data has been used by a variety of individuals and groups, including government officials, scientists, growers, policy makers, and public interest groups.

DPR uses the PUR data throughout its pesticide regulatory programs in ways that can be broadly grouped as temporal (time), geospatial (place), and quantitative (amount), often combining elements of each.

As amended by the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality on 6/24/26, the bill now focuses on two issues:

1. Prohibiting DPR from registering a pesticide that has not been previously registered by the department and contains PFAS pesticide ingredients, defined as PFAS that are intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients, unless an application for registration of that pesticide was submitted to the department before January 1, 2027.
2. Requiring DPR to make available to the public and shall post and annually update on its website a list of all registered pesticides containing PFAS pesticide ingredients, distribute the list annually to the county agricultural commissioners and identify them within the annual pesticide use report (PUR).

The bill is would place a ban on registering pesticides containing PFAS that have not been previously registered by DPR unless an application for registration of that pesticide was submitted before January 1, 2027.

DPR has currently registered 53 PFAS pesticides, used in approximately 1,200 products. PFAS pesticides are used in industrial agriculture, residential pest control, and landscape maintenance across the United States. These pesticides are used for their ability to kill or suppress pests in homes, on farmland, and in the environment. PFAS can be an active ingredient, or it can be an inert ingredient. When PFAS is an active ingredient, it is the primary ingredient that kills or suppresses the targeted organism. Inert ingredients are added to increase the efficacy of the active ingredient.

For example, for the tree nut industry in California, the following active ingredients are used as the safest product or needed for an emergent pest outbreak.

It is important to note that, unlike consumer products, agricultural pesticides are subject to a distinct regulatory framework. Because pesticides are intentionally designed to control pests, they undergo rigorous evaluation and are regulated through extensive requirements, restrictions, and safeguards to protect public health and the environment. This bill would remove the department’s ability to evaluate and register future pesticide products that may contain PFAS but are formulated with other active or inert ingredients that present a lower overall risk to human health or the environment.

Suggested Amendment: The author and the Committee may wish to consider removing the provision that prohibits the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) from registering a pesticide containing PFAS ingredients unless the application for registration was submitted before January 1, 2027.

RELATED LEGISLATION

:

AB 2146 (Bauer-Kahan, 2022) would have prohibited, beginning January 1, 2024, a person from selling, possessing, or using a neonicotinoid pesticide, as defined, for application to outdoor ornamental plants, trees, or turf, except for use on, or for the protection of, an agricultural commodity. This bill was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

AB 567 (Bauer-Kahan, 2021) would have prohibited, on and after January 1, 2024, the use of a neonicotinoid on a seed. The bill was not heard in the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials and the bill subsequently died on file.

SB 458 (Durazo, 2019) would have prohibited the use of pesticides that contain chlorpyrifos in California until DPR adopts specified control measures for chlorpyrifos. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1817 (Ting, Chapter 762, Statutes of 2022) prohibits, beginning January 1, 2024, a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state a textile article, as defined, that contains regulated PFAS, and requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when removing regulated PFAS in textile articles to comply with the provisions of the bill.

AB 2771 (Friedman, Chapter 804, Statutes of 2022) prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added PFAS.

AB 1200 (Ting, Chapter 503, Statutes of 2021) prohibits, among other requirements, commencing January 1, 2023, the sale of food packaging that contains PFAS.

AB 652 (Freidman, Chapter 500, Statutes of 2021) prohibits, on or after July 1, 2023, a person from selling or distributing in commerce any new juvenile products that contain PFAS.

SB 1044 (Allen, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2020) prohibits the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of firefighting foam containing PFAS chemicals by January 1, 2022, with some exceptions, and requires notification of the presence of PFAS in the protective equipment of firefighters.

AB 841 (Ting, Chapter 372, Statutes of 2019) would have required the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to assess PFAS substances, especially as they might be found in drinking water, to determine which might pose a potential risk to human health. The contents of this bill were deleted in the Senate and amended with unrelated content.

PRIOR ACTIONS

:

SUPPORT

:

1000 Grandmothers for Future Generation
2100 Iff Strategies
350 Bay Area Action
Access to Thrive, INC
Acevedo Media LLC
Active San Gabriel Valley
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
American Nurses Association/california
Bay Area-system Change Not Climate Change
Benicia Good Neighbor Steering Committee
Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry
Beyond Pesticides
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Environmental Justice Coalition
California Environmental Voters
California Farmer Justice Collaborative
California Federation of Teachers
California Food and Farming Network
California Nurses Association
California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California Water Association
Californians for Pesticide Reform
Calpirg, California Public Interest Research Group
Campaign for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture
Campesinas Unidas Del Valle De San Joaquin
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Environmental Health
Center for Farmworker Families
Center for Food Safety
Center for Public Environmental Oversight
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Central California Asthma Collaborative
Central California Environmental Justic Network (CCEJN)
Ceres Community Project
Children Now
Clean Air Coalition of North Whittier and Avocado Heights
Clean Water Action
Cleanearth4kids.org
Climate Action California
Climate Health Now Action Fund
Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety - Tulare
Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety 805
Comite Civico Del Valle
Communitiy Water Center
Consumer Attorneys of California
Cool Petaluma
Earthjustice
Encampment for Citizenship
Endangered Habitats League
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC)
Environmental Working Group
Erin Brockovich Foundation
Facts Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety
Farm2people
Feather River Action!
Foodwise
Fresh Approach
Fresnans Against Fracking
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of the Earth
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)
Gmo Science
Go Green Initiative
Green Science Policy Institute
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
Indivisible: LA Honda and Coastal Communities
Integrated Resource Management
Jacobs Farm
Klamath Forest Alliance
LA Waterkeeper
Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability
Lideres Campesinas
Lift Economy
Lymphoma Foundation of America
Maryland Pesticide Education Network
Mixteco/indigena Community Organizing Project (MICOP)
Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, Afl-cio
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley
Non-toxic Neighborhoods
Northcoast Environmental Center
Parents Against Ssfl
Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Sacramento Chapter
Poison Free Malibu
Re:wild Your Campus
Recolte Energy
Resource Renewal Institute
Safe Ag Safe Schools
Safe Alternatives for Our Forest Environment
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
San Francisco Baykeeper
Sierra Club California
Sierra Harvest
Socal 350 Climate Action
Sonoma County Conservation Action
Sonoma County Youth Environmental Action Committee
South Yuba River Citizens League
Sunflower Alliance
Sustainable Agriculture Education
The 5 Gyres Institute
The Transformation Co.
Topanga Town Council
Toxic Free North Carolina
Union of Concerned Scientists
Valley Improvement Projects
Water Replenishment District
West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs
Wholly H2o

OPPOSITION:

African American Farmers of California
Agricultural Council of California
Almond Alliance of California
American Chemistry Council
California Agricultural Aircraft Association
California Association of Pest Control Advisers
California Association of Wheat Growers
California Bean Shippers Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grain & Feed Association
California League of Food Producers
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Pear Growers Association
California Seed Association
California Strawberry Commission
California Table Grape Commission
California Walnut Commission
California Warehouse Association
Chemical Industry Council of California
Croplife America
Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
Household and Commercial Products Association
Nisei Farmers League
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment - Rise
United Ag
Western Growers Association
Western Plant Health Association
Western Tree Nut Association

-- END --

1. https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/pesticides-containing-single-fluorinated-carbon ↑

2. https://www.usgs.gov/publications/assessing-pesticide-application-contributions-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Blakespear, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 1603

SUBJECT: Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): Department of Pesticide Regulation

DIGEST: This bill prohibits registration of new pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients beginning January 1, 2027, and designates a registered product for agricultural use as a restricted material with specified disclosure requirements.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Provides for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); requires that all pesticides distributed or sold in the United States be registered (licensed) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); and requires, before U.S. EPA registers a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant to show that using the pesticide according to specifications will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. (7 United States Code (USC) §§ 136 et seq.)
2. Defines, under FIFRA, “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean the following:
   1. Any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide; or
   2. A human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food, as defined. (7 USC § 136(bb))

Existing state law:

1. Authorizes the state’s pesticide regulatory program and mandates the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber, for the protection of public health and safety, for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides, and to assure agricultural and pest control workers safe working conditions where pesticides are present by prohibiting, regulating, or otherwise ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) §§ 11401 et seq.)
2. Requires the Director of DPR to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold or is misrepresented. (FAC § 12824)
3. Authorizes the Director of DPR, after a hearing, to cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, any pesticide that fulfills these, among other, criteria:
   1. That has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment;
   2. The use of which is of less public value or greater detriment to the environment than the benefit received by its use;
   3. For which there is a reasonable, effective, and practicable alternate material or procedure that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment; or
   4. That, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds, to domestic animals, or to the public health and safety. (FAC § 12825)
4. Requires a registrant to submit scientific evidence to DPR if during or after the registration of a pesticide the registrant has factual or scientific evidence of any adverse effect or risk of the pesticide to human health, livestock, crops, or the environment that has not been previously submitted. (FAC § 12825.5)
5. Requires the director to develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered. (FAC § 12824)
6. Prohibits, except for specified health, safety, and agricultural activities, the use of the rodenticides brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, diphacinone, and difethialone in the state until the director of DPR certifies that DPR has completed a reevaluation of those pesticides and has adopted restrictions to protect wildlife, as specified. (FAC § 12978.7)
7. Prohibits a person from using or possessing a pesticide designated as a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC). (FAC § 14006.5)
8. Authorizes the director of DPR to, at any time, evaluate a registered pesticide to carry out specified statutory requirements; requires the director to investigate all reported episodes and information received by the director that indicate a pesticide may have caused, or is likely to cause, a significant adverse impact, or that indicate there is an alternative that may significantly reduce an adverse environmental impact; and requires, if the director finds from the investigation that a significant adverse impact has occurred or is likely to occur or that such an alternative is available, the pesticide involved to be reevaluated. (3 California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 6220)
9. Prohibits the use, sale, and manufacturing of PFAS in many consumer and industrial products, including menstrual products, juvenile products, textiles, food packaging, cosmetics, and firefighting foam. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) §§ 25258 et seq.; HSC §§ 108945 et seq.; HSC §§ 108970 et seq.; HSC §§ 109000 et seq.; HSC §§ 108980 et seq.; and HSC §§ 13061, 13062)
   

