AB 1603 would create a new article in the Food and Agricultural Code focused on PFAS in pesticides used for agricultural purposes. The bill defines PFAS pesticide ingredients as PFAS intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients, and it directs the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to stop registering new pesticides that contain those ingredients if the product has not previously been registered by the department.
The bill phases in restrictions over time. Beginning July 1, 2028, any registered agricultural pesticide containing PFAS would be treated as a restricted material, meaning its use would require a county permit and would trigger specific warning language in permits and public disclosures, including DPR’s SprayDays California program. Beginning January 1, 2030, the bill would prohibit use, sale, and other commercial handling of a listed set of PFAS-containing agricultural pesticides and bar registration of those products for agricultural use. Beginning January 1, 2035, the bill would extend those prohibitions to all agricultural pesticides containing PFAS pesticide ingredients and prohibit their registration for agricultural use.
The bill’s stated purpose is to reduce PFAS contamination in California-grown produce and in soil, air, and water, based on legislative findings that PFAS are persistent, toxic, and already present in water supplies and agricultural products. It also includes a severability clause and states that no state reimbursement is required for local agencies or school districts, while acknowledging that violations would create a state-mandated local program because they would be crimes.
In terms of legal impact, AB 1603 would add a new regulatory framework within the Food and Agricultural Code that narrows DPR’s registration authority, creates a new restricted-material category, and imposes new permitting and disclosure obligations for agricultural PFAS pesticides. It would also create new criminal exposure for prohibited manufacture, sale, possession, delivery, or use of covered products, affecting pesticide registrants, distributors, growers, county agricultural commissioners, and DPR.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and vote history appears generally supportive of stronger PFAS controls, with the measure advancing out of committee on a 5-2 vote and later being amended and re-referred. The main point of contention is likely the scope and pace of the phaseout: the bill targets a broad class of chemicals and imposes significant restrictions on agricultural pesticide use, which may raise concerns for agricultural stakeholders about compliance, product availability, and transition timelines, while supporters emphasize public health and environmental protection.
AB 1603 would amend the Food and Agricultural Code to give the Department of Pesticide Regulation new authority and duties regarding PFAS-containing agricultural pesticides. It would prohibit registration of new PFAS-containing pesticides that have not previously been registered, classify existing agricultural PFAS pesticides as restricted materials starting July 1, 2028, and require permits and public notices to include PFAS contamination warnings. It would then phase in broader bans in 2030 and 2035 on use, sale, and registration of specified and then all PFAS pesticide ingredients for agricultural use. The bill would also create misdemeanor exposure for violations, affecting pesticide manufacturers, sellers, growers, and county permitting authorities.
The available voting history suggests the bill has received more support than opposition at the committee level, passing one committee vote 5-2 and then continuing through the amendment and re-referral process. The bill’s findings and structure indicate a strong environmental and public health rationale, and the lack of transcript opposition in the provided materials limits evidence of detailed debate. Overall, the sentiment appears favorable among supporters of pesticide regulation and PFAS reduction, with likely reservations centered on agricultural implementation and economic impacts.
The main contention is the breadth of the PFAS restrictions and the timeline for implementation. Supporters are likely focused on PFAS toxicity, contamination of drinking water and produce, and the need to phase out chemicals already restricted elsewhere. Opponents or skeptics would likely come from agricultural and pesticide industry interests, who may argue that the bill could remove useful crop protection tools, create compliance burdens, and affect farm operations before alternatives are fully available. The bill’s inclusion of a long list of specific active ingredients, plus a later broad class-wide ban, suggests debate over whether the phaseout is appropriately targeted or too expansive.