Quick Take
Watsonville activist Woody Rehanek wants the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to change how pesticides are dispensed. The majority of pest control advisers are, he says, employed by pesticide distributors and receive kickbacks for prescribing their in-house chemicals for crops. This conflict of interest – in place since the 1950s – is causing farmers to use an unnecessary amount of pesticides locally, he writes: “Think of how Big Pharma operated in the 1980s, when pharmaceutical companies paid doctors to prescribe their products. Now we have Big Chem paying pesticide prescribers.”
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
Santa Cruz County holds a dubious pesticide distinction: By relative weight of pesticides applied, we use the highest percentage (67%) of fumigants of any county in California.
Fumigant gasses are bad news. They are toxic, both acutely and long term, and can drift for miles in the air. They also destroy the diversity of organisms that build healthy soils.
Why are they a mainstay of our local agriculture system?
One reason is because California has a pesticide dispensing process that survives on kickbacks and ingrained conflict of interest. Think of how Big Pharma operated in the 1980s, when pharmaceutical companies paid doctors to prescribe their products.
Now we have Big Chem paying pesticide prescribers.
Those of us who live in farming communities like Watsonville pay the price for our state’s agricultural bounty and loopholed regulations. Of particular concern are pregnant women, children and the people who pick our berries, apples and vegetables.
The Pajaro Valley Unified School District on the Santa Cruz County side of the Pajaro River has 67 farms within a quarter mile of our schools. Of those farms, 17 are organic, while 50 are conventional chemical farms, many of which are berry farms that use 1,3-dichloropropene as a fumigant.
Local and state groups concerned about schoolchildren have been campaigning against 1,3-D (Telone) for years. It is both a toxic air contaminant and a carcinogen. It travels for miles on the wind, affecting kids, teachers and anyone unlucky enough to live or work near it. Its use is not allowed in 34 countries.
We need to change how our state conducts its agricultural business.
That change should start with transparency and accountability at the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). One big issue that must be tackled is the role of pest control advisers (PCAs).
To regulate pesticides, the state created DPR in 1991 “to protect human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use, and by fostering reduced-risk pest management.” Regulations forbade DPR employees from profiting from the huge pesticide industry. This was considered a clear conflict of interest.
In 1992, state regulations, with DPR oversight, established a system of certified pest control advisers to monitor the health of fields, farms and forests and to recommend pesticides when and if needed. PCAs are also tasked with “certification that alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact on the environment have been considered and, if feasible, adopted.”
Here’s the conundrum: The majority of PCAs are employed by pesticide distributors and receive kickbacks for prescribing their in-house chemicals for crops. Yes, you read that right.
Company PCAs usually receive a base salary – and a commission on the pesticides they sell. So their paycheck increases when they recommend more pesticides.
This cuts to the core of the problem that needs fixing, a problem that has existed virtually unregulated since the 1950s.
Company PCAs monitor, evaluate and prescribe pesticides, often “free of charge,” but their employer sells the chemicals they suggest. It’s in their interest to suggest the pesticides the company makes; hence the conflict of interest.
Robert van den Bosch, a pioneer in in integrated pest management, which aims for organic and regenerative alternatives to toxic pesticides, pointed this out in his landmark 1978 book, “The Pesticide Conspiracy,” In it, he writes, “Perhaps the greatest absurdity in contemporary pest control is the dominant role of the pesticide salesman, who simultaneously acts as diagnostician, therapist, nostrum prescriber, and pill peddler.”
The problem is clear. There is also a way to fix it, although it requires breaking the stranglehold of Big Ag and Big Chem. We need to upgrade PCA training and licensure requirements to focus on the least toxic alternatives, and get rid of kickbacks from synthetic chemical sales.
A minority of PCAs are independent and charge a per-acre fee for their services. Independent PCAs are not employed by chemical companies and are therefore more likely to assess field conditions without bias and to recommend integrated pest management. The problem is that they compete for clients with the “free” services offered by company PCAs.
In her remarkable 2016 article in a law review, Jennifer Oleksa Vanzant, who later served as a deputy attorney general for California, and sadly died of cancer in 2022, makes this point succinctly: “They [independent PCAs] are much more likely to use an integrated approach to managing pests, which in turn reduces the volume of pesticides used as well as the cost to growers.”
On the other hand, she writes, “The affiliation of PCAs with giant agricultural chemical companies has proven to have detrimental effects on the environment and human health and safety.”
This conflict predates PCA licensure by many years, and yet regulators and legislators have done nothing.
Big Chem paying in-house PCAs to prescribe their ag chemicals is no different from Big Pharma paying doctors to prescribe their pharmaceuticals. It needs to be stopped.
Targeted training and use of independent PCAs can increase adoption of alternatives, which will lead to pesticide reduction, healthier soils and watersheds and a host of other benefits. Many farmers who have switched to soil building, creating habitat for beneficial birds and insects, and reduced use of synthetic chemicals have seen cost savings.
The conflict-of-interest problem of company PCAs prescribing pesticides is solvable, but it will take immense political courage and will.
“Removing PCAs from the auspices of pest control giants is a necessary step toward the eradication of the pervasive conflict of interest that harms modern agriculture,” Vanzant writes. “Failure to erect a legal barrier between advisers and pesticide salesmen acts as an open invitation for the fox to continue guarding the hen house.”
Woody Rehanek was a farmworker in Washington state for 18 years and a special education teacher in the Pajaro Valley Unified School District for 18 years. He is a member of Safe Ag Safe Schools and a founding member of CORA (Campaign for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture).