Proposed legislation on widely used pesticide falls short, activists warn

Agriculture activists warn that proposed legislation by the state to regulate a pesticide that is widely used in Santa Cruz County does not do enough to protect the public. 

Members of pesticide watchdog groups Safe Ag Safe Schools, Future Leaders of Change and Californians for Pesticide Reform were among those who gathered Friday evening outside the Cinelux Green Valley movie theater in Watsonville. 

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released proposed legislation Thursday related to 1,3-dichloropropene—a carcinogen that’s banned in 34 countries. The drift-prone chemical is often used to kill organisms in the soil prior to planting, and is frequently used in strawberry and grape fields. 

Local growers used the pesticide more than any other in 2022, applying approximately 240,000 pounds of it to fields in the county. The chemical is the third-most-used in the state of California. 

The state’s draft legislation does not rely on existing pesticide research, said Angel Garcia, co-director of Californians for Pesticide Reform. And while that may be expected of the incoming Trump administration, it shouldn’t happen in a state that prides itself on environmental justice, Garcia said.

The standard exposure level of 1,3-dichloropropone should be four parts per hundred billion according to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, he said. Instead of using that number to dictate legislation, the state used data from Dow Chemical, a manufacturer of 1,3-dichloropropene, which says the standard exposure level is 56 parts per hundred billion. 

The legislation also assumes that the farmworkers will not be exposed to the chemical outside of work, said Garcia. Based on that logic, the new regulation is not going to protect a lot of people as many workers live near farms or their children go to schools near farms, he said. 

“They chose bureaucracy over science,” Garcia said. “Our communities are not being considered whenever they’re making and drafting these types of regulations.” 

Garcia and fellow activists also encouraged the public to attend public hearings on the proposed legislation in Salinas, Visalia and Chico in January to participate in public comment. 

Activists have also pressured officials at the county level to exercise more control over regulating pesticide applications and practice better communication with other local agencies and residents in South County in the wake of a civil grand jury report that sharply criticized the county’s response to pesticide use in the region.

County officials responded to the grand jury’s report on Oct. 30, rejecting two of the jury’s recommendations on how to better notify local residents, city councils and school boards about how pesticides are being used by commercial growers. Instead, officials argued that such notifications are the responsibility of the state.

On Friday, William Richard Lovelace, a member of the grand jury who worked on the report, told Lookout that county officials have the responsibility to be transparent and communicate with constituents about pesticides—even if that responsibility ultimately lies at a different level of government, said 

“Saying it’s somebody else’s job, not my job, yeah, I don’t think they’re correct in that,” Lovelace said.  

Pesticide use is an issue that has a lot of meaning to people in South County, where much of the region’s commercial farming takes place, Lovelace said. The grand jury has worked to put pressure on the county to better address concerns over pesticide use and communication with residents, but now there needs to be more pressure from the community, he said. 

If residents demand more open communication, that may lead to more change, but no change can happen if they don’t, Lovelace said. 

—

FOR THE RECORD: The story has been updated to correct the 1,3 dichloropropone exposure levels proposed by state legislation, as well as those recommended by activist groups. They are 56 parts per hundred billion and 4 parts per hundred billion, respectively. Incorrect information was provided to Lookout.

—

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.