California Scales Back Pesticide PFAS Bill, Enacts Disclosure-Only Law

/in , , ,

On September 27, 2026, California enacted legislation requiring the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to disclose the presence of PFAS in pesticides, defined as substances containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

The chaptered version of AB 1603 is far narrower than an earlier iteration. As amended in March 2026, the bill would have prohibited the registration or re-registration of pesticides with intentionally added PFAS, imposed labeling requirements, and phased out PFAS in pesticides altogether. More on those proposed requirements can be found in a previous post.

As chaptered, the law instead requires DPR to:

  1. Indicate if a pesticide contains PFAS ingredients in its pesticide use reporting database and add PFAS as a category of interest in the database;
  2. Include PFAS trends in its annual pesticide use report and other relevant reporting documents; and
  3. Publish a list of all registered pesticides containing PFAS on its website and submit it to local officials.

The disclosures apply beyond active ingredients. Specifically, they apply to PFAS intentionally added to a pesticide as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients.

Notably, despite its narrowed scope, the legislation declares the Legislature’s intent to “[b]egin phasing out the use of PFAS pesticides and take additional steps to address other PFAS in pesticides.”

The database update is required on or before January 1, 2028, or the posting of the pesticide use reporting database containing 2026 data, whichever comes first, and annually thereafter. The list of registered pesticides containing PFAS is also due January 1, 2028, and must be updated within 60 days of the registration of a new pesticide containing PFAS.

California Governor Vetoes Recycled-Content Substantiation Bill

/in , ,

On September 27, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 2253 (“AB 2253”), legislation intended to strengthen substantiation requirements for recycled-content claims made on consumer products.

In his veto message, Governor Newsom expressed concern that expanding recycled-content documentation requirements would unduly burden manufacturers and suppliers already facing economic pressures “caused by federal tariff and trade policy actions.” He stated that adding new compliance requirements could compound those pressures while providing limited additional benefit to consumers.

What AB 2253 Would Have Done

California law currently requires manufacturers and suppliers making recycled-content claims about plastic food containers to maintain documentation supporting those claims. Manufacturers must document that the claimed recycled material was diverted from the waste stream during the manufacturing process or after consumer use, and that the claim complies with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides.

AB 2253 would have expanded these requirements to all products making voluntary recycled-content claims beginning January 1, 2030.

The bill also would have imposed more specific substantiation requirements. A recycled-content claim could not exceed the amount of third-party-certified recycled content introduced into the manufacturer’s or supplier’s overall supply stream for the material used in that product line. Claims would also have been required to rely on specified chain-of-custody methodologies for calculating recycled content.

For products other than plastic food containers, manufacturers and suppliers would have been required to provide supporting documentation to the California Attorney General upon request if the Attorney General suspected a violation. The bill also provided an option for manufacturers and suppliers to use qualified independent third-party auditors to review their recycled-content accounting and supporting records.

Governor Newsom’s veto leaves California’s existing requirements for recycled-content claims applicable to plastic food container products in place, rather than extending the proposed substantiation framework to recycled-content claims across all product categories.

Competing Views

Supporters of AB 2253 argued that the additional requirements were necessary to prevent misleading recycled-content claims. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, the bill’s author, argued that some companies use recycled-content credits and accounting mechanisms to make claims that do not accurately reflect the recycled material used in their products.

Californians Against Waste, which sponsored AB 2253, criticized the veto as a missed opportunity to bring greater truth and accountability to recycled-content claims. Kayla Robinson, the organization’s Legislative Director, argued that consumers should be able to expect a “made with recycled content” claim to reflect recycled material actually used in the product, rather than recycled-content credits or other accounting mechanisms.

Federal Legislation on Recycled-Content Claims

The veto also comes amid federal efforts to address how recycled-content claims may be substantiated. The proposed Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026 (H.R.7502) would prohibit misleading recycled-content advertising while expressly recognizing mass-balance accounting as an acceptable method for substantiating recycled-content claims when used in accordance with a third-party certification system. The federal bill would also direct the FTC to update the Green Guides and issue guidance establishing a framework for mass-balance recycled-content claims.

On September 16, 2026, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 28-0 to order the bill reported to the full House.

