Denmark banned diflufenican – a herbicide never before sprayed on American crops – specifically because it contaminates groundwater with trifluoroacetic acid, a persistent PFAS. The EPA approved it for use on American corn and soybeans on June 30, 2026.
That single fact captures something important about the moment American agriculture just entered. Two pesticides with no prior history of use in the United States were cleared in one day for the country’s two largest crops. A third chemical, already flagged in human urine samples at rates approaching near-universal exposure, received its first-ever approval for use on American food. And five days before any of it happened, the Supreme Court removed one of the last legal avenues Americans had to sue pesticide makers over cancer warnings.
The sequence matters. The EPA’s new approvals and the court’s ruling didn’t happen in isolation. Together, they mark a significant shift in who controls what ends up on your food, and what legal recourse you have if something goes wrong.
What the EPA Just Approved – and Why It Matters
The June 30 approvals included two new forever chemicals pesticides never before used in the United States: diflufenican and epyrifenacil, both cleared for corn and soybeans, with epyrifenacil also approved for wheat. These are not reformulations of older chemicals. They had never been registered for any American food crop before this decision.
According to USDA planting data, farmers planted 95.3 million acres of corn and 85.4 million acres of soybeans in 2026 – together covering an area larger than the state of Texas. The scale of potential exposure from applying two newly approved PFAS-related chemicals across that combined footprint is unlike anything previously authorized for these compounds.
A previously approved forever chemical pesticide called bifenthrin also received expanded clearance on the same day, now permitted on coffee, kiwifruit, peas, kale, and broccoli. On top of that, the agency greenlighted the first food use of chlormequat, a non-PFAS pesticide tied to reproductive issues, on grain crops.
While the Biden administration approved one PFAS pesticide across four years, the Trump administration has now approved four, with the previous two being cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram.
The PFAS Dispute at the Heart of Forever Chemicals Pesticides
The central fight here is about what counts as a “forever chemical” in the first place.
In a formal fact check published in November 2025, the EPA said single fully fluorinated-carbon compounds are not forever chemicals and pose no safety concern when labels are followed. The agency notes its 2023 PFAS definition, set under the Biden administration, deliberately excludes molecules with only one fluorinated carbon.
The Center for Biological Diversity counters that the pesticides meet a broader PFAS definition endorsed by more than 150 researchers and used by nearly every US state. According to the Center, the EPA quietly removed a reference to that competing definition from its own website shortly after publishing it.
The EPA itself has found that diflufenican and epyrifenacil will eventually break down into multiple smaller PFAS chemicals, including trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), thought to be one of the most pervasive PFAS water contaminants in the world. Recent research has highlighted the significant role pesticides play in local groundwater contamination.
Research by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found TFA in groundwater across multiple EU countries, and a 2024 study identified diflufenican as one of the pesticides with the highest TFA load of any substance in agricultural use, while a 2025 study confirmed it has the greatest TFA leaching potential into groundwater among PFAS pesticides. TFA has been found in 78% of all tested wells in Germany, according to data cited by the Center for Biological Diversity, and diflufenican was estimated to be one of the leading pesticide contributors to TFA groundwater contamination in the European Union. Denmark recently banned diflufenican due, in part, to its contribution to TFA contamination throughout the country.
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concluded in June 2026 that TFA should be classified as Toxic to Reproduction Category 1B, meaning it “may damage the unborn child” and is “suspected of damaging fertility.” The agency also classified TFA as Persistent, Mobile and Toxic, concluding it “can cause very long-lasting and diffuse contamination of water resources.” That classification now awaits a final decision from the European Commission, which will prepare a delegated act after the opinion is formally finalized.
Epyrifenacil has never been approved in Europe.
What the Science Says About These Specific Chemicals
On the cancer question, the EPA’s own review of epyrifenacil contains a notable tension. In its regulatory filing, the agency determined that epyrifenacil features a “moderate acute toxicity profile” and is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at doses below those causing liver injury. But the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety both cited scientific studies they say found epyrifenacil resulted in the development of liver tumors in laboratory rodents.
Diflufenican carries its own breakdown concern. Critics note that diflufenican breaks down into 2,4-difluoroaniline malonate, a fluorinated chemical structurally similar to aniline, a toxic component found in tobacco smoke. While the EPA classifies aniline as a probable human carcinogen, the agency did not require studies to assess the cancer risks of diflufenican’s breakdown product in real-life settings.