This bill:

1. Prohibits DPR from registering a pesticide that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients that has not been previously registered by DPR, unless an application for registration was submitted to DPR before January 1, 2027.
2. Makes a pesticide containing PFAS pesticide ingredients that is registered for agricultural use a restricted material beginning January 1, 2028.
3. Permits the use of a PFAS-restricted material under specified conditions beginning January 1, 2028.
4. Requires a permit issued to a PFAS-restricted material and any public disclosure by DPR of the use of a PFAS-restricted material to state, “This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment,” beginning January 1, 2028.
5. Defines “agricultural use” to mean the use of any pesticide or method or device for the control of plant or animal pests, or the use of any pesticide for the regulation of plant growth or defoliation of plants, excluding specified intended uses and the use of any pesticide or method or device to treat pets, livestock, and other animals to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fleas, mites, ticks, heartworms, or other insects, parasites, or organisms.
6. Defines “PFAS pesticide ingredients” to mean PFAS that are intentionally added to a pesticide as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients.
7. Defines “PFAS-restricted material” to mean a pesticide registered for agricultural use containing PFAS pesticide ingredients, as described.
8. Makes related findings and declarations.
   

Background

1. The problem with PFAS. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a broad class of man-made chemicals consisting of chains with bonded carbon and fluorine atoms. Because of their physical and chemical nature, PFAS are very durable making them extremely useful in many industrial and commercial applications. As a consequence of their durability, they are persistent, meaning that they do not degrade easily in the environment and can bioaccumulate in living things.^[1],[2],[3] According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), there are nearly 15,000 PFAS compounds.

PFAS compounds have been detected globally in soil, groundwater, and surface water. Plants can uptake PFAS and bioaccumulation can occur within their tissues and the animals that eat them. Primarily, human exposure occurs through consuming food and drinking water. Exposure to certain PFAS may lead to adverse health outcomes, including reproductive and developmental effects, increased risk of cancer, suppressed immune systems, and endocrine disruption.^[4] It has been estimated that the cost associated with the contribution of PFAS exposure to disease and disability in the United States is at least $5.5 billion and upwards of $62 billion.^[5]

Because of its hazard and prevalence, the Legislature has previously taken action to ban PFAS as a class from products that were more likely to release PFAS into the environment, come into close physical contact with the human body, were considered unnecessary for the products’ function, and led to higher potential exposures. The category of products ranged, including, but not limited to: a ban on PFAS in menstrual products (AB 2515, Papan, Chapter 1008, Statutes of 2024); textiles (AB 1817, Ting, Chapter 762, Statutes of 2022); cosmetic products (AB 2771, Friedman, Chapter 804, Statutes of 2022); food packaging (AB 1200, Ting, Chapter 503, Statutes of 2021); new juvenile products (AB 652, Friedman, Chapter 500, Statutes of 2021); and firefighting foam (SB 1044, Allen, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2020). PFAS is typically regulated as a class, because regulating a subset of PFAS tends to lead to their replacement with other chemistries within the class that have similar hazards, thus becoming regrettable substitutions.^[6]

Originally, this bill would have similarly banned PFAS from pesticides used in agricultural settings. Recently, author amendments have removed these bans, and the proposed provisions continue to prohibit DPR from registering any new pesticides with PFAS ingredients that have not been previously registered by the state after January 1, 2027.

1. PFAS in pesticides. Pesticides are used to kill or suppress unwanted organisms in homes, on farmland, in the environment, and in other areas where people live and work. Although pesticides are often efficacious at exterminating or thwarting the growth of target organisms, they can also cause serious unintended harm to both humans and nontarget plants and animals. Over 1,000 types of pesticides are approved for use in California, and approximately 176 million pounds of pesticides were used in California in 2023 alone.

In pesticide products, there are active and “inert” ingredients and PFAS can be utilized for either purpose. Active ingredients are the primary ingredients that kill or suppress the targeted organism and are disclosed on a pesticide’s label. Inert ingredients are added to increase the efficacy of the active ingredient, and include emulsifiers, solvents, carriers, propellants, fragrances, and dyes.^[7]

For active ingredients, the fluorination in PFAS is used to improve stability and increase residual activity in pesticides. Of the 471 unique conventional pesticide active ingredients that are registered in the United States, 23% contained at least one carbon-fluorine bond and 14% met the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development definition of PFAS.^[8] DPR indicates that there are 53 active ingredients with at least one fully fluorinated carbon registered in California, and 1,153 products currently registered for use in California that contain at least one of those 53 pesticide active ingredients.

In contrast, PFAS ingredients that are inert can expedite the dispersal of sprayed pesticides and facilitate the penetration of the pesticide into the target pest.⁸ A 2022 public records request to the U.S. EPA revealed that there were 24 registered inert ingredients that were identified as PFAS or suspected to be PFAS.⁸

Pesticides are composed of a small fraction of the active ingredients, as those ingredients can be considered the most toxic, while inert ingredients make up the majority of a product.⁷ Inert ingredients can influence the toxicity or alter the bioavailability of the active ingredient. Inert ingredients can also increase mobility and persistence in the environment.⁷ These ingredients are not required to be disclosed on the label and minimal testing is conducted.⁸

A 2025 analysis found that California agricultural fields are treated with an average of 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides every year, and that between 2018 and 2023, nearly 15 million pounds of PFAS pesticides were applied to California farmland.^[9] The analysis further revealed that 85% of PFAS pesticides used in the state were used for crop production. The remaining 15% were used for various structural practices, such as insecticide for termite control, herbicide for landscape maintenance, and rodenticide.⁹

1. PFAS pollution through pesticides. PFAS contamination is ubiquitous in the environment, with various sources contributing to pollution of the air, water, and soils. The vast majority of pesticides containing PFAS have three fluorine molecules. It is possible that these pesticide ingredients could degrade into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which are part of a subclass of PFAS known as ultrashort-chain perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs).^[10] TFAs are extremely persistent and mobile substances that can be found in the environment at concentrations that are orders of magnitude higher than that of other PFAS.^[11] TFA has been found to be ubiquitous in drinking water sources and bioaccumulates most readily in plants. While some studies have concluded that the risk of TFA to humans and the environment is negligible, other studies have indicated that TFA could be toxic to the liver and reproductive systems in humans. It has been classified in the EU as harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects.¹¹ The toxicity of TFA is still being understood and it is possible that there are other unknown environmental health impacts uncovered by the current science.

Since PFAS and its degradants, such as TFA, are released and detected in the environment, it is important to understand the potential exposure pathways and associated hazards. The following sections describe identified environmental impacts of PFAS that originate from pesticides and their implications:

• 1. PFAS pollution in waters. PFAS compounds have been detected globally in groundwater and surface water. In California, PFAS ingredients from pesticides were detected in nearly half of all surface water samples and approximately half of all sediment samples collected by DPR and indicated by a 2026 analysis conducted by EWG.^[12] Monitoring data from DPR is limited in size and scope, as not all PFAS ingredients have been sampled for, thus there is uncertainty around the extent of contamination from pesticide PFAS ingredients.

The most frequently detected PFAS ingredient, bifenthrin, was detected in almost half of all surface water samples between 2020 and 2023. DPR’s surface water database (SURF) indicates that samples of bifenthrin within that time range in certain areas of the state reached concentrations of over 1 ppb, which is 100 to 1000 times the regulatory thresholds established for different types of PFAS in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

Generally, water contamination from PFAS pesticide ingredients can be very concerning, as the surface and ground water that may be contaminated can serve as sources for drinking water. Humans are primarily exposed to PFAS through both eating and drinking water.^[13] California has multiple water systems that contain at least double the federal reporting concentration levels for certain types of PFAS.¹³

It should be noted that PFAS pesticide ingredients are not the same compounds that currently have federally established regulatory thresholds for drinking water, but they are within the broader class of PFAS. It is unclear to staff at this time whether all PFAS pesticide ingredients, active or inert, break down into the PFAS regulated under the SDWA or how PFAS ingredients may contribute to drinking water contamination across the state. The six PFASs that are federally regulated have at least 9 fluorine molecules in their structures, whereas most PFAS pesticide active ingredients registered in California only have 3 fluorine molecules. So, while it is unlikely that the PFAS pesticide active ingredients contribute to the regulatory pressures that water systems face, it is an open question whether inert ingredients or other types of PFAS may degrade (into substances like TFA) and contribute to water contamination generally. DPR does evaluate the hazard, risk and the most sensitive toxic endpoints of pesticide ingredients before registration, however it is unclear whether the evaluations take potential exposure through drinking water, specifically from PFAS and its degradants like TFA, into account.