The differing approaches reflect an ongoing debate over how recycled-content claims should be substantiated while providing consumers with accurate information.

Spray Foam Producer Challenges California’s Compelled Research Funding

/in , , , ,

A producer of spray polyurethane foam is mounting a constitutional challenge to a California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) action requiring the company to fund research into replacement technology.

At issue is a DTSC determination requiring producers of spray foam to pay two cents for every pound sold in California into a fund supporting a green research grant. According to the plaintiff, Quadrant Performance Materials, the grant may be used either to develop spray foam containing less unreacted methylene diphenyl diisocyanates (MDI) or to reengineer the tools used to apply spray foam to reduce MDI exposures.

In a complaint filed September 21, 2026, Quadrant says it cannot conduct its own research with the grant money, is ineligible to receive a grant, has no say in what or how the recipient conducts its research, and has no right to use or profit from any resulting innovation.

“DTSC has left Quadrant with a Hobson’s choice: fund research aimed at replacing its own product—using methods and assumptions it has no control over, and that could put it out of business—or stop selling spray foam in California,” the complaint states.

Quadrant alleges that the requirement violates the First Amendment because it compels the company to subsidize speech and research with which it disagrees. It also alleges violations of the dormant Commerce Clause and Import-Export Clause, contending that the requirement unlawfully burdens interstate commerce and imposes a duty on goods brought into California from other states.

Regulatory Background

The lawsuit arises under California’s Safer Consumer Products Program (SCP), which allows DTSC to regulate “priority products” containing “candidate chemicals.”

MDI is one such candidate chemical. In 2014, DTSC identified spray foam products containing MDI as a priority product based on concerns that unreacted MDI in spray foam might cause workplace asthma. Quadrant, however, states that “DTSC has never identified a single person” harmed by spray foam products in the state.

According to the complaint, Quadrant submitted an abridged alternatives analysis to DTSC in 2025 that did not identify any feasible alternatives. In May 2026, DTSC issued a final determination imposing requirements on the continued sale of spray foam containing MDI in California. In addition to the green research fund fees, those requirements include labeling and training provisions that Quadrant does not challenge in the lawsuit.

The two-cent-per-pound fee is required from all spray foam producers for five years or until DTSC collectively receives $4 million, whichever occurs later. Based on its sales, Quadrant expects to pay approximately $10,000 into the fund each quarter.

Constitutional Claims

Quadrant seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on three constitutional claims.

First, Quadrant argues that the fee violates the First Amendment because it forces the company to subsidize speech to which it objects. Quadrant contends that the research funded by the fees is not “neutral, disinterested science” because DTSC “has predetermined its premises and its objective.”

“DTSC, without substantiation, asserts that Quadrant’s product is harmful; the research being funded is attempting to find a replacement for MDI which Quadrant maintains does not exist or is not feasible; and California requires that this research uses green chemistry and/or green engineering principles,” the complaint states.

Quadrant further argues that the fee does not fall within exceptions for compelled funding of government speech or comprehensive regulatory schemes. Among other things, it points to the fact that the research fund is administered by a third party rather than DTSC.

Second, Quadrant argues that the requirement violates the dormant Commerce Clause by placing an excessive burden on interstate commerce. Citing Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., Quadrant asserts that the scheme’s burdens on interstate commerce exceed its putative local benefits. Quadrant and “virtually all” other spray foam manufacturers operate outside California, the complaint states, meaning the requirement’s practical effects fall “almost entirely on interstate commerce.”

By contrast, the lawsuit alleges that the requirement’s asserted benefits are speculative because there is no guarantee that any funded project will succeed, become commercially viable, or ultimately be made available to manufacturers. “California has therefore imposed present burdens on interstate commerce in exchange for uncertain future benefits that will likely never materialize,” Quadrant states.

Third, Quadrant alleges that the scheme violates the Import-Export Clause because it imposes duties on goods imported from other states without congressional consent. The complaint acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held that the clause applies only to imports from foreign countries, but argues that it should be interpreted more broadly.

The case is Quadrant Performance Materials, LLC v. Butler, No. 2:26-cv-10704 (C.D. Cal.), filed September 21, 2026.

