If the goal is truly to Make America Healthy Again, then the latest decision from the Environmental Protection Agency raises serious questions. According to the article you sent, the EPA has approved two new fluorinated pesticides, diflufenican and epyrifenacil, for use on some of America’s most important crops, including corn, soybeans, and wheat. Neither chemical has previously been approved for use in American agriculture.
Environmental groups argue these compounds qualify as PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” under internationally recognized scientific definitions because they can persist in the environment and eventually degrade into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), an extremely persistent fluorinated compound found in groundwater around the world. The EPA disputes that characterization, maintaining the products do not meet its regulatory definition of PFAS and that they can be used safely according to their labels.
Diflufenican has already become controversial in Europe. Denmark banned its use in part because of concerns that it contributes to TFA contamination of groundwater, while German monitoring has detected TFA in a large percentage of tested wells. Epyrifenacil has reportedly never received approval for agricultural use within the European Union. Whether those regulatory decisions ultimately prove right or wrong, they demonstrate that this is hardly an uncontested scientific issue. Governments around the world are reaching different conclusions about the same chemicals, yet American consumers are expected to assume there is nothing to debate.
What makes this particularly troubling is the contradiction with the broader Make America Healthy Again movement. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made eliminating artificial food dyes, improving nutrition, investigating chronic disease, reforming food ingredients, and reducing Americans’ exposure to harmful chemicals central themes of his public campaign. Those are worthwhile objectives. Yet cleaning up processed foods while simultaneously allowing the introduction of new fluorinated pesticides that have never before been used on American food crops sends a mixed message. If the objective is to reduce unnecessary chemical exposure wherever possible, then many Americans will reasonably ask why entirely new fluorinated agricultural chemicals are being introduced at the same time. That contradiction is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
The broader issue is one I have discussed for years in my Agricultural Report. Food has become another battlefield. Farmers are buried under climate regulations, fertilizer restrictions, water controls, and endless bureaucratic oversight, while consumers are increasingly separated from understanding how their food is actually produced. Governments continue expanding their influence over agriculture under the banners of safety, climate, or public health. Regardless of political party, that trend never seems to reverse.
Food security has always been national security. Once confidence in the safety of the food supply begins to erode, rebuilding that trust becomes extraordinarily difficult. The debate over diflufenican and epyrifenacil is therefore much larger than two new pesticides. It reflects a growing public concern that regulators continue introducing new chemicals into the food chain while asking citizens to simply trust that everything has been thoroughly evaluated. History has taught us that blind trust in government regulators is rarely rewarded.