Part of the burden in addressing PFAS contamination can fall on municipal drinking water systems, especially if the source of contamination is unknown. In 2019, 74 community water systems serving 7.5 million Californians with drinking water were found to have PFAS levels that exceeded levels considered safe by independent research, with at least 40% of systems far exceeding the federally established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) under the SDWA.^[14]

The U.S. EPA requires these public water systems to test and monitor their drinking water or wastewater effluents and take action if the contamination exceeds the MCLs. The six federally regulated PFAS have drinking water MCLs that water systems are required to comply with by 2029. In order to comply, many water systems will need to undergo expensive treatment infrastructure upgrades, which could cost on the order of tens of millions of dollars per water system. Without financial support, the cost of these upgrades will fall on the public through water rates, impacting affordability for the ratepayer.

Although it is unlikely that the PFAS in pesticides are responsible for exceedances of the six established MCLs, PFAS in pesticides could be responsible for future established MCLs with scientific advancement that may uncover additional health risks and an evolving global regulatory landscape. Outside of federally regulated PFAS, it is unclear the extent that PFAS from pesticides may pose a health risk through drinking water contamination. Given that the PFAS pesticide ingredients were detected in waters across the state at concentrations that are hundreds to thousands of times larger than the established MCLs for certain types of PFAS, further scrutiny is certainly warranted and attribution studies may be critical.

• 1. PFAS pollution on (and in) produce. Pesticides may cling to crops during agricultural spraying, leading to residual contamination on produce. A 2026 analysis of data collected by DPR found that 37% of non-organic, or conventionally grown California produce samples on 40 different types of produce, including peaches, plums, strawberries, and grapes contained traces of 17 different pesticides containing PFAS.^[15]

DPR argues that it conducts one of the nation’s most comprehensive produce residue monitoring programs by collecting and testing thousands of domestic and imported fruits and vegetables each year. The produce is tested for hundreds of pesticides to see if any are detected, and if there is a detection, determine whether it exceeds a tolerance level established by the U.S. EPA. Produce that has residue exceeding the tolerance level is pulled from the market.

The residue monitoring program has demonstrated that there are consistently very low levels of pesticide residues and DPR indicates that a detection alone does not indicate health concerns.^[16] In 2023, of the 1,059 produce samples labeled as “grown in California,” 99% had residues below the U.S. EPA tolerance levels.^[17] The majority (83%) of residues that exceeded the regulatory threshold were detected on imported produce.

Aside from surface residue, there are concerns about the persistence of PFAS and its ability to bioaccumulate through plants. Plants can absorb PFAS, and in particular TFA, through their root systems and the chemicals are then transferred to animals that eat them, presenting a potential dietary exposure pathway for PFAS pesticide ingredients.^[18]

1. The regulation of pesticides in California. The mission of DPR is to “protect human health and the environment by fostering sustainable pest management and regulating pesticides.” DPR oversees pesticides by registering products, performing evaluations and re-evaluations, regulating pest control businesses, conducting environmental monitoring, and testing for residue on fresh produce.

Prior to registration under DPR, pesticides must be registered and licensed for sale and use with the U.S. EPA. DPR will then conduct a comprehensive scientific evaluation of the product under California-specific standards that protect public health and the environment before registering them. The evaluation covers both the active ingredients and full product formulations. DPR evaluates each chemical in a pesticide individually, including PFAS ingredients, and at its most sensitive endpoint to understand its impact on human health and the environment.

DPR may propose registered pesticides for designation as restricted materials. Restricted materials are pesticides that are deemed by the State of California to have a higher potential to cause harm to public health, farm workers, domestic animals, honeybees, the environment, wildlife, or crops compared to other pesticides. The designation of restricted materials allow for greater local control to prevent harm.

The application of restricted materials can only occur by or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator and under a permit issued by the CAC, with certain exceptions. CACs are required to evaluate each proposed application before it occurs and determine whether the application poses an unacceptable risk or ensure that the permit includes mitigation measures through environmental review.^[19] Pesticides designated as restricted materials may have regulatory use requirements in addition to permit conditions. This may include pesticide application limitations, methods, and location restrictions.^[20] The application of restricted materials is also subject to additional levels of oversight by the CACs, including reviews of the notices of intent and pre-application inspections. The application of a restricted material will be made public through the SprayDays program, increasing the transparency of its use.

This bill designates a pesticide that is registered for agricultural use and contains PFAS pesticide ingredients as a restricted material. Further, the permit that is issued to the restricted pesticide containing PFAS and any public disclosure of its use would be required to indicate that the product contains PFAS and has the potential to contaminate the environment, as described.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “PFAS pesticides are being spread in large quantities across our most valuable agricultural land and on our most popular crops. These chemicals are highly persistent, take a very long time to break down, and can contaminate soil and ground water for years to come. In addition, PFAS are associated with a range of serious health harms. Very low doses of PFAS in drinking water have been linked to the suppression of the immune system and are associated with an elevated risk of cancer, increased cholesterol, and reproductive and developmental harms, among other serious health concerns. For most people, food and drinking water are the primary routes of exposure to PFAS. That makes the use of these chemicals in agriculture especially concerning; PFAS do not belong on our food or dinner tables. We should not eat them. We need to end the use of these very problematic pesticides now.”
   
2. Finding the right restrictions. There have been various bans and restrictions on PFAS and other harmful chemicals in consumer products to promote source reduction, but it is important to note that pesticides for agricultural use are not like consumer products— different regulatory frameworks apply. Consumer products can be largely unregulated or minimally regulated when it comes to environmental health and safety. Pesticides are not treated like the typical consumer product because they are intentionally harmful to pests, thus posing a higher risk to the health and safety of the public and environment. To minimize this risk, pesticides are integrated into a regulatory framework designed with various requirements, restrictions, and guardrails. Fitting well into that framework will be integral to addressing the problems posed by these particular products.

This bill prohibits the registration of any new pesticides containing PFAS ingredients and makes any currently registered pesticides with PFAS a restricted material. The aim of the bill is to reduce the release of PFAS pesticide ingredients into the environment, track the locations and extent to which it is used, and create transparency around its use. With new PFAS pesticides prohibited and registered PFAS pesticides designated as restricted materials, the use of these products and their associated pollution will decrease, but at what cost?

With the bill’s proposed 2027 ban on new pesticides containing PFAS ingredients, the benefits of prohibiting the registration of new harmful pesticides could also be offset by the risks that accompany new substitutions.^[21] It is unclear whether the alternatives available for pesticides that contain PFAS ingredients are sufficient to address the challenges growers face, or if alternatives exist at all in certain circumstances. Often when newer alternatives are not available, growers tend to turn to older chemistries that may require higher application rates, possess different environmental or public health risks, or serve as less effective tools.

For PFAS pesticides that are already registered, restrictions on existing registered pesticides can limit the tools available to manage and prevent costly outbreaks. Limiting access to existing registered products has the potential to increase costs for growers, decrease yield, increase risk and production uncertainty, and decrease crop protection.²¹ For each restricted material, the workload associated increases for the CACs. Every use would require the submission of a permit application, environmental review, an alternatives analysis, physical site inspections, and other associated administrative tasks. This bill would designate nearly 1,200 products as restricted materials. Although the use of these products may decrease with the restricted materials designation, this bill would still lead to a significant increase of the workload associated with restricted materials policies without the relative compensation to conduct the work.

Typically, restricted materials designations are tied to identified risks and are used judiciously as a mitigation measure to reduce those risks. It is unclear how many of these PFAS pesticides pose such risks considered under this framework. The toxicity and persistence of the 53 PFAS pesticide ingredients vary widely, and it is not clear if the restricted materials designation is appropriate for all 53 pesticides. However, out of an abundance of caution and in light of potential hazards, the author and sponsors believe the regulation of PFAS should be approached as a class, thus all 53 pesticides should be subject to the same regulation.

If these PFAS pesticides were regulated as a class in this manner, a restricted materials designation would call for greater oversight and control of these pesticides, which could mitigate potential contamination into state waters. The use of pesticides that are designated as restricted material would need to undergo a permitting process with the CAC and would require a functional equivalent of an environmental impact report. A CAC would also need to consider feasible alternatives before issuing a permit for each site- and time-specific use. These guardrails could both drive down the use of these pesticides and mitigate any potential impacts. Additionally, use of these pesticides as restricted materials would be tracked at a higher granularity and public transparency of the use would increase. There are indeed aspects of the restricted materials designation that could support a transition away from the use of these pesticides and raise general awareness of their use.

Eliminating or restricting the use of PFAS is of monumental importance, but the typical policy frameworks used to regulate PFAS in other types of products do not involve the intricacies of pest management or crop production which come with additional trade-offs that have broader impacts. A policy approach to reduce PFAS in these products will need to be measured and consider the trade-offs of broadly eliminating new or restricting currently registered pesticides against the efficacy of source reduction in this approach. An understanding of the available alternative products and practices will be integral to a transition away from PFAS pesticides.