Federal Court Blocks California’s “Truth in Recycling” Law on First Amendment Grounds

/in , , ,

A federal court has preliminarily blocked California’s “Truth in Recycling” law, ruling that its restrictions on recyclability claims are likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment and finding that several of its key provisions are impermissibly vague under the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a July 14, 2026, order, the Southern District of California concluded that although the provisions likely to be unconstitutionally vague could be severed from the statute, the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their broader First Amendment challenge.  As a result, the court enjoined enforcement of the law in its entirety pending further litigation.

What California’s “Truth in Recycling” Law Requires

California enacted SB 343, often referred to as the “Truth in Recycling” or “Truth in Labeling” law, in October 2021.  The law declares recyclability claims—including the chasing arrows symbol—deceptive or misleading unless certain criteria are met.  Chief among them is the “60/60 requirement,” which mandates that the labeled product or packaging be:

  1. Collected for recycling by jurisdictions serving at least 60% of Californians; and
  2. Processed by facilities serving at least 60% of recycling programs statewide, with the collected material sent to and reclaimed at a facility consistent with the Basel Convention (a 1989 treaty governing the transnational movement of hazardous waste).

The law also requires that:

  • The labeled product or packaging “routinely” become feedstock used to produce new products or packaging;
  • Plastic packaging not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recyclability, according to guidance published by a plastics trade association; and
  • Plastic products and non-plastic products and packaging be “designed to ensure recyclability” and not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recyclability.

These restrictions were set to take effect on October 4, 2026.  The plaintiffs—a coalition of roughly twenty trade associations spanning food, packaging, grocery, and retail industries—sued Attorney General Rob Bonta in March 2026, arguing the law is unconstitutional on its face.

Key Provisions Likely Unconstitutionally Vague

The plaintiffs argue that four of the law’s requirements are unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment.  For the purposes of a preliminary injunction, the court found that they are likely to succeed on each challenge:

  1. The “routinely becomes feedstock” provision, because the meaning of “routinely” is unclear.
  2. The Basel Convention requirement, because manufacturers were given no guidance on how compliance with the provision will be determined, which elements of the convention will be considered in reaching a determination, and which facilities are currently in compliance.
  3. The reference to industry guidance, because it is ambiguous whether materials categorized as “Detrimental to Recycling” or “Tolerated But Needs Improvement” are permissible, and because SB 343 does not address what happens when the guidance changes.
  4. The ensures or prevents recyclability provision, because the law provides no guidance on what those terms mean.

The court found all four requirements severable from the remaining text of the law, including the 60/60 requirement—meaning that the rest of the law could still theoretically be allowed to take effect even if the four vague provisions were enjoined.

First Amendment Analysis

The remainder of the law could not withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment, however.

As a threshold matter, the court first determined that the speech at issue is only “potentially” misleading, and not “inherently” misleading, and therefore within the scope of the First Amendment.  The court then applied the remaining prongs of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, the framework applicable to many regulations of commercial speech.

While finding that California has substantial interests in (1) improving recycling rates and (2) reducing consumer confusion, the court concluded that neither interest was directly advanced by the law.  Addressing recycling rates first, the court held that California failed to adequately support its assertion that businesses would redesign products and packaging to make them recyclable under the law instead of simply removing their recyclability claims.  Gains in efficiency at recycling facilities from removing contaminants “may be substantially outweighed by the decreased rate at which recyclable materials reach those facilities,” the order states.

As to consumer confusion, the court held that the reduced number of recyclability claims would leave customers “with less information than they would receive in the absence of SB 343’s regulatory scheme.”  For example, a product only recyclable in one part of California could not be labeled with that information because the 60/60 requirement would not be satisfied, the court observed.

Finally, the court also held that the law is more extensive than necessary to serve its interests, observing that less extensive regulations, such as required disclosure of materials that may limit recycling, would also advance the state’s goal.

The case is California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, No. 3:26-cv-1675 (S.D. Cal.), filed March 17, 2026.

Microplastics Regulation: EPA Declines to Act, California Moves Forward

/in , , , , ,

EPA and California took opposite approaches to microplastics regulation within weeks of each other.  On July 1, 2026, EPA proposed to omit microplastics from the Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6).  Two weeks earlier on June 18, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) finalized a regulation adding microplastics to the state’s Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Candidate Chemicals List.

