WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1674

Relating to the production, sale, and use of certain agricultural products containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); creating a criminal offense.

89th Legislature (2025) Introduced by Diego Bernal and 72 co-sponsors

HB 1674 criminalizes production and sale of PFAS-containing agricultural products in Texas, establishing state-level enforcement for synthetic chemical restrictions in farming inputs.

Left pending in committee
#agriculture(i0020) #crimes--miscellaneous(i0200) #fertilizer(s5345) #hazardoussubstances(s0338) #sewagesludge(s0503) #texasa&magrilifeextensionservice(u0221)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1674

Legislative bill overview

HB 1674 would regulate the production, sale, and use of agricultural products containing PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances)—synthetic chemicals used in various industrial and consumer applications—and establish criminal penalties for violations. The bill represents Texas's first attempt to create criminal liability for PFAS use in agricultural contexts, where these chemicals appear in pesticides, fertilizers, and food packaging.

Why is this important

PFAS are persistent environmental contaminants that accumulate in soil and groundwater, potentially affecting drinking water supplies and human health. Agricultural products are a significant source of PFAS exposure to consumers and the environment, making regulation economically and health-relevant to farmers, manufacturers, and Texas residents. This legislation could set a precedent for state-level chemical regulation and create compliance challenges for agricultural industries.

Potential points of contention

  • Agricultural industry impact: Restricting PFAS in agricultural products may increase production costs, limit available pest management tools, or require expensive reformulation of existing products
  • Criminal penalties vs. civil enforcement: Creating criminal offenses for PFAS use differs from regulatory states' approach (typically civil fines), raising questions about proportionality and enforcement feasibility
  • Federal preemption concerns: Potential conflicts with EPA authority and interstate commerce, as farmers may source products from other states with less stringent standards
  • Implementation clarity: The bill's definition of "certain agricultural products" appears vague based on the title, creating uncertainty about scope and enforcement

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.