Imposing the full restricted materials framework to a broad range of pesticides may not be appropriate at this time given the current trade-offs and broader impacts, however DPR can still play a role in increasing awareness around the use of PFAS in pesticides and shedding light on its use patterns. In alignment with the author and sponsor’s goal of increasing transparency, the author and committee may wish to consider requiring DPR to flag pesticides that contain PFAS in the Pesticide Use Reporting database, list all registered pesticides that contain PFAS, submit this list to the CACs, and publicly post this list on their website.

Further dissemination of this information to growers and the public can be discussed in the next policy committee, the Senate Committee on Agriculture. In recognizing the additional trade-offs and broader impact that designating PFAS pesticides as restricted materials would have on the regulatory agencies and agricultural community, the author and committee may wish to consider striking the provisions that designate PFAS pesticides as restricted materials and all associated activities.

1. Understanding continued use. If the Legislature should choose to continue the use of these pesticides, designated as restricted materials or not, it will be important to develop a comprehensive understanding of their use, contributions to exposures, and the associated exposure pathways. The primary PFAS exposure pathways for humans are through drinking water and food. The following sections highlight areas in need of further study and targeted interventions for each exposure pathways:
   1. Addressing drinking water contamination. Drinking water is a major source of PFAS exposure, and many water systems do not currently have the capability to treat PFAS contaminated waters. Although the PFAS in pesticides or their degradants are not the same as the PFAS that is federally regulated, all PFAS may still be difficult or incapable of being removed with the current treatment infrastructure of many water systems. Though it is suspected that pesticides contribute to water contamination that water systems are unable to treat, attribution studies have not been conducted. Attribution studies that link PFAS pesticide ingredients to drinking water contamination could support more targeted interventions. Understanding these correlations across the state and impacts to specific water systems may also create an opportunity to fund the infrastructure improvements needed, as described in comment 4 below.

In order to develop targeted interventions, further study would be needed. DPR and the State Water Board already coordinate in pesticides monitoring efforts and both agencies collect data on pesticide use and waste discharge from irrigated lands. The agencies could continue to collaborate, but with statutory direction to understand the impacts of PFAS pesticides on California’s drinking water.

• 1. Addressing contamination in produce. Although the vast majority of produce residue DPR tests falls under the federal thresholds, it is unclear whether those thresholds consider the toxic endpoints associated with PFAS or are stringent enough to determine whether exposure is harmful. In many cases, state standards have been established to be more stringent and health-protective compared to federal standards. Committee staff is currently unaware of any state standards for produce residue. These questions warrant further investigation, which could also lead to a more targeted approach for interventions or the development of state-specific thresholds for certain constituents like PFAS.

1. Polluters pay: PFAS pesticide edition. The bill in print would still allow the use of pesticides with PFAS ingredients, even though they may be designated as restricted materials. Even as restricted materials, the use of these pesticides would likely be guaranteed. Both approaches would still potentially lead to the contamination of water sourced for drinking with PFAS and its degradants like TFA, without mechanisms that limit the exposure pathway. Even though it is unlikely that the cost pressures water systems face are directly related to the pesticides containing PFAS, water systems are still tasked with treating water that may expose humans and the environment to TFA potentially originating from pesticides. Further, with evolving science, it is possible that degradants from pesticides containing PFAS could become regulated under the SDWA. Water systems and ratepayers would still be subjected to higher costs in reaching regulatory compliance while pesticide companies would continue to benefit from sales.

Creating a tax or fee on pesticides that contain PFAS or their chemical suppliers could disincentive the purchase of products while generating a source of funds that could support water systems reach compliance with the six PFAS MCLs and eliminate all PFAS contamination from drinking water. This could create a market shift towards alternatives and drive innovation, while ensuring that growers have access to essential tools when necessary.

It should be noted that the funding needed for water systems is not indefinite. Aside from ongoing operation and maintenance costs, there is a fixed capital investment for each water system to upgrade their systems with technologies, such as reverse osmosis or ion exchange resins, to treat PFAS contaminated waters. Such a tax or fee can be designed to effectively phase out PFAS in pesticides, encourage the development of alternatives, and supplement funds for the necessary treatment infrastructure for water systems.

Previous legislation has sought to create or highlight a pot of funding for the purpose of supporting infrastructure upgrades for water systems, but without a source of funds (SB 454, McNerney, 2025; SB 1313, McNerney, 2026). The recent findings that PFAS in pesticides may be a major contributor to drinking water contamination and may continue to be for the meantime, presents an opportunity to create a source of funding to address contamination and related affordability impacts. The author and sponsors are encouraged to consider such approaches in future legislation.

1. Committee amendments. Staff recommends the committee adopt the bolded amendments contained in comment 2 above. Due to timing constraints, these changes must be amended into the bill as part of the actions taken by the next committee. Should the author commit to taking these amendments, the motion in this committee will be “do pass” with that understanding.

DOUBLE REFERRAL:

If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Committee on Agriculture.

Related/Prior Legislation

Related pesticide regulation legislation:

AB 2552 (Friedman, Chapter 581, Statutes of 2024) prohibits, as specified, the use of the rodenticides chlorophacinone and warfarin until DPR has completed a reevaluation and developed and adopted further restrictions on their use.

AB 1322 (Friedman, Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023) prohibits, as specified, the use of the rodenticide diphacinone until DPR has completed a reevaluation and developed and adopted further restrictions on its use.

AB 2146 (Bauer-Kahan, 2022) would have prohibited, beginning January 1, 2024, a person from selling, possessing, or using a neonicotinoid pesticide, as defined, for application to outdoor ornamental plants, trees, or turf, except for use on, or for the protection of, an agricultural commodity. This bill was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

AB 567 (Bauer-Kahan, 2021) would have prohibited, on and after January 1, 2024, the use of a neonicotinoid on a seed. The bill was not heard in the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials and the bill subsequently died on file.

AB 1788 (Bloom, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2020) prohibits, as specified, the use of the rodenticides brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone until DPR has completed a reevaluation of those pesticides and developed and adopted further restrictions on their use.

SB 458 (Durazo, 2019) would have prohibited the use of pesticides that contain chlorpyrifos in California until DPR adopts specified control measures for chlorpyrifos. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 1282 (Leno, 2016) would have prohibited the noncommercial use of neonicotinoids and would have required labeling, as specified, of all commercially available seeds and plants treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide. This bill failed passage on the Senate floor, was granted reconsideration, but subsequently died on file.

Related PFAS regulation legislation:

SB 682 (Allen, 2025) would have prohibited a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale five covered products that contain intentionally-added PFAS beginning January 1, 2028, and cookware containing intentionally-added PFAS beginning January 1, 2030. This bill was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

SB 903 (Skinner, 2024) would have prohibited the distribution, sale, or offering for sale products that contain intentionally added PFAS unless the use of PFAS is currently unavoidable and would have authorized DTSC to establish regulations to administer the prohibition. This bill was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file.

AB 2515 (Papan, Chapter 1008, Statutes of 2024) prohibits, as specified, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale a menstrual product that contains regulated PFAS, as defined.

AB 1817 (Ting, Chapter 762, Statutes of 2022) prohibits, beginning January 1, 2024, a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state a textile article, as defined, that contains regulated PFAS, and requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when removing regulated PFAS in textile articles to comply with the provisions of the bill.

AB 2771 (Friedman, Chapter 804, Statutes of 2022) prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added PFAS.

AB 1200 (Ting, Chapter 503, Statutes of 2021) prohibits, among other requirements, commencing January 1, 2023, the sale of food packaging that contains PFAS.

AB 652 (Freidman, Chapter 500, Statutes of 2021) prohibits, on or after July 1, 2023, a person from selling or distributing in commerce any new juvenile products that contain PFAS.

SB 1044 (Allen, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2020) prohibits the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of firefighting foam containing PFAS chemicals by January 1, 2022, with some exceptions, and requires notification of the presence of PFAS in the protective equipment of firefighters.

AB 841 (Ting, Chapter 372, Statutes of 2019) would have required OEHHA to assess PFAS substances, especially as they might be found in drinking water, to determine which might pose a potential risk to human health. The contents of this bill were deleted in the Senate and amended with unrelated content.

SOURCE:

Environmental Working Group

SUPPORT:

1000 Grandmothers for Future Generation

2100 Iff Strategies

350 Bay Area Action

Access to Thrive, INC

Acevedo Media LLC

Active San Gabriel Valley

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

American Nurses Association/california

Bay Area-system Change Not Climate Change

Benicia Good Neighbor Steering Committee

Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry

Beyond Pesticides

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California Environmental Justice Coalition

California Environmental Voters

California Farmer Justice Collaborative

California Federation of Teachers

California Food and Farming Network

California Health Coalition Advocacy

California Nurses Association

California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (crla Foundation)

California Water Association

Californians for Pesticide Reform

Calpirg, California Public Interest Research Group

Campaign for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture

Campesinas Unidas Del Valle De San Joaquin

Center for Biological Diversity

Center for Environmental Health

Center for Farmworker Families

Center for Food Safety

Center for Public Environmental Oversight

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

Central California Asthma Collaborative (CCAC)

Central California Environmental Justice Network

Ceres Community Project

Cft

Children Now

City of Sacramento Department of Utilities

Clean Air Coalition of North Whittier and Avocado Heights

Clean Water Action

Cleanearth4kids.org

Climate Action California

Climate Health Now Action Fund

Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety - Tulare

Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety 805

Communitiy Water Center

Consumer Attorneys of California

Cool Petaluma

Earthjustice

Encampment for Citizenship

Endangered Habitats League

Environmental Action Committee of West Marin

Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC)

Environmental Working Group

Erin Brockovich, INC.