What EPA Proposed

In the proposed UCMR 6, EPA proposed not to include microplastics despite a petition from the governors of seven states—New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Connecticut.  That petition matters because the Safe Drinking Water Act section 1445(a)(2)(B)(ii) directs that the administrator “shall include” a contaminant recommended by seven or more governors, unless listing it would prevent listing other contaminants of higher public health concern.

EPA’s basis for declining is analytical feasibility.  The agency states there is no validated EPA or consensus drinking water method with the necessary accuracy and precision to measure microplastics for UCMR 6, and that developing one before the statutory deadline of December 27, 2026, is not feasible.  EPA points out that the governors’ petition itself acknowledges the absence of such a method.  Because monitoring is the entire purpose of the UCMR, EPA argues, requiring systems to test for something no approved method can quantify would yield no usable data while displacing contaminants that can be measured.  Instead, EPA has placed microplastics on the draft Contaminant Candidate List 6 as a first step, and says it will keep evaluating existing consensus practices toward a future method.

It is worth watching whether EPA’s feasibility rationale squarely fits the statutory exception, which is written in terms of “higher public health concern” rather than measurability.  This is a proposed rule open for comment through August 31, 2026, so the final reasoning—and outcome—could change.

What California Did

DTSC’s action runs the other way.  The Office of Administrative Law approved the regulation on June 18, 2026, with an effective date of October 1, 2026; it amends Title 22 to add microplastics—defined as plastics under 5 millimeters in their longest dimension, whether intentionally manufactured or generated by the fragmentation of larger plastics—to the Candidate Chemicals List.  As discussed in a previous post, listing does not itself regulate anything; it is a predicate that lets DTSC evaluate products that contain or generate microplastics and potentially designate them priority products through a later rulemaking.  Listing requires only a hazard trait and consideration of adverse impacts, exposures, and information availability, not a validated quantification method.  As part of its research on microplastics, DTSC published a background document in November 2025 identifying products that could be designated as priority products.

According to DTSC’s Final Statement of Reasons, the agency declined to explicitly define “plastics” in the regulation “because ‘plastics’ has an ordinary English meaning.”  Manufacturers should be aware that DTSC considers biobased and biodegradable polymeric substances within its jurisdiction; DTSC states that

All microplastics, including biodegradable ones, exhibit at least one hazard trait under the Safer Consumer Products Regulations, namely the particle size and fiber dimension hazard trait. Therefore, it is appropriate for DTSC to designate the entire class of microplastics as a Candidate Chemical.

In response to comments that microplastics are more than one chemical and therefore cannot be added to the Candidate Chemicals List through a single rulemaking for a categorical definition, the agency asserted that “there is nothing in the statutes or regulatory history that even implies categorical identities are unauthorized,” noting that list already contains categorical listings, such as PFAS.

The statement of reasons adds that any subsequent priority products proposal for microplastics “will involve an evaluation of potential exposures and significant or widespread adverse impacts associated with those specific products, as well as a formal rulemaking process with opportunity for public input.”  A challenge to the rule is expected.

California Barred from Enforcing Prop 65 DEA Warning After First Amendment Challenge

/in , , ,

On June 24, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California entered a final judgment and permanent injunction barring the Attorney General from enforcing Proposition 65’s cancer-warning requirement for diethanolamine (DEA) in cosmetics.  The judgment adopts a stipulation that the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the day before, resolving PCPC’s First Amendment challenge to the DEA warning.

First Amendment Arguments

As discussed in a previous post, DEA was automatically added to the Prop 65 list after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that the substance is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”  However, in its complaint, PCPC argued that IARC did not identify any studies establishing a link between DEA and cancer in humans, relying instead on a study of “questionable relevance” in a highly susceptible strain of mice.  As a result, PCPC contended, applying the DEA Prop 65 cancer warning “in cosmetic and personal products is false, misleading, and factually controversial,” in violation of the First Amendment.

What the Parties Agreed

The Attorney General did not concede the constitutional question.  He continues to dispute that the DEA warning violates the First Amendment, but agreed to resolve the case in light of, as the stipulation puts it, “the current state of the relevant science” and three recent decisions rejecting compelled Prop 65 cancer warnings: a Ninth Circuit ruling on glyphosate, and two district court rulings on acrylamide and titanium dioxide. Under the stipulation, the Attorney General reserves the right to move to dissolve the injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) if the facts or law change.

