Pesticides - PFAS Chemicals - Prohibitions
SB345 would create a new set of restrictions in Maryland on pesticides that contain PFAS chemicals as an active ingredient on their labeling. The bill directs the Department of Agriculture to identify and maintain a list of registered PFAS pesticides, post that list on its website by January 1, 2026, and distribute it to certified applicators. PFAS chemicals are defined broadly to include fluorinated chemicals with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom, including perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
The bill phases in a series of prohibitions. Beginning June 1, 2026, PFAS pesticides on the department’s list could not be used at health care facilities, schools, day care operations, for residential lawn care, or for commercial mosquito spraying. Beginning June 1, 2027, the Department of Agriculture would be barred from registering PFAS pesticides for sale in the state. Beginning June 1, 2028, use of PFAS pesticides would be prohibited statewide. The act takes effect October 1, 2025.
SB345 would amend Maryland’s Agriculture Article by adding a new section governing PFAS pesticides and by expanding the Department of Agriculture’s responsibilities in pesticide registration and notification. It would not change the general definitions of pesticide or active ingredient, but it would create a new regulatory category for PFAS-containing pesticides, require public and professional disclosure, and ultimately phase out their registration and use in Maryland. The bill would directly affect pesticide manufacturers, distributors, certified applicators, schools, health care facilities, day care operators, lawn care businesses, mosquito control operators, and residential users.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a precautionary public-health and environmental approach to limiting PFAS exposure through pesticide use. The phased implementation suggests an effort to balance regulatory change with transition time for affected parties.
The likely points of contention are the scope and timing of the PFAS restrictions. Supporters would likely emphasize reducing exposure in sensitive settings such as schools, health care facilities, and day care operations, as well as eliminating PFAS pesticides from the market over time. Opponents or affected industry stakeholders may object to the breadth of the PFAS definition, the administrative burden of maintaining and distributing the list, and the eventual statewide ban on use and registration, especially if alternative products are limited or if PFAS content is incidental rather than intentional.