The EPA’s own statement to Newsweek reflects its position: a spokesperson said the agency set epyrifenacil’s dietary limit “roughly 1,800 times lower than the doses where any TFA-related effect might occur.” That safety margin is intended to reassure. Whether it accounts for cumulative exposure from multiple simultaneously approved PFAS-related chemicals on overlapping food crops is a question the agency has not fully addressed in public.
The concern about chlormequat runs separately but in the same direction. A 2024 study published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology found that chlormequat was detected in the urine samples of 90% of Americans tested in 2023, and that the chemical can reduce fertility and harm the developing fetus at doses lower than those used by regulatory agencies to set allowable daily intake levels.
The Revolving Door and the Approval Process
These approvals came after Kyle Kunkler, a former lobbyist for the American Soybean Association, was installed as deputy assistant administrator for pesticides in the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. According to E&E News, Kunkler spent the previous five years directing government affairs for the soybean association, which had been a vocal proponent of diflufenican’s and epyrifenacil’s approval.
Freedom of Information Act documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity show that changes to the EPA’s website – specifically the removal of language acknowledging a broader PFAS definition – were overseen by Kunkler and reviewed by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
The American Soybean Association praised EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin for advancing “new crop protection tools,” while the American Farm Bureau Federation said the products would help farmers “do more with less.” The framing from the agriculture lobby is that these chemicals are needed tools for managing herbicide-resistant weeds, which are a genuine and costly problem for farmers. Resistant weeds raise costs and reduce yields – a fact that gives the approvals real practical context, even as health advocates dispute the risk calculus.
The Supreme Court Ruling That Changed the Legal Landscape
On June 25, 2026 – five days before the EPA approvals – the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell that FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) expressly preempts state failure-to-warn claims, because such claims would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to its labels “in addition to” and “different from” the label required by the EPA.
The case grew from a specific set of facts. John Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging that he had used Roundup products for about 20 years and that they had caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A Missouri jury agreed and awarded him approximately $1.25 million on his failure-to-warn theory. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch.
In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote: “In accepting Monsanto’s argument and holding that Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim is preempted, the Court misunderstands FIFRA’s requirements, misinterprets the scope of FIFRA’s preemption, and ultimately leaves Durnell without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered.”
The ruling weakened one of the most important backstops protecting people when federal regulation falls short. State courts had often been the only place families could recover medical costs, lost income, and damages for life-altering harm from pesticides.
Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said the ruling “provides the regulatory clarity necessary for innovators like us to develop the agricultural tools that guarantee an affordable food supply.”
Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, called the fresh approvals “a national outrage that Trump’s EPA is expanding use of dangerous, cancer-linked PFAS pesticides just days after the Supreme Court limited the American people’s right to sue pesticide companies.”
What to Do Now
The EPA’s approvals are final. The Supreme Court ruling stands. That means the practical question for health-conscious consumers right now is exposure reduction, not legal remedy.
The 2026 Dirty Dozen found that over 60% of all tested produce samples already contain pesticides classified as forever chemicals – and that’s before diflufenican and epyrifenacil reach commercial fields. Choosing organic versions of corn, soy-derived products, and wheat-based foods where budget allows will limit direct dietary exposure to these two newly approved compounds, since organic certification prohibits synthetic pesticide use.
On the chlormequat front, the detection data points directly at oat-based foods. Researchers observed high detection frequencies of chlormequat specifically in oat-based foods – meaning oatmeal, granola, and oat-flour products from conventionally grown oats carry the highest risk of exposure. Organic oat products are the straightforward swap. For drinking water, PFAS contamination from agricultural runoff is a documented and growing problem; a reverse osmosis filter is currently the most effective home option for reducing PFAS in tap water. To track what’s in your local water supply, the Environmental Working Group’s Tap Water Database lets you search by zip code.
The Bigger Picture
Four PFAS-related pesticides are now approved in the U.S. under an administration that has narrowed the definition of what counts as a forever chemical, installed an industry lobbyist to oversee pesticide approvals, and watched the Supreme Court simultaneously limit the legal exposure of pesticide manufacturers. Those three forces are moving in the same direction at the same time.
For consumers, that convergence means the conventional food system currently offers less regulatory protection and less legal recourse than it did six months ago. The most direct responses – organic produce for the highest-risk crops, filtered drinking water, and keeping pressure on elected officials to revisit FIFRA’s preemption clause – remain available. What is no longer available, for most Americans, is a state courtroom.
AI Disclaimer: This article was created with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed by a human editor.
Read More: Researchers Find Possible Prostate Cancer Link to 22 Pesticides