Facts: Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety

Farm2people

Feather River Action!

Foodwise

Fresh Approach

Fresnans Against Fracking

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Friends of the Earth

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)

Gmo Science

Go Green Initiative

Green Science Policy Institute

Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice

Indivisible: LA Honda and Coastal Communities

Integrated Resource Management

Jacobs Farm

Klamath Forest Alliance

LA Waterkeeper

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

Lift Economy

Lymphoma Foundation of America

Maryland Pesticide Education Network

Mixteco/indigena Community Organizing Project (MICOP)

Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, Afl-cio

Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Non-toxic Neighborhoods

Northcoast Environmental Center

Parents Against Ssfl

Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network

Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles

Physicians for Social Responsibility/sacramento

Poison Free Malibu

Re:wild Your Campus

Recolte Energy

Resource Renewal Institute

Safe Ag Safe Schools

Safe Alternatives for Our Forest Environment

San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility

San Francisco Baykeeper

Seiu 521

Sierra Club California

Sierra Harvest

Socal 350 Climate Action

Sonoma County Conservation Action

Sonoma County Youth Environmental Action Committee

South Yuba River Citizens League

Sunflower Alliance

Sustainable Agriculture Education (SAGE)

Teamsters Local 856

The 5 Gyres Institute

The Transformation Co.

Topanga Town Council

Toxic Free North Carolina

Ufcw Local 5

Union of Concerned Scientists

Unite Here Local 11

Unite Here, Local 19

Valley Improvement Projects (VIP)

Water Replenishment District

West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs

Wholly H2o

OPPOSITION:

African American Farmers of California

Agricultural Council of California

Almond Alliance of California

American Chemistry Council

California Agricultural Aircraft Association

California Agricultural Commissioners & Sealers Association

California Association of Pest Control Advisers

California Association of Wheat Growers

California Bean Shippers Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association

California Farm Bureau Federation

California Fresh Fruit Association

California Grain & Feed Association

California League of Food Producers

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

California Pear Growers Association

California Seed Association

California Strawberry Commission

California Table Grape Commission

California Walnut Commission

California Warehouse Association

Chemical Industry Council of California

Croplife America

Golf Course Superintendents Association of America

Household and Commercial Products Association

Nisei Farmers League

Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment - Rise

United Ag

Western Growers Association

Western Plant Health Association

Western Tree Nut Association

-- END --

1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (2025). Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. ↑

2. Henry, B. J., et. al. (2018). A critical review of the application of polymer of low concern. ↑

3. Jacobs, S. A., et. al. (2024). Assessment of Fluoropolymer Production and Use With Analysis of Alternative Replacement Materials. ↑

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2026). Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS. ↑

5. Obsekov, V. (2023). Leveraging Systematic Reviews to Explore Disease Burden and Costs of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Exposures in the United States. ↑

6. Balan, S.A., et. al. (2021). Regulating PFAS as a Chemical Class under the California Safer Consumer Products Program. ↑

7. Bruce A. B., et. al. (2023). Assessing the scientific support for U.S. EPA pesticide regulatory policy governing active and inert ingredients. ↑

8. Donley, N., et. al. (2024). Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment. ↑

9. Environmental Working Group. (2025). 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides spread on California farmland annually. ↑

10. Joerss, H., et. al. (2024). Pesticides can be a substantial source of TFA to water resources. ↑

11. Arp, H. P. H., et. al. (2024). The Global Threat from the Irreversible Accumulation of Trifluoroacetic Acid. ↑

12. Environmental Working Group. (2026). California’s surface water and sediment are often contaminated with PFAS pesticides. ↑

13. Kibuye, F. (2023). Understanding PFAS – What they are, their impact, and what we can do. ↑

14. Environmental Working Group. (2019). Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ Detected in Drinking Water Supplies Across California. ↑

15. Environmental Working Group. (2026). ‘Forever Chemicals’ contaminate nearly 40% of non-organic California-grown produce. ↑

16. Department of Pesticide Regulation. (2026). What You Need to Know About PFAS and Pesticides in California. ↑

17. Department of Pesticide Regulation. (2023). California Pesticide Residue Monitoring Annual Report. ↑

18. Jiao, X., et. al. (2020). Uptake, accumulation and metabolism of PFASs in plants and health perspectives: A critical review. ↑

19. Department of Pesticide Regulation. California’s Restricted Materials Permitting Program. ↑

20. Department of Pesticide Regulation. Restricted Use Pesticides and Restricted Materials. ↑

21. Hart, J., et. al. (2025). Pesticide Restrictions and Registration Delays: Implications of California’s Sustainable Pest Management for the Lettuce Industry. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1603

Author:(Schultz)

As Amended Ver:May 21, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2035, the marketing, use, manufacture, or sale of pesticides registered for agricultural use that contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) pesticide ingredients, as defined; prohibits the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) from registering for agricultural use any new pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients; and places other prohibitions and restrictions on the marketing, use, manufacture, and sale of pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients.

Major Provisions

1. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2035, the marketing, use, manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offer for sale in commerce of any pesticide registered for agricultural use that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients, as specified; and, prohibits DPR from registering new pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients for agricultural use.
2. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2030, the marketing, use, manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offer for sale in commerce of any pesticide registered for agricultural use that contains one of 23 specified PFAS pesticide ingredients, as specified; and, prohibits DPR from registering pesticides that contain the 23 specified PFAS pesticide ingredients for agricultural use.
3. Deems, commencing July 1, 2028, a pesticide registered for agricultural use that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients to be a restricted material.
4. Requires, commencing July 1, 2028, the use permit for a PFAS-restricted material to state: "This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment."
5. Requires, commencing July 1, 2028, any public disclosure by DPR of the use of a PFAS-restricted material, including through DPR's SprayDays California program, to state: "This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment."
6. Prohibits DPR from registering a pesticide that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients that has not been previously registered by DPR.

COMMENTS

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): PFAS are synthetic, highly fluorinated substances that have been widely used in industrial and consumer applications for their heat, water, and lipid resistance properties for more than seven decades. During production, use, and disposal, PFAS can migrate into the soil, water, and air. Some PFAS are volatile, and can be carried long distances through the air, leading to contamination of soils and groundwater far from the emission source. Researchers have found PFAS in indoor and outdoor environments, plants, soil, food, drinking water, wildlife, companion animals, production animals, and humans at locations across the nation and around the globe. PFAS are extremely persistent and degrade very slowly over time, which has resulted in their accumulation in the environment since the onset of their production in the late 1940s. Currently, nearly 15,000 PFAS chemicals are included in the chemicals database CompTox, which is maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).

Exposure to PFAS: The main route of exposure to PFAS is through ingestion of contaminated food or liquid (accounting for up to half of total exposure), through contact with consumer products, and through inhalation and ingestion of contaminated indoor air and dust. Food can become contaminated with PFAS through soil and water used to grow the food, food packaging containing PFAS, and equipment that uses PFAS during processing. Some foods, such as fish, meat, eggs, and leafy vegetables, may contain PFAS due to bioaccumulation and crop uptake. Studies have shown that PFAS can transfer from pregnant mothers to their fetuses via the placenta during gestation, as well as transfer from nursing mothers to their infants via breastfeeding. Dermal exposure is also possible when people touch products treated with PFAS, such as carpets or clothing. Young children may be exposed to higher levels of PFAS than adults because they ingest more dust containing PFAS and mouth PFAS-treated consumer products. Workers, such as carpet installers, carpet cleaners, firefighters, and workers in furniture, furnishings, outdoor clothing, and carpet stores, may also experience above average PFAS exposure levels. Exposure to PFAS in drinking water is an escalating concern due to the persistence of PFAS chemicals in the environment and their tendency to accumulate in groundwater. In 2022, PFAS were detected in 79% of the 150 public water systems tested throughout California.

Hazard traits of PFAS: According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), all PFAS display at least one of the hazard traits identified in California's Safer Consumer Products Hazard Traits Regulations. An intrinsic property of PFAS is the extreme environmental persistence of the individual compounds, their degradation products, or both, resulting in their classification as "forever chemicals." Most PFAS are mobile in environmental media such as air and water, and thus are widespread in living organisms and the environment.

Scientific studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS can lead to adverse health outcomes in humans and animals. DTSC states that if humans are exposed to PFAS through diet, drinking water, or inhalation, some of these chemicals remain in the body for a long time. As people continue to be exposed to PFAS, the PFAS levels in their bodies may increase to the point that they suffer adverse health effects. According to the US EPA, current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to: reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; reduced ability of the body's immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response; interference with the body's natural hormones; and, increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity. In addition to direct human health impacts, some PFAS may have high global warming potential. Also, several PFAS bioaccumulate significantly in animals or plants and emerging evidence points to their phytotoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity.

The persistence and proliferation of PFAS chemicals makes it challenging to study and assess the cumulative potential human health and environmental risks of PFAS exposure.