What the Order Provides

The order declares that, based on the current state of the science, the DEA cancer warning cannot be constitutionally enforced.  It permanently enjoins the Attorney General, his officers, employees, and agents, and “all those acting in privity or concert with” them from filing or prosecuting new lawsuits to enforce the DEA warning requirement for cosmetic and personal care products.  For companies that make or sell DEA-containing cosmetics—shampoos, liquid soaps, and body washes—the order removes the Attorney General as a source of new DEA warning suits.

Because the judgment was entered on the parties’ stipulation rather than after a merits ruling, no court weighed the DEA science or held the warning unconstitutional in adversarial litigation.  Its declaratory language is tied to the current state of the science, and the Rule 60(b) reservation leaves room to revisit the injunction if that science or the law changes.

The case is The Personal Care Products Council v. Bonta, No. 2:26-cv-00682 (E.D. Cal.), complaint filed March 2, 2026.

California Finalizes Packaging EPR Regulations Under SB 54

/in , ,

California has finalized regulations implementing the state’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for packaging, more than a year after the governor directed CalRecycle to restart the rulemaking process over cost concerns.

The final rule, approved May 1, 2026, implements California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54), passed in 2022.  Despite the delay, the program’s source reduction and recyclability targets remian unchanged:

  • 2027: 10% reduction in single-use plastic
  • 2028: 30% of single-use plastic recycled
  • 2030: 20% reduction in single-use plastic; 40% recycled
  • 2032: 25% reduction in single-use plastic; 65% recycled; 100% of packaging recyclable or compostable

On the same day, the state’s inaugural producer responsibility organization (PRO), Circular Action Alliance (CAA), published an illustrative fees document with low- and high-end fee estimates across covered material categories.  Producer fees will fund:

  • Program operating costs
  • Source reduction and reuse and refill initiatives
  • A requirement that the PRO remit $500 million annually to the state from 2027 through 2037

The next major milestone is June 15, 2026, when CAA will submit its draft program plan to the SB 54 advisory board.  CAA says it intends to publish final fee rates in the plan, which is expected to be finalized in October 2026.

CalRecycle has also published a webpage with guidance for producers, covering reporting obligations, covered material identification, and producer status determinations.  Additional guidance on exemptions, extensions, and exclusions is forthcoming.

Key Deadlines for Producers

According to CalRecycle, the May 1 final rule triggered a June 1, 2026, deadline for producers in California to do one of the following:

  • Register with CAA if participating in the approved PRO plan
  • Register with CalRecycle and apply as an independent producer if complying individually
  • Register with CalRecycle and apply for the small producer exemption if gross California sales were under $1 million in the most recent year

Another just-passed deadline was May 31 for producers in California to submit two 2025 reports: (1) an annual supply report with supply data by covered material category, and (2) an annual source reduction report covering source reduction activities.  Reports may be submitted to CAA or directly to CalRecycle through the agency’s new online portal, known as PEPRS.

In addition, producer-specific individual source reduction plans will be due sometime this summer, likely August 1.

Finally, May 31 was also the deadline for producers to submit simplified supply reports to CAA for Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota, reflecting an effort to standardize reporting deadlines across states with packaging EPR programs.

For more information, visit CAA’s website and CalRecycle’s SB 54 webpage.

OEHHA Moves to List Four New Carcinogens Under Prop 65

/in , ,

On May 8, 2026, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced its intent to list four substances as known to the state to cause cancer under Proposition 65:

  • Welding fumes
  • Hydrochlorothiazide
  • Voriconazole
  • Tacrolimus

All four listings are being proposed pursuant the labor code mechanism.  They follow International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determinations that those substances are Group 1 carcinogens— meaning there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.

Comments on the proposed listing are due June 8, 2026.  OEHHA has opened two separate comment portals: one for welding fumes and one for the other three substances.

According to IARC, exposure to hydrochlorothiazide, voriconazole, and tacrolimus occurs primarily through their use as medications.  Hydrochlorothiazide is a diuretic prescribed for hypertension and edema; voriconazole is an antifungal used to treat or prevent invasive aspergillosis and other serious fungal infections; and tacrolimus is an immunosuppressant.

