In the span of about three weeks this summer, two federal agencies made two decisions that will affect the quality of the water coming out of your tap.
In mid-June, the FDA denied a petition asking it to set enforceable limits for PFAS in food. A few weeks later, the EPA cleared new "forever chemical" pesticides for use on corn, soybeans, and wheat, including two compounds that had never been used on American crops before. Taken together, these decisions describe a process allowing more forever chemicals into the food supply, and fewer limits are being placed on where they end up: our drinking water.
To follow our recent post about what's actually in your tap water, we're going upstream: what ends up in the water, and the choices that put it there.
The EPA Approvals
The EPA approved new uses for several pesticides that fall into the family of chemicals known as PFAS: per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the "forever chemicals" that don't break down easily in the environment. Two of them, diflufenican and epyrifenacil, were cleared for corn and soybeans, with epyrifenacil also approved for wheat. A third, bifenthrin, got expanded approval for coffee, kiwis, peas, kale, and broccoli. These products are staples and everyday groceries, or key components of many other food products we purchase and consume.
The EPA has stated in its materials that the newly approved fluorinated pesticides are not PFAS, because its working definition excludes certain single-fluorinated-carbon structures. But the broader scientific definition of PFAS, developed by researchers worldwide and and used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, does include them. This same OECD definition is the one most U.S. states now use when they write their own regulations. In effect, the same chemical can be "not PFAS" to the federal agency approving it and "PFAS" to the state trying to keep it out of local water. This gap shapes what gets monitored, what gets restricted, and what gets through.
How this connects to our drinking water
Pesticides don't stay where they're sprayed. Rain moves them and soil doesn't always hold them. Some of these compounds break down into other chemicals that are even harder to deal with. The EPA's own analysis acknowledges that diflufenican and epyrifenacil can degrade into smaller PFAS, including one called trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA. TFA is one of the most widespread PFAS contaminants in water anywhere in the world. In Germany, it has been detected in 78% of tested wells. European researchers have identified diflufenican as a leading contributor to TFA in groundwater. The European Chemicals Agency has recommended classifying TFA as toxic to reproduction and as a persistent, mobile, and toxic substance, warning that it can cause very long-lasting and diffuse contamination of water resources.
"Persistent" and "mobile" are two dangerous qualities for a chemical that's about to be sprayed across millions of acres of farmland that sit above the aquifers many communities drink from. Bifenthrin, the third pesticide, is already one of the most frequently detected insecticides in American streams, lakes, and rivers, and it often shows up at levels that exceed the thresholds meant to protect aquatic life. We already know where these chemicals go, because we've been finding them in the water for years.
The FDA decision
In June, the FDA denied a petition first filed in 2023 by the Tucson Environmental Justice Task Force that had asked the agency to set enforceable limits for a list of PFAS in foods. The FDA's reasoning was largely procedural: it said the petition didn't provide the specific toxicological and exposure data the agency typically relies on to set limits, and that it isn't legally required to set limits just because someone asks.
The agency also noted it can still act case by case when a contaminant makes food unsafe. This decision lands at the same time as a related move: the EPA has proposed rolling back its own drinking-water limits for four of the six PFAS it currently regulates, which would leave enforceable federal limits for only two of them, PFOA and PFOS.
These decisions evidence an easily discernible pattern:
- new PFAS-linked pesticides approved for major crops;
- no enforceable limits set for PFAS in food; and,
- proposed rollbacks on PFAS limits in drinking water.
There's more PFAS coming in and fewer guardrails on the way out.
What PFAS exposure actually does
The research on PFAS is strongest for the two most-studied compounds, PFOA and PFOS. For those, exposure has been linked to higher cholesterol, changes in immune response, effects on liver function, high blood pressure and pre-eclampsia in pregnancy, developmental effects in children, and increased risk of certain cancers.
There are thousands of PFAS compounds and the health effects of most of them are still poorly understood. That uncertainty is sometimes presented as a reason not to worry, but in fact it's closer to the opposite. When approvals move faster than the science that would tell us whether a chemical is safe, the not-knowing is the risk itself.
Where this leaves us
Reading this, there's a temptation to skip to the individual fix: test your water, treat your water, and move on. Those things have their place, but the most important thing about these two decisions is that they were decisions. They were made by people, in public processes, and they can be argued with.