PFAS in pesticides: The scientists that drafted the 2021 Environmental Health Perspective article, "Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment," found that of the 471 unique, conventional pesticide active ingredients (AIs) that are currently registered in the U.S., 107 (23%) contained at least one carbon-fluorine bond and 66 (14%) are PFAS. The study also found that fluorination is a recent trend among new registrations of pesticide AIs. Of the 54 conventional AIs that had been approved from 2012 to 2021, the proportion of fluorination increased dramatically with 33 (61%) classified as organofluorines and 16 (30%) as PFAS. In addition to the AIs identified by the study as "intentional" PFAS pesticides; eight inert ingredients are PFAS registered for use in pesticides. Additionally, the authors of the study found that pesticides likely further accumulate PFAS contamination from leaching from fluorinated containers and other as-yet-undetermined sources.

DPR indicates there are 53 pesticides with at least one fully fluorinated carbon registered in California, and 1,153 products currently registered for use in California that contain at least one of the 53 pesticides. US EPA appears to have registered nearly 20 additional PFAS pesticides that have not yet been approved for use in California.

PFAS pesticide use in California: A 2025 analysis by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that California agricultural fields are treated with an average of 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides every year, and that between 2018 and 2023, nearly 15 million pounds of PFAS pesticides were applied to California farmland, according to data from DPR. Through their analysis, EWG found that PFAS pesticides are being used most heavily on some of California's most iconic and lucrative crops, such as almonds, pistachios, wine grapes, alfalfa and tomatoes. The analysis further revealed that 85% of PFAS pesticides used in the state were used for crop production. The remaining 15% were used for various structural practices, such as insecticide for termite control, herbicide for landscape maintenance, and rodenticide. EWG reports that among the most frequently applied pesticides are bifenthrin and trifluralin, which it states have been banned in the European Union due to health and environmental concerns.

Potential impacts of PFAS in pesticides: The authors of the 2021 Environmental Health Perspective article state, "It is our view that PFAS in pesticides, particularly PFAS active ingredients, may be having unintended impacts on environmental and public health that must be mitigated or eliminated to prevent irreversible impacts… The long-term impacts of using mixtures of extremely persistent chemicals on potentially hundreds of millions of acres of US land every year is, to us, a cause for concern. Most, if not all, PFAS in pesticide products or their degradates are going to be chronic persistent pollutants for the foreseeable future of humanity, and their ultimate impact on human and environmental health are largely unknown." The authors identified examples of potential consequences of PFAS in pesticides such as immunotoxicity (studies of impacts on the immune system indicate that it is one of the most sensitive targets of PFAS exposure, and both the US EPA and the European Food Safety Authority have identified immunotoxicity as the most potent adverse effect to humans from exposure to certain PFAS); environmental fate (all PFAS contain perfluoroalkyl moieties that are highly stable in the environment); water contamination (PFAS have been found in US streams, lakes, and rivers, often at levels that exceed aquatic safety thresholds); and, total organic fluorine in the environment (new or unidentified PFAS are increasingly contributing to the overall organofluorine exposure to people and the environment).

This bill: This bill prohibits, commencing January 1, 2035, the marketing, use, manufacture, or sale of pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients for agricultural use; prohibits, commencing January 1, 2030, the marketing, use, manufacture, or sale of 23 pesticides for agricultural use that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients that the author contends are prohibited or restricted in the European Union; prohibits DPR from registering new pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients; and, places other prohibitions and restrictions on the use, manufacture, and sale of pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients. This bill also deems, commencing July 1, 2028, a pesticide registered for agricultural use that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients as a restricted material that can only be used in accordance with current restricted material law. Additionally, the bill requires the use permit for a PFAS-restricted material to state: "This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment."

Alternatives to PFAS in pesticides. Should this bill be signed into law as drafted today, 53 PFAS pesticide AIs, which are currently registered for use in scores products in California, will be prohibited for agricultural use California by 2035. Additionally, no other PFAS pesticides will be registered for agricultural use in the state in the future.

Supporters of the bill point to integrated pest management (IPM) for potential solutions for many of the current pest problems addressed by PFAS pesticides. According to the University of California Statewide IPM Program, IPM is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment. Supporters also point to other chemistries that may have less potential for harm as alternatives to pesticides that contain PFAS, such as some organic-approved pesticide alternatives or other conventional chemistries.

Opponents of the bill argue that PFAS in pesticides serve important, targeted functions, and that, due to their unique properties, less overall PFAS pesticide is often needed than pesticides without PFAS. They also argue that prohibiting PFAS pesticides could prompt a shift toward, "Older chemistries that may require higher application rates and carry different environmental or public health risks that must be mitigated; broader-spectrum pesticides that are less targeted and may have greater impacts on non-target organisms; and, less effective tools that increase the risk of pest resistance, damage or loss."

Should the prohibition on PFAS pesticides in this bill be enacted without corresponding requirements for, or support of, an integrated pest management approach to pests managed by the prohibited PFAS chemicals, it is possible that the use of higher risk alternatives could increase. Instituting stronger state support of, or requirements for, integrated pesticide management approaches to pest control would likely reduce the use of pesticides overall.

As this bill moves through the legislative process, special effort should be made to understand and address the potential for regrettable substitutions to PFAS in pesticides.

According to the Author

"PFAS pesticides are being spread in large quantities across our most valuable agricultural land and on our most popular crops. These chemicals are highly persistent, take a very long time to break down, and can contaminate soil and ground water for years to come. In addition, PFAS are associated with a range of serious health harms. Very low doses of PFAS in drinking water have been linked to the suppression of the immune system and are associated with an elevated risk of cancer, increased cholesterol, and reproductive and developmental harms, among other serious health concerns. For most people, food and drinking water are the primary routes of exposure to PFAS. That makes the use of these chemicals in agriculture especially concerning; PFAS do not belong on our food or dinner tables. We should not eat them. We need to end the use of these very problematic pesticides now."

Arguments in Support

A coalition of environmental, environmental justice, public health, consumer protection, and labor organizations write in support,

"… Since California grows over half of the nation's produce, …findings suggest that Californians and families across the United States are regularly exposed to PFAS pesticides in their food. These findings also raise serious concerns around environmental and health-related harms associated with such broad PFAS pesticide applications.

…Despite these risks, California's regulatory infrastructure does not accurately characterize or regulate PFAS pesticides and is not equipped to address the magnitude of potential widespread PFAS contamination of water and soil. Already, state monitoring indicates that PFAS pesticides are frequently detected in surface waters, sediment and wastewater influent and effluent.

… PFAS are highly persistent, move easily in the environment, and do not break down in the environment… Their environmental and human impacts can span decades to centuries, as they contaminate ground and surface water, soil, and air.

…PFAS can also harm wildlife, with research showing PFAS chemicals are linked to tumors in animals and lower reproductive rates in birds. Honeybee populations exposed to very low concentrations of Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), one type of PFAS, halted all brood-rearing in the colony, reduced or stopped resource gathering, impaired activity, and significantly decreased hive population size.

…PFAS chemicals are linked to a litany of adverse health effects, including elevated risks of cancer, high cholesterol, immune dysfunction, developmental delays, and reproductive harm. According to the US EPA, food ingestion is a major human exposure route. Given that 37% of California-grown non-organic produce is tainted with PFAS pesticides, PFAS pesticides are a significant source of our food-derived exposure. Agricultural runoff also serves as a major source of PFAS contamination in waterways, where these 'forever chemicals' bioaccumulate through the food chain, creating significant health risks for fish consumers. Further, the release of PFAS pesticides into the environment may contribute to the PFAS detected in drinking water systems serving 25.4 million Californians. Millions of Californians are cumulatively exposed to PFAS chemicals, warranting expedited measures to decrease PFAS-related exposures.

…Counties with the highest PFAS application rates also have high percentages of Latino farmworker populations, who are on the frontlines of PFAS pollution and live or work near fields that regularly apply PFAS pesticides. This is truly concerning, as these populations are already disproportionately exposed to toxic pesticides as well as other PFAS exposure routes, such as in-field crop residues and pesticide handling.

…The widespread presence of PFAS pesticides on California-grown produce underscores a concerning and largely unaddressed gap in pesticide oversight and PFAS use reductions..."

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of farm, commercial, residential and industrial users, pest management professionals, and manufacturers writes in opposition,

"California's agricultural industry produces nearly $50 billion in revenue annually, and grows half of the country's fruits and vegetables, including 400 commodity crops. However, growers in the state face significant and increasing challenges including competition from growers out of state and out of the country, where pesticides containing PFAS would still be legal if AB 1603 passed, creating another significant obstacle to growing crops economically and with a high enough yield to remain profitable. If AB 1603 were to become law, produce with detectable levels of PFAS, below federally established tolerances, would still be legally sold to residents.

…Fluorinated chemistries in pesticides are designed to provide critical performance characteristics, including improved chemical stability, efficacy at low use rates, and highly targeted pest control... As a result, these products often enable more precise applications with lower overall use rates, helping to minimize environmental loading. Importantly, the fluorinated chemistries used in pesticide active ingredients, inert or adjuvants are structurally and functionally distinct from legacy PFAS compounds associated with widespread environmental persistence and bioaccumulation concerns. A blanket restriction fails to account for these important scientific distinctions and the role these chemistries play in enabling effective and efficient pest management.

… Pesticides are among the most rigorously reviewed products in commerce, including for the presence of PFAS. Before any active ingredient can be registered, [US EPA] conducts extensive evaluations of human health, environmental fate, and ecological risk. In California, [DPR] applies an additional layer of review that is widely recognized as the most stringent in the nation.

