The PFAS panic has seen us eye everything from non-stick pans to takeaway packaging with suspicion. But what if one of the most direct routes of exposure to these ‘forever chemicals’ is not in the kitchen cupboard, but on our plates?
Here ARC2020’s Natasha Foote lifts the lid on PFAS pesticides and how new pesticide plans in the EU’s regulatory pipeline could open doors to ‘forever chemicals’ that can’t be closed.
PFAS have increasingly become a household name, and for all the wrong reasons. The group of highly persistent chemicals known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are pretty much everywhere from non-stick pans to firefighting foams to waterproof textiles, and have been linked with a range of human health concerns, including cancer and infertility.
As if that wasn’t enough, they could be costing us an eyewatering €440bn by 2050 if current contamination levels continue, according to the European Commission, while action to curb PFAS at the source could save a cool €110bn.
Gripped by PFAS panic, many of us have raced to swap our plastic packaging and invest in bamboo-based kitchen accoutrements. But what if one of the most direct routes of exposure is not in our kitchens themselves, but in the food we eat?
Because there’s one major use of PFAS that has largely remained outside the political spotlight: pesticides.
‘Perennial poisons’
As of 1 February 2026, 30 PFAS are currently approved for use as active substances in the EU’s pesticides, according to the European Commission. Some are persistent in their own right, while others degrade into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), an ultra-persistent pollutant increasingly detected in water systems.
And it’s the very qualities that make PFAS a problem – stability and durability – that render them desirable in a slow-release pesticide.
The thing with PFAS pesticides is that, unlike on our pots and pans, they are deliberately released into the environment: sprayed directly on our food and the soil it grows in. This is something campaign groups describe as a “direct and systematic” route of human exposure through food and water systems.
The elephant in the field
So how big a problem are we talking about? Recent research suggests it could be significant.
For instance, calculations carried out by the German Federal Environment Agency in collaboration with the Technology Center Water in 2023 indicate that pesticide products have “by far the greatest potential for releasing TFA into water bodies,” more than precipitation, wastewater treatment or manure management.
And these fundamental findings can also be applied to other European countries, especially in regions dominated by agriculture, according to a recent report commissioned by the Greens.
Yet despite their persistence, many farmers are unaware that the pesticides they use contain ‘forever chemicals’ that permanently contaminate their own production bases, the study points out.
One German farmer recently told ARC2020 that he was “horrified” to learn about the substances that he was using on his vineyard. The farmer, who has a background in chemistry, emphasised how difficult it was to find information on this, adding it had “never once” been raised in the compulsory training that farmers must undertake every 3 years in order to be allowed to spray pesticides.
Under the regulatory radar
Fears over these ‘forever chemicals’ have pushed the issue right up the political agenda, with the EU currently mulling over a complete ban of PFAS.
But current discussions around a ‘universal’ EU ban do not extend to pesticides, which are governed under a separate regulatory pathway – and now, environmental groups warn that not only are ‘forever chemicals’ slipping under the political spotlight, but also through the regulatory cracks.
The latest flashpoint is the Food and Feed Safety Omnibus, a sweeping legislative package to merge ten separate pieces of EU food and feed legislation in a single proposal.
Presented as a technical exercise to streamline procedures, the package is being criticised by public health, environmental and consumer organisations as a far-reaching deregulatory overhaul receiving far too little scrutiny.
A core bone of contention lies in the plans to replace periodic time-limited renewals for certain pesticides with a system effectively granting unlimited approvals, under which reviews for these substances would only be triggered by new evidence of risk.
Industry groups and policymakers argue the current renewal system creates costly administrative backlogs that consume regulatory resources without necessarily improving safety outcomes. But environmental groups warn the changes could allow some potentially harmful substances – including some PFAS pesticides – to remain on the market for longer without reassessment.
For instance, environmental NGO Générations Futures estimates that, in their current form, the plans could see indefinite approvals for some 49 active substances, which include four PFAS pesticides.
All four substances are classified as highly toxic to the aquatic environment, according to PubChem, an open chemistry database at the US National Institutes of Health. One of these, trifloxystrobin, was among the top-selling PFAS pesticides in France in 2021.
For campaign group Pesticide Action Network Europe, it is clear that PFAS pesticides “should be considered a priority for regulators, instead of being downplayed compared with other sources of exposure”.
Calling for a complete ban, the group stressed that continued accumulation of these ‘forever chemicals’ in soils, waters and food chains “pose chronic risks to both human health and the environment”.
‘Too early to tell’
Many EU countries are cracking down on these perennial pesticides. For instance, both the Netherlands and Sweden recently tightened rules on PFAS pesticides, while the Danish Environmental Protection Agency has withdrawn the approval of 23 PFAS pesticides over fears of groundwater contamination. Meanwhile, a group of NGOs have recently taken the French government to court over impacts of PFAS pollution.
EU lawmakers are still negotiating the final shape of plans. A spokesperson for the European Commission said that “it remains to be seen how many approvals of approved active substances will remain limited in time.”
An EU official also confirmed that PFAS pesticides could in some cases qualify for exemptions under the proposed framework, although they stressed it was too early to tell which substances might ultimately be affected. As such, current estimates may be “misleading”.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Croplife Europe, representing Europe’s crop protection industry, pointed out that every plant protection product must undergo a “comprehensive scientific assessment before it can be approved for use”.
For Croplife, the proposed system of unlimited approvals is not about having no checks but ‘continuous oversight’. This marks a shift from “calendar-driven cycles to a more rational system,” the group maintains.
Pesticide pushback
But concerns over the new plans extend far beyond the PFAS pesticides currently under review.
Environmental and public health groups are also raising alarms about dozens of pesticides already on the market — including glyphosate and acetamiprid — which they warn could become eligible for effectively indefinite approvals under the proposal’s current wording.
In a recent letter, a coalition of civil society organisations criticised both the substance of the proposal and the speed at which it is being advanced. They warned of the “accelerated pace of negotiations” and the “limited opportunity for thorough scrutiny, informed debate, and meaningful expert engagement”.
Ultimately, the signatories argue, the proposal “fundamentally reverse[s] the logic of the EU’s precautionary approach”.
Meanwhile, lawyers have already warned that the proposal currently on the table “significantly weaken[s] the protection of human health and the environment”.
With the legislative process ongoing, lawmakers still have the power to shape the proposal currently on the table, meaning there is still a window of opportunity to have your voice heard.
Whether the Commission’s proposals ultimately survive unchanged remains to be seen. But it’s clear that decisions taken in the name of cutting red tape could have consequences that last far longer than any legislative cycle.
Because while political priorities come and go, PFAS have a habit of sticking around. The question now is whether the EU will close a regulatory loophole before more forever chemicals find a permanent place on the dinner table.
Have thoughts to share on this topic? Join the discussion on LinkedIn!
This article is produced in cooperation with the
Heinrich Böll Stiftung European Union.
More
How Iran war exposes Europe’s dangerous dependency on fertilisers
What’s Food Sovereignty got to do with it? The New Geopolitics of Food
CAP | EU Watchdog Gears Up To Fight For Fairness in Future Farming Policy
A Revolution in Europe’s Public Plate? The future of food policy is delicious
The Year of the CAP & Big Budget Overhaul – Key EU Policy Moments to Watch in 2026