The usual framing of PFAS puts the burden in the wrong place - on the people. It treats "forever chemicals" as a fact of modern life and turns the question into what you personally can filter out at your own expense. But chemicals that are persistent and mobile and about to be sprayed across millions of acres reflects a choice that someone made. These choices have comment periods, court dates, and elected officials attached to them.
The EPA's rollback of drinking-water limits is currently open for public comment. The pesticide approvals carry their own comment windows. States are moving in both directions at once, some tightening PFAS rules while the federal government loosens them, which means where you live increasingly determines what's allowed in your water. The petition the FDA denied was filed by an environmental justice group in Tucson that isn't going away; it has said it intends to keep pressing in court. That's all to say, none of this is settled.
The most durable form of water protection is the kind that keeps these chemicals out of the water in the first place, and that happens upstream of any filter, in the agencies and courtrooms and statehouses where these calls get made. Reading your water utility's annual report, knowing what your state does and doesn't regulate, and paying attention when a comment period opens are all unglamorous yet incredibly consequential actions.
These decisions were made quietly, weeks apart, in the language of dockets and tolerances. That quiet is part of how they work. Their consequences will show up somewhere much more ordinary: in the water, and in us.
The least we can do is not look away while it happens.
Sources
- Center for Biological Diversity, "Trump EPA Approves Two More 'Forever Chemical' Pesticides for Use on Most Widely Grown U.S. Crops" (June 30, 2026) — https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trump-epa-approves-two-more-forever-chemical-pesticides-for-use-on-most-widely-grown-us-crops-2026-06-30/
- The Hill, "EPA approves pesticides that may be considered 'forever chemicals,' though it disputes that label" — https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5950487-epa-pesticides-forever-chemicals-pfas/
- AgWeb, "New Herbicide Chemistries Move Closer to Farmers' Fields After EPA Action" — https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/crop-production/new-herbicide-chemistries-move-closer-farmers-fields-after-epa-action
- Chemistry World, "Breakdown product of pesticides and refrigerants may be classed as reproductive toxicant by EU" — https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/breakdown-product-of-pesticides-and-refrigerants-may-be-classed-as-reproductive-toxicant-by-eu/4023689.article
- Food Packaging Forum, "ECHA committee recommends stricter hazard classification of forever chemical TFA" (links the ECHA RAC-77 minutes) — https://foodpackagingforum.org/news/echa-committee-recommends-stricter-hazard-classification-of-forever-chemical-tfa
- U.S. Geological Survey, "Potential toxicity of pesticides to aquatic life in U.S. rivers is widespread" — https://www.usgs.gov/news/potential-toxicity-pesticides-aquatic-life-us-rivers-widespread
- U.S. Geological Survey, "Common Insecticide Identified in Midwestern Streams" — https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/common-insecticide-identified-midwestern-streams
- The Guardian, "US Food and Drug Administration rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food" (July 8, 2026) — https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/08/us-food-and-drug-administration-rejects-petition-to-set-pfas-limits-in-food
- Beveridge & Diamond / National Law Review, "Federal Court Sets June 30 Deadline for FDA Response to PFAS-in-Food Citizen Petition" — https://natlawreview.com/article/federal-court-sets-june-30-deadline-fda-response-pfas-food-citizen-petition
- Mondaq, "FDA To Limit PFAS In Bottled Water, FDA Denies Citizen Petition For PFAS Food Tolerances, And California EPR Law Challenged" — https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/environmental-law/1812592/fda-to-limit-pfas-in-bottled-water-fda-denies-citizen-petition-for-pfas-food-tolerances-and-california-epr-law-challenged
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Proposed PFAS Rescission Rule" — https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/proposed-pfas-rescission-rule
- Waste Dive, "EPA to formally rescind certain PFAS drinking water regulations" — https://www.wastedive.com/news/epa-rescind-pfas-drinking-water-regulations-2026/820595/
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "Questions and Answers on PFAS in Food" — https://www.fda.gov/food/process-contaminants-food/questions-and-answers-pfas-food
- LifeStraw, "What's Actually in Your Tap Water" — https://lifestraw.com/blogs/news/what-s-actually-in-your-tap-water