…Recent claims regarding PFAS pesticide residues, such as those advanced by the bill sponsor, lack important scientific context. These claims rely on DPR monitoring data but misinterpret what detection means in a regulatory framework. Detection of residues does not equate to risk… Failing to distinguish between presence and risk and ignoring context results in misleading conclusions and poor policymaking.

…The bill also asserts that the listed "twenty-three of the California-approved PFAS pesticides are not allowed to be used in the European Union." This assertion is inaccurate. In many cases, active ingredients are not approved in the European Union due to data gaps, lack of registrant support, or differing regulatory frameworks, not because of PFAS content...

…AB 1603 would effectively eliminate a broad range of pesticide products used across agriculture, structural pest control, and public health tools. The scale of impact would be substantial. California agriculture is under threat of climatic changes that foster pest cycles that are new and more difficult to manage as well as rapidly changing interstate and international commerce patterns that bring multiple opportunities for highly problematic agricultural pests and invasive species to enter food production regions."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, enactment of a previous version of this bill would result in the following fiscal impacts, among others (please see the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis for more detailed information):

1. Ongoing annual workload costs to DPR of approximately $778,000 for four staff, operating expenses, and equipment to implement the requirements of the bill.
2. Decreased revenue, likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, to the DPR Fund, resulting from a decrease in pesticide product registrations and renewals and a decrease in collection of the mill assessment.
3. An annual revenue loss of between $500,000 and $800,000, to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA).
4. Costs of between $2 million and $3 million annually due to the loss of use of bifenthrin for spotted lanternfly management; and, costs of $2.4 million annually due to loss of the primary tool for CDFA's Hydrilla Eradication Program, per CDFA.
5. Loss of about $1.5 million annually from a reduction in state-mandated assessment revenue, per CDFA.
6. Increased workload and costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount to County Agricultural Commissioners to identify and take enforcement action on potential violations and to refer cases to DPR for investigation and enforcement.
7. Costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount to Department of Justice (DOJ) to respond to increased referrals from DPR (its client agency) relating to client representation and litigation arising from this bill.

VOTES

ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 5-2-0

YES: Connolly, Bauer-Kahan, Lee, McKinnor, Papan

NO: Ellis, Castillo

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-4-1

YES: Wicks, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache

NO: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Pacheco

UPDATED

VERSION: May 21, 2026

CONSULTANT: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0003102

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1603

Author:(Schultz)

As Amended Ver:May 18, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2035, the marketing, use, manufacture, or sale of pesticides that contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) pesticide ingredients for agricultural use; prohibits the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) from registering for agricultural use any new pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients; and places other prohibitions and restrictions on the marketing, use, manufacture, and sale of pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients.

Major Provisions

1. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2035, the marketing, use, manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offer for sale in commerce of any pesticide that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients for agricultural use; and, prohibits DPR from registering new pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients for agricultural use.
2. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2030, the marketing, use, manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offer for sale in commerce of any pesticide that contains one of 23 specified PFAS pesticide ingredients for agricultural use; and, prohibits DPR from registering pesticides that contain the 23 specified PFAS pesticide ingredients for agricultural use.
3. Deems, commencing July 1, 2028, a registered pesticide containing PFAS pesticide ingredients to be a restricted material.
4. Requires, commencing July 1, 2028, the use permit for a PFAS-restricted material to state: "This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment."
5. Requires, commencing July 1, 2028, any public disclosure by DPR of the use of a PFAS-restricted material, including through DPR's SprayDays California program, to state: "This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment."
6. Prohibits DPR from registering a pesticide that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients that has not been previously registered by DPR.

COMMENTS

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): PFAS are synthetic, highly fluorinated substances that have been widely used in industrial and consumer applications for their heat, water, and lipid resistance properties for more than seven decades. During production, use, and disposal, PFAS can migrate into the soil, water, and air. Some PFAS are volatile, and can be carried long distances through the air, leading to contamination of soils and groundwater far from the emission source. Researchers have found PFAS in indoor and outdoor environments, plants, soil, food, drinking water, wildlife, companion animals, production animals, and humans at locations across the nation and around the globe. PFAS are extremely persistent and degrade very slowly over time, which has resulted in their accumulation in the environment since the onset of their production in the late 1940s. Currently, nearly 15,000 PFAS chemicals are included in the chemicals database CompTox, which is maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).

Exposure to PFAS: The main route of exposure to PFAS is through ingestion of contaminated food or liquid (accounting for up to half of total exposure), through contact with consumer products, and through inhalation and ingestion of contaminated indoor air and dust. Food can become contaminated with PFAS through soil and water used to grow the food, food packaging containing PFAS, and equipment that uses PFAS during processing. Some foods, such as fish, meat, eggs, and leafy vegetables, may contain PFAS due to bioaccumulation and crop uptake. Studies have shown that PFAS can transfer from pregnant mothers to their fetuses via the placenta during gestation, as well as transfer from nursing mothers to their infants via breastfeeding. Dermal exposure is also possible when people touch products treated with PFAS, such as carpets or clothing. Young children may be exposed to higher levels of PFAS than adults because they ingest more dust containing PFAS and mouth PFAS-treated consumer products. Workers, such as carpet installers, carpet cleaners, firefighters, and workers in furniture, furnishings, outdoor clothing, and carpet stores, may also experience above average PFAS exposure levels. Exposure to PFAS in drinking water is an escalating concern due to the persistence of PFAS chemicals in the environment and their tendency to accumulate in groundwater. In 2022, PFAS were detected in 79% of the 150 public water systems tested throughout California.

Hazard traits of PFAS: According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), all PFAS display at least one of the hazard traits identified in California's Safer Consumer Products Hazard Traits Regulations. An intrinsic property of PFAS is the extreme environmental persistence of the individual compounds, their degradation products, or both, resulting in their classification as "forever chemicals." Most PFAS are mobile in environmental media such as air and water, and thus are widespread in living organisms and the environment.

Scientific studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS can lead to adverse health outcomes in humans and animals. DTSC states that if humans are exposed to PFAS through diet, drinking water, or inhalation, some of these chemicals remain in the body for a long time. As people continue to be exposed to PFAS, the PFAS levels in their bodies may increase to the point that they suffer adverse health effects. According to the US EPA, current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to: reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; reduced ability of the body's immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response; interference with the body's natural hormones; and, increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity. In addition to direct human health impacts, some PFAS may have high global warming potential. Also, several PFAS bioaccumulate significantly in animals or plants and emerging evidence points to their phytotoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity.

The persistence and proliferation of PFAS chemicals makes it challenging to study and assess the cumulative potential human health and environmental risks of PFAS exposure.

PFAS in pesticides: The scientists that drafted the 2021 Environmental Health Perspective article, "Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment," found that of the 471 unique, conventional pesticide active ingredients (AIs) that are currently registered in the U.S., 107 (23%) contained at least one carbon-fluorine bond and 66 (14%) are PFAS. The study also found that fluorination is a recent trend among new registrations of pesticide AIs. Of the 54 conventional AIs that had been approved from 2012 to 2021, the proportion of fluorination increased dramatically with 33 (61%) classified as organofluorines and 16 (30%) as PFAS. In addition to the AIs identified by the study as "intentional" PFAS pesticides; eight inert ingredients are PFAS registered for use in pesticides. Additionally, the authors of the study found that pesticides likely further accumulate PFAS contamination from leaching from fluorinated containers and other as-yet-undetermined sources.

DPR indicates there are 53 pesticides with at least one fully fluorinated carbon registered in California, and 1,153 products currently registered for use in California that contain at least one of the 53 pesticides. US EPA appears to have registered nearly 20 additional PFAS pesticides that have not yet been approved for use in California.

PFAS pesticide use in California: A 2025 analysis by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that California agricultural fields are treated with an average of 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides every year, and that between 2018 and 2023, nearly 15 million pounds of PFAS pesticides were applied to California farmland, according to data from DPR. Through their analysis, EWG found that PFAS pesticides are being used most heavily on some of California's most iconic and lucrative crops, such as almonds, pistachios, wine grapes, alfalfa and tomatoes. The analysis further revealed that 85% of PFAS pesticides used in the state were used for crop production. The remaining 15% were used for various structural practices, such as insecticide for termite control, herbicide for landscape maintenance, and rodenticide. EWG reports that among the most frequently applied pesticides are bifenthrin and trifluralin, which it states have been banned in the European Union due to health and environmental concerns.

Potential impacts of PFAS in pesticides: The authors of the 2021 Environmental Health Perspective article state, "It is our view that PFAS in pesticides, particularly PFAS active ingredients, may be having unintended impacts on environmental and public health that must be mitigated or eliminated to prevent irreversible impacts… The long-term impacts of using mixtures of extremely persistent chemicals on potentially hundreds of millions of acres of US land every year is, to us, a cause for concern. Most, if not all, PFAS in pesticide products or their degradates are going to be chronic persistent pollutants for the foreseeable future of humanity, and their ultimate impact on human and environmental health are largely unknown." The authors identified examples of potential consequences of PFAS in pesticides such as immunotoxicity (studies of impacts on the immune system indicate that it is one of the most sensitive targets of PFAS exposure, and both the US EPA and the European Food Safety Authority have identified immunotoxicity as the most potent adverse effect to humans from exposure to certain PFAS); environmental fate (all PFAS contain perfluoroalkyl moieties that are highly stable in the environment); water contamination (PFAS have been found in US streams, lakes, and rivers, often at levels that exceed aquatic safety thresholds); and, total organic fluorine in the environment (new or unidentified PFAS are increasingly contributing to the overall organofluorine exposure to people and the environment).

