AB 1603 would restrict the use, sale, and registration of pesticides that contain intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The bill bars the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) from registering new PFAS-containing pesticides, requires a standardized warning label for products that contain intentionally added PFAS beginning in 2028, and creates a restricted-material permit regime for existing PFAS pesticides starting in mid‑2028.
The measure phases enforcement: it bans manufacture, sale, and use of pesticides containing a targeted list of PFAS-active ingredients beginning January 1, 2030, and expands to prohibit any pesticide with intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2035. The changes touch manufacturers, distributors, California growers that rely on the listed chemistries, county agricultural commissioners who issue permits, and DPR’s regulatory programs—and they create both compliance costs and operational trade-offs around pest management and residue monitoring.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits DPR from registering new pesticides that intentionally contain PFAS, requires a prominent PFAS warning on labels starting January 1, 2028, and classifies currently registered PFAS-containing pesticides as restricted materials subject to county permits as of July 1, 2028. It establishes a two-step phaseout: a targeted ban on a list of named pesticide active ingredients effective January 1, 2030, followed by a full ban on any pesticide with intentionally added PFAS effective January 1, 2035.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are pesticide manufacturers, formulators, distributors, and retailers selling products in California; California growers that use affected chemistries (especially fruit and vegetable producers); county agricultural commissioners who will process permits under the restricted-material regime; and DPR, which must set conditions and public disclosure rules.
Why It Matters
AB 1603 is a state-level, class-based regulatory approach to PFAS in pesticides with specific phase-out dates and compliance mechanics—labeling, permitting, and registration denial. That combination changes market access, supply-chain labeling obligations, and local permitting practices in a way that could affect crop protection strategies, residue testing, and trade.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a new Article 6 to the Food and Agricultural Code that treats PFAS as a class: the statutory definition is any fluorinated organic chemical containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. Under that framework, the bill imposes several distinct but sequenced obligations and prohibitions rather than a single immediate ban.
First, DPR must stop registering (or reregistering) any pesticide that has not previously been registered in the state if that pesticide contains PFAS intentionally added as an active, adjuvant, or inert ingredient. That cuts off new PFAS-containing products at the point of state market entry while already-registered products remain subject to other measures.Second, the bill creates mandatory disclosure and a restricted-material pathway for existing PFAS-containing pesticides.
Starting January 1, 2028 manufacturers, distributors, and sellers must include a prominent PFAS warning on labels. From July 1, 2028, DPR and county agricultural commissioners treat registered PFAS-containing pesticides as restricted materials that require permits for agricultural use; permits must carry the same PFAS warning and DPR must include the warning in any public disclosure systems it operates.Third, the statute phases out uses: on January 1, 2030 the bill prohibits manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, offering for sale, and use of pesticides that contain any PFAS on a specific list of named active ingredients; on January 1, 2035 it extends that prohibition to any pesticide with PFAS intentionally added.
The director is charged with prescribing by January 1, 2028 the times and conditions under which PFAS-restricted materials may be used or possessed in different parts of the state and may prohibit use or possession in specified areas. Because several provisions make violations a crime, the bill creates new enforcement exposure for supply-chain actors and users.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The department may not register or reregister any pesticide not previously registered in California that contains PFAS intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients (Section 14088.3).
Beginning January 1, 2028, manufacturers, distributors, and sellers must include a 16-point type warning on pesticide labels stating the product contains PFAS and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment (Section 14088.4).
As of July 1, 2028, any registered pesticide with intentionally added PFAS becomes a PFAS-restricted material requiring a permit under Section 14006.5; the permit and any DPR public disclosure (e.g.
SprayDays) must display the statutory PFAS warning (Section 14088.5).
On January 1, 2030 the bill bars manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, offering for sale, and use of pesticides that contain any of 23 specifically named PFAS-associated active ingredients (examples in the list include trifluralin, fipronil, bifenthrin, and chlorfenapyr) (Section 14088.2).
On January 1, 2035 the legislation expands the prohibition to any pesticide that contains PFAS intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients, effectively phasing out class-wide intentional PFAS in pesticides (Section 14088.1).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions: PFAS, pesticide, and PFAS‑restricted material
This section sets the operative definitions. PFAS are defined broadly as fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom; “pesticide” refers to the existing statutory definition; and “PFAS‑restricted material” is defined to mean a registered pesticide that contains PFAS intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients. The breadth of the PFAS definition matters because it determines which chemistries fall under the subsequent prohibitions and whether a substance is treated as an intentional additive or an incidental impurity.
2035: Full ban on intentionally added PFAS in pesticides
This provision establishes the long‑term outcome: beginning January 1, 2035 no person may use, manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer for sale any pesticide that contains PFAS intentionally added. Practically, this is the end state that will require manufacturers to reformulate or withdraw products containing intentionally added PFAS well before that date, and it sets an enforceable deadline for DPR and local permitting authorities.