Should any of these listings be finalized, businesses that have significant exposures to the listed chemicals will have one year before Prop 65 warning requirements take effect.

California Bill Would Strip ‘Compostable’ Label from Plastic Products

/in ,

California lawmakers are weighing legislation targeting plastics in organic waste streams, characterizing plastic as a contaminant in the composting process.

Beginning January 1, 2027, Assembly Bill 1812 would prohibit the sale of products labeled with the terms “compostable” or “home compostable” that are made wholly or partially of plastic.  It would also update the requirements for those representations by eliminating references to ASTM standards for plastic compostability, instead limiting the labels to products that are “OK compost HOME” certified or meet a different standard adopted by CalRecycle.

Fiber products that are demonstrated to not incorporate any plastics or polymers would not be required to meet those requirements, unless CalRecycle adopts or approves a compostability standard specifically for fiber products.

Under existing California law, products making compostability claims must already satisfy all of the following conditions:

  • Be an allowable organic input under the USDA National Organic Program
  • Contain no more than 100 ppm of total organic fluorine
  • Be labeled in a way that distinguishes them from non-compostable products upon reasonable consumer inspection and supports efficient processing at solid waste facilities
  • Be designed to be associated with the recovery of desirable organic waste

AB 1812 was introduced February 10, 2026, and amended March 23.  On April 13, the bill passed the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and was re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

California Bill Would Phase Out PFAS Pesticides, Require Label Disclosures

/in , , , ,

California is considering legislation to phase out use, require labeling, and prohibit registrations of pesticides containing PFAS, defined as a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

AB 1603 states that PFAS exposure “poses a significant threat to the environment and public health” and that their intentional use in pesticides is increasing.  The bill notes that EPA has approved 70 active ingredient PFAS pesticides, including 53 allowed for use in California by state regulators, and that a 2025 analysis found that approximately 2.5 million pounds of active ingredient PFAS pesticides are applied in California annually.

The bill would immediately prohibit the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) from registering or re-registering pesticides with intentionally added PFAS as an active or inert ingredient, and would phase in the following additional requirements:

  • January 1, 2028: Prohibition on manufacturing, distribution, or sale unless labeled with the following statement: “This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment.”
  • January 1, 2030: Prohibition on using, manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale pesticides with 23 specific intentionally added PFAS.
  • January 1, 2035: Blanket prohibition on using, manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale pesticides with any intentionally added PFAS.

AB 1603 would also designate pesticides with intentionally added PFAS as a restricted material.  By January 1, 2028, CDPR would be required to prescribe the times and conditions under which such materials may be used or possessed across the state, with authority to prohibit use or possession in certain areas.  Use or possession would require a written permit from the county agricultural commissioner, and those permits and related public disclosures would be subject to the same label statement described above.

Any state labeling requirement must contend with the preemption provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which prohibit states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from those required under” the statute.  EPA does not currently require any label disclosure for pesticides containing PFAS.

AB 1603 was introduced on January 16, 2026.  The Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials will hold a hearing on the bill on April 14, 2026.

EPA: Single Fluorinated Compounds Aren’t PFAS

Late last year, EPA published a webpage pushing back on concerns about pesticides containing a single fluorinated carbon—the threshold for designation as PFAS under AB 1603.

“EPA-approved single fluorinated compounds are not forever chemicals, they are not PFAS, and do not pose any risks of concern when used as labeled,” the webpage states.

EPA emphasizes that, regardless of a pesticide’s contents, registration under FIFRA requires a determination that the product will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.  The agency conducts “robust, chemical-specific” hazard and exposure assessments, “ensuring that every scientific aspect of these compounds is thoroughly evaluated before any registration decision is made.”  It conducts a similarly thorough evaluation when setting food tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which requires a “reasonable certainty of no harm,” EPA states.

EPA notes that pesticides containing a single fluorinated carbon can offer agronomic benefits and may replace more harmful alternatives, such as organochlorines.  The agency also points to the European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, and other jurisdictions that have registered or are considering registering pesticides containing a fluorinated carbon.