This bill: This bill prohibits, commencing January 1, 2035, the marketing, use, manufacture, or sale of pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients; prohibits, commencing January 1, 2030, the marketing, use, manufacture, or sale of 23 pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients that the author contends are prohibited or restricted in the European Union; prohibits DPR from registering new pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients; and, places other prohibitions and restrictions on the use, manufacture, and sale of pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients. This bill also deems, commencing July 1, 2028, a pesticide that contains PFAS pesticide ingredients as a restricted material that can only be used in accordance with current restricted material law. Additionally, the bill requires the use permit for a PFAS-restricted material to state: "This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment."

Alternatives to PFAS in pesticides. Should this bill be signed into law as drafted today, 53 PFAS pesticide AIs, which are currently registered for use in scores products in California, will be prohibited for agricultural use or for marketing, sale, or manufacture for agricultural use in California by 2035. Additionally, no other PFAS pesticides will be registered for sale or for agricultural use in the state in the future.

Supporters of the bill point to integrated pest management (IPM) for potential solutions for many of the current pest problems addressed by PFAS pesticides. According to the University of California Statewide IPM Program, IPM is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment. Supporters also point to other chemistries that may have less potential for harm as alternatives to pesticides that contain PFAS, such as some organic-approved pesticide alternatives or other conventional chemistries.

Opponents of the bill argue that PFAS in pesticides serve important, targeted functions, and that, due to their unique properties, less overall PFAS pesticide is often needed than pesticides without PFAS. They also argue that prohibiting PFAS pesticides could prompt a shift toward, "Older chemistries that may require higher application rates and carry different environmental or public health risks that must be mitigated; broader-spectrum pesticides that are less targeted and may have greater impacts on non-target organisms; and, less effective tools that increase the risk of pest resistance, damage or loss."

Should the prohibition on PFAS pesticides in this bill be enacted without corresponding requirements for, or support of, an integrated pest management approach to pests managed by the prohibited PFAS chemicals, it is possible that the use of higher risk alternatives could increase. Instituting stronger state support of, or requirements for, integrated pesticide management approaches to pest control would likely reduce the use of pesticides overall.

As this bill moves through the legislative process, special effort should be made to understand and address the potential for regrettable substitutions to PFAS in pesticides.

According to the Author

"PFAS pesticides are being spread in large quantities across our most valuable agricultural land and on our most popular crops. These chemicals are highly persistent, take a very long time to break down, and can contaminate soil and ground water for years to come. In addition, PFAS are associated with a range of serious health harms. Very low doses of PFAS in drinking water have been linked to the suppression of the immune system and are associated with an elevated risk of cancer, increased cholesterol, and reproductive and developmental harms, among other serious health concerns. For most people, food and drinking water are the primary routes of exposure to PFAS. That makes the use of these chemicals in agriculture especially concerning; PFAS do not belong on our food or dinner tables. We should not eat them. We need to end the use of these very problematic pesticides now."

Arguments in Support

A coalition of environmental, environmental justice, public health, consumer protection, and labor organizations write in support,

"… Since California grows over half of the nation's produce, …findings suggest that Californians and families across the United States are regularly exposed to PFAS pesticides in their food. These findings also raise serious concerns around environmental and health-related harms associated with such broad PFAS pesticide applications.

…Despite these risks, California's regulatory infrastructure does not accurately characterize or regulate PFAS pesticides and is not equipped to address the magnitude of potential widespread PFAS contamination of water and soil. Already, state monitoring indicates that PFAS pesticides are frequently detected in surface waters, sediment and wastewater influent and effluent.

… PFAS are highly persistent, move easily in the environment, and do not break down in the environment… Their environmental and human impacts can span decades to centuries, as they contaminate ground and surface water, soil, and air.

…PFAS can also harm wildlife, with research showing PFAS chemicals are linked to tumors in animals and lower reproductive rates in birds. Honeybee populations exposed to very low concentrations of Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), one type of PFAS, halted all brood-rearing in the colony, reduced or stopped resource gathering, impaired activity, and significantly decreased hive population size.

…PFAS chemicals are linked to a litany of adverse health effects, including elevated risks of cancer, high cholesterol, immune dysfunction, developmental delays, and reproductive harm. According to the US EPA, food ingestion is a major human exposure route. Given that 37% of California-grown non-organic produce is tainted with PFAS pesticides, PFAS pesticides are a significant source of our food-derived exposure. Agricultural runoff also serves as a major source of PFAS contamination in waterways, where these 'forever chemicals' bioaccumulate through the food chain, creating significant health risks for fish consumers. Further, the release of PFAS pesticides into the environment may contribute to the PFAS detected in drinking water systems serving 25.4 million Californians. Millions of Californians are cumulatively exposed to PFAS chemicals, warranting expedited measures to decrease PFAS-related exposures.

…Counties with the highest PFAS application rates also have high percentages of Latino farmworker populations, who are on the frontlines of PFAS pollution and live or work near fields that regularly apply PFAS pesticides. This is truly concerning, as these populations are already disproportionately exposed to toxic pesticides as well as other PFAS exposure routes, such as in-field crop residues and pesticide handling.

…The widespread presence of PFAS pesticides on California-grown produce underscores a concerning and largely unaddressed gap in pesticide oversight and PFAS use reductions..."

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of farm, commercial, residential and industrial users, pest management professionals, and manufacturers writes in opposition,

"California's agricultural industry produces nearly $50 billion in revenue annually, and grows half of the country's fruits and vegetables, including 400 commodity crops. However, growers in the state face significant and increasing challenges including competition from growers out of state and out of the country, where pesticides containing PFAS would still be legal if AB 1603 passed, creating another significant obstacle to growing crops economically and with a high enough yield to remain profitable. If AB 1603 were to become law, produce with detectable levels of PFAS, below federally established tolerances, would still be legally sold to residents.

…Fluorinated chemistries in pesticides are designed to provide critical performance characteristics, including improved chemical stability, efficacy at low use rates, and highly targeted pest control... As a result, these products often enable more precise applications with lower overall use rates, helping to minimize environmental loading. Importantly, the fluorinated chemistries used in pesticide active ingredients, inert or adjuvants are structurally and functionally distinct from legacy PFAS compounds associated with widespread environmental persistence and bioaccumulation concerns. A blanket restriction fails to account for these important scientific distinctions and the role these chemistries play in enabling effective and efficient pest management.

… Pesticides are among the most rigorously reviewed products in commerce, including for the presence of PFAS. Before any active ingredient can be registered, [US EPA] conducts extensive evaluations of human health, environmental fate, and ecological risk. In California, [DPR] applies an additional layer of review that is widely recognized as the most stringent in the nation.

…Recent claims regarding PFAS pesticide residues, such as those advanced by the bill sponsor, lack important scientific context. These claims rely on DPR monitoring data but misinterpret what detection means in a regulatory framework. Detection of residues does not equate to risk… Failing to distinguish between presence and risk and ignoring context results in misleading conclusions and poor policymaking.

…The bill also asserts that the listed "twenty-three of the California-approved PFAS pesticides are not allowed to be used in the European Union." This assertion is inaccurate. In many cases, active ingredients are not approved in the European Union due to data gaps, lack of registrant support, or differing regulatory frameworks, not because of PFAS content...

…AB 1603 would effectively eliminate a broad range of pesticide products used across agriculture, structural pest control, and public health tools. The scale of impact would be substantial. California agriculture is under threat of climatic changes that foster pest cycles that are new and more difficult to manage as well as rapidly changing interstate and international commerce patterns that bring multiple opportunities for highly problematic agricultural pests and invasive species to enter food production regions."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, enactment of the previous version of this bill would result in the following fiscal impacts, among others (please see the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis for more detailed information):

1. Ongoing annual workload costs to DPR of approximately $778,000 for four staff, operating expenses, and equipment to implement the requirements of the bill.
2. Decreased revenue, likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, to the DPR Fund, resulting from a decrease in pesticide product registrations and renewals and a decrease in collection of the mill assessment.
3. An annual revenue loss of between $500,000 and $800,000, to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA).
4. Costs of between $2 million and $3 million annually due to the loss of use of bifenthrin for spotted lanternfly management; and, costs of $2.4 million annually due to loss of the primary tool for CDFA's Hydrilla Eradication Program, per CDFA.
5. Loss of about $1.5 million annually from a reduction in state-mandated assessment revenue, per CDFA.
6. Increased workload and costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount to County Agricultural Commissioners to identify and take enforcement action on potential violations and to refer cases to DPR for investigation and enforcement.
7. Costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount to Department of Justice (DOJ) to respond to increased referrals from DPR (its client agency) relating to client representation and litigation arising from this bill.

VOTES

ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 5-2-0

YES: Connolly, Bauer-Kahan, Lee, McKinnor, Papan

NO: Ellis, Castillo

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-4-1

YES: Wicks, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache

NO: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Pacheco

UPDATED

VERSION: May 18, 2026

CONSULTANT: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0003013

Date of Hearing: May 6, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1603

Author:(Schultz) – As Amended Ver:April 6, 2026