Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Agrochemical toxicologist warns committee PFAS concerns in pesticides, points to fluorinated containers case
Loading...
Summary
Dr. Austin Webb told the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry committee that EPA data calls can lead to cancellations, PFAS presence in some pesticide products has been traced to fluorinated containers (the ANVIL 10‑10 case), and testing and enforcement challenges complicate regulation.
Dr. Austin Webb, who identified himself as an agrochemical toxicologist, told the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry committee that EPA uses a "data call‑in" process during reregistration reviews and may cancel registrations when manufacturers do not provide requested studies.
"If the manufacturer hasn't responded in 18 months, these are the decisive steps we take... they will most likely cancel," Dr. Webb said, describing the variability of EPA actions depending on the risk and evidence. He described volatility and multi‑year studies that the agency can request as part of reregistration reviews for active ingredients such as paraquat and neonics.
On PFAS and pesticides, Dr. Webb said definitions differ across regulators and that the EPA has identified a small number of active ingredients it classifies as PFAS. He emphasized the regulatory challenge posed by breakdown products such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA): "One of the next areas where the most scrutiny on PFAS pesticides belongs is what happens when they break down," he said, noting TFA is persistent though often less acutely toxic than long‑chain PFAS.
Dr. Webb recounted an investigation in which PFAS were detected in a pesticide product and traced to fluorinated plastic containers (the ANVIL 10‑10 example), an action that led to product removal from shelves and recalls. "We found PFAS in the product and EPA worked with the manufacturer. They removed the product from the shelves across the nation," he said, adding that testing for PFAS in oily pesticide matrices has been difficult and that methods are still being developed.
Committee members pressed Dr. Webb on practical implications: whether US or state standards exist for TFA (he said none at the federal level), whether reused HDPE totes could be fluorinated, and how many pesticide containers are fluorinated (he said data are limited and cited Minnesota and Maine rules that require disclosure or affidavits but said those databases are not yet available to Vermont).
Dr. Webb urged caution in interpreting single studies: he described a high‑profile paper alleging PFAS contamination in insecticides that later could not be replicated by EPA and other labs, noting the importance of repeatable, vetted methods. He said standard PFAS tests still cover only a few dozen analytes while thousands of PFAS may exist, so regulators must be careful in interpreting detections.
What it means: The presentation framed PFAS in pesticides as a complex, technically and procedurally challenging issue with implications for product registration, consumer safety and agricultural practices. Dr. Webb advised the committee that robust, repeatable testing methods and clear regulatory approaches will be necessary for enforcement and policymaking.
Next steps: The committee thanked Dr. Webb, said it would invite additional experts (including state human‑health toxicologists), and took a break before resuming other testimony.
