Environmental Watchdog Group Demands EPA Retraction Over Pesticide Claims

A farmer spreads pesticide on a field in Centreville, Md., on April 25, 2022. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

A watchdog organization has called for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to retract what the environmental group has described as false information regarding the level of “forever chemicals” found in pesticides.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) alleged in its letter to the EPA that the government agency covered up findings of high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, as well as perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS, found in pesticide products.

Attorney Kyla Bennett, director of science policy with PEER and a former EPA wetland permit reviewer, told The Epoch Times that her client, Steven Lasee, a toxicologist with Lasee Research & Consulting, initially conducted a study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, in which he and co-authors found large amounts of PFOS (3.92 to 19.2 parts per million) in six out of 10 pesticide samples that they studied.

The study also found PFAS contamination in rural and agricultural regions affecting “human and animal foodstuff crops grown in these areas.”

PFAS are a group of chemicals with approximately 10,000-plus individual chemicals, Mr. Lasee told The Epoch Times.

“They all have some sort of carbon–fluorine bond, and that is what makes them PFAS,” he said.

Mr. Lasee said that PFOS is one of the “most notorious” PFAS chemicals listed in his study.

According to Ms. Bennett, Mr. Lasee initially shared this information with the EPA but received no response.

She said the EPA contacted Mr. Lasee and used his research to conduct a separate study, from which the agency concluded that there were no forever chemicals detected.

However, Ms. Bennett said Mr. Lasee knew there were forever chemicals because he spiked the samples with a recorded amount of the substances.

“This is traditional for scientific studies and done regularly to make sure the tests are working correctly,” Ms. Bennett said.

It also helps to calibrate the known amount present in the sample with the unknown amount, she said.

When the EPA told Mr. Lasee that it hadn’t detected any of the chemicals, Ms. Bennett said her client knew this to be incorrect.

EPA Counters Lasee’s Findings

When Mr. Lasee told the EPA that he had spiked the sample, he was ignored, Ms. Bennett said. The EPA issued a May 2023 statement saying that, using a new testing method, it found no PFAS in the pesticide products.

The agency admitted that its own findings differed from those of the Journal of Hazardous Materials study.

“EPA is confident in the results of this newly released method, which is specifically targeted to detect the presence of PFAS in pesticide products formulated with surfactants,” the agency stated.

Ms. Bennett said she began the process of requesting EPA documents related to the findings through the Freedom of Information Act.

“We were shocked to find that in one of the tests that they ran, it showed quite a bit of PFAS and they simply didn’t report it,” she said.

PEER notified the EPA of this finding, and the EPA responded in April 2024 with a letter stating that it used Mr. Lasee’s testing methods, then its own “newly developed analytical method,” which showed no forever chemicals in the pesticides but detected trace levels of the substances in the materials used for the tests.

“When blanks, such as solvents, are processed through the method and analyzed by this instrument, trace amounts of PFAS can be detected and are likely attributed to solvents, materials and supplies used during the preparation process,” the EPA stated. “These trace levels of PFAS detected are treated as instrument and method background levels.”

Mr. Lasee said that he now feels that the EPA “coerced me into working with them just so that they could damage my name,” in addition to manipulating the data that he sent them.

In response to The Epoch Times’ request for comment, the EPA said it does not comment on pending litigation.

In its statement to PEER, the EPA said it remained “confident in our findings” and that it established clear communication with Mr. Lasee throughout the process “regarding the intent of the Agency to test samples utilizing both the dilution method and the EPA’s new method as well as its intent to release those findings.”

Possible Adverse Effects

Ms. Bennett said the complaint’s intent is to make the EPA apologize for maligning Mr. Lasee’s study and to retract the May 2023 statement countering his findings.

“Scientists around the world are finding PFAS in pesticides,” she said. “We know they are in there as an active ingredient. They are in there as inert ingredients. They are in there as contamination from the fluorinated containers. There is zero doubt that there are PFAS in a number of pesticides, and to us, it looks like they are trying to placate the pesticide industry or quell the fears of the public.”

According to Ms. Bennett, scientists have identified approximately 14,000 chemicals that have a strong fluorine–carbon bond between the fluorine and carbon molecules.

“It’s almost impossible to break, which is why they got the nickname ‘forever chemicals,’ while also named for the fluorine–carbon bond or FC,” she said. “Because they don’t break down, they are incredibly persistent, and they can bioaccumulate in your body and biomagnify up the food chain.”

Ms. Bennett said these chemicals are known carcinogens that affect the immune system, the thyroid, and the kidneys, and can lead to the development of cancer in the breast, brain, and testicles.

“The list can go on and on,” she said.

Pesticides are already poisonous, Ms. Bennett said, and when these additional chemicals are added, they become even more toxic.

“I don’t know why the EPA did what it did, but I do suspect that they did it at the behest of the pesticide industry and that it doesn’t want people to panic because we know now how dangerous forever chemicals are,” she said. “We are all exposed, and when you talk about the potential for this affecting our food supply, that’s where it gets really scary.”