2030: Targeted ban on a list of named pesticide active ingredients
Section 14088.2 lists 23 specific active ingredients (identified by name and CAS numbers) whose use, manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offering for sale is prohibited starting January 1, 2030 if the pesticide contains PFAS intentionally added. That creates an intermediate restriction focused on common pesticide chemistries—giving industry and regulators a near‑term cut‑off that covers many widely used products before the full class ban.
Registration prohibition for new PFAS-containing pesticides
This short provision prevents DPR from registering or reregistering any pesticide not previously registered if it contains PFAS intentionally added. The effect is to foreclose state market entry for new PFAS formulations while leaving DPR authority and the permit regime to govern existing registered products.
Labeling: mandatory PFAS warning beginning January 1, 2028
Beginning January 1, 2028, manufacturers, distributors, and sellers must include a prominent written warning on pesticide labels—specified in the statute—and the bill requires that statement be printed in at least 16‑point type. This is a prescriptive, uniform disclosure aimed at informing users and the public that the product contains PFAS and may contaminate produce and environmental media; it also creates a compliance checkpoint for sellers and retailers handling inventory ahead of the deadline.
Restricted‑material classification, permit language, director authority, and public disclosure
This section classifies registered PFAS‑containing pesticides as restricted materials and ties their use to the permit process in Section 14006.5. A permit for a PFAS‑restricted material must include the statutory PFAS warning; DPR must include the same warning in any public disclosures about use, including SprayDays California. The director must, on or before January 1, 2028, prescribe when and under what conditions a PFAS‑restricted material may be used or possessed in different parts of the state and may prohibit use or possession in specified areas. The section becomes operative July 1, 2028, which staggers operational timing between the disclosure requirement and the permit regime.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- California consumers and residents concerned about drinking water and food safety — the phased prohibitions and label disclosures aim to reduce intentional PFAS inputs that can lead to contaminated water and produce.
- Public water suppliers and water quality managers — reducing intentional PFAS uses in agriculture can lower future PFAS loading to groundwater and surface water, simplifying remediation and treatment needs over time.
- Environmental and public‑health organizations — the law creates enforceable state measures targeting PFAS in pesticides, aligning regulatory tools with their advocacy goals and giving them clearer metrics (labels, permit records, DPR disclosures) to track progress.
- Producers and brands that market PFAS‑free produce — state labeling and an eventual class‑wide ban improve the credibility of PFAS‑free claims and can create market differentiation for growers who already avoid the listed chemistries.
Who Bears the Cost
- Pesticide manufacturers and formulators — they must reformulate or withdraw products containing intentionally added PFAS, stop registering new products with PFAS, relabel existing inventory to meet the 16‑point warning requirement, and manage phase‑out timelines.
- Distributors and retailers — they face relabeling, inventory management, and potential losses on stock that cannot be sold after the 2030 or 2035 prohibitions; they also must ensure point‑of‑sale compliance starting in 2028.
- California growers who rely on affected active ingredients — farms using any of the 23 named chemistries will need alternatives, risking increased pest pressure, yield losses, or higher costs for substitute products and integrated pest management adjustments.
- County agricultural commissioners and DPR — the permit regime, new disclosure duties, and rule‑making deadlines increase administrative workload and enforcement responsibilities, potentially without additional state funding.
- Laboratories and testing services — increased demand for residue testing to demonstrate compliance, and the need to distinguish intentional additives from trace contaminants, will create analytical and cost burdens for both regulators and private parties.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing public‑health and environmental protection from persistent PFAS chemicals against the practical needs of agricultural pest control and the regulatory burden on industry and local agencies: the bill reduces future PFAS inputs and increases transparency, but it forces manufacturers to reformulate, growers to change pest‑management practices, and regulators to define and enforce a technically complex ‘‘intentionally added’’ standard under tight deadlines.
AB 1603 rests on a broad statutory definition of PFAS and multiple implementation deadlines, but several operational questions are unresolved and will shape outcomes. The statute targets PFAS intentionally added as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients; that ‘‘intentional’’ qualifier invites disputes over whether trace contaminants or by‑products in formulations fall within the ban.
Regulators will need clear testing thresholds and guidance to separate purposeful inclusion from incidental presence, and those thresholds will drive enforcement practicality.
The bill also phases obligations across labeling, permitting, registration denial, and eventual bans. That sequencing helps manage supply‑chain transitions but raises timing risks: manufacturers must update labels by 2028, DPR must set permit conditions by the same calendar date, and growers face a 2030 list‑based ban followed by a 2035 class ban.
Local permit practices could vary across counties, producing a patchwork of access for growers. There is also a substitution risk—if alternatives to the banned chemistries are less effective or have their own environmental harms, growers and regulators will face real trade‑offs.
Finally, the interaction with federal EPA registrations and international trade standards will matter: California’s registration denial and state bans could diverge from federal approvals and create legal and logistical friction around interstate commerce and exports.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.