A pesticide label is a small rectangle with a large job: it tells a grower what can be applied, where, and under which conditions. Soon, one more question will follow it around California fields—whether the product contains PFAS, the class of chemicals better known as “forever chemicals.”
Assembly Bill 1603, passed by the California Legislature, requires the state to track and publicly disclose PFAS in pesticides used on farms. The measure is aimed at the active ingredients in agricultural products, bringing a chemical concern usually associated with industrial sites and consumer goods into the orchard, vineyard, nursery and vegetable block. The bill’s agricultural tracking requirements will be administered through the state’s pesticide regulatory system.
A New Line on the Label
For growers, the immediate change is less about a new spray rule than a new layer of visibility. Products that have been selected for efficacy, resistance management, worker-safety requirements or a narrow crop-use pattern may now draw public attention for a different reason. That matters in specialty crops, where a treatment decision can be tied to a particular variety, harvest window or export requirement.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation must catalog pesticides containing PFAS by January 2028. The catalog is intended to give the public a clearer view of which products are in the state’s agricultural system, after lawmakers approved the measure as the first such disclosure requirement of its kind in California. Reporting on the legislation described the bill as a mandate to track pesticide use involving PFAS compounds.
That deadline leaves a practical interval for farm managers and PCA teams to examine product lists, current registrations and the treatments that have no easy replacement. A substitute that works in almonds may not fit pistachios; a material that controls weeds in one block may create a labor problem in another. Chemistry has a habit of turning a clean spreadsheet into a muddy field.
Alternatives Have to Work in the Block
The search for alternatives will land alongside other efforts to reduce chemical use without simply moving the cost elsewhere. In Kern County, brothers Justin and Joe Ritchie, who farm about 1,300 acres of pistachios and almonds, have adopted smart sprayers that distinguish green crop plants from brown weeds and target herbicide accordingly. Ag Alert’s account of the technology presents precision application as a way to cut both labor and herbicide expense.
That kind of equipment is not a universal answer to PFAS concerns, and the bill does not require every farm to buy a smart sprayer. It does show the direction of travel: treatment programs may increasingly be judged by what they apply, how much they apply and whether the operation can document the choice when scrutiny arrives.
The public catalog could also make product selection more consequential for packing houses, food companies and buyers that want records beyond the standard application log. The law identifies the chemical category and creates disclosure; it does not, by itself, specify which registered products will be affected or how quickly an alternative will be approved for a particular California crop. Coverage of the final legislative amendments points to the catalog deadline as a central part of the new system.
For specialty-crop growers, the operational question is therefore narrower than whether PFAS has become a public issue. It is which materials appear in the state catalog, how buyers respond to that information, and whether alternatives can be made to fit the agronomy rather than merely the policy language.