[X] CLOSEMAIN MENU

  • Archives

  • Categories

    • air pollution (8)
    • Announcements (604)
    • Antibiotic Resistance (41)
    • Antimicrobial (18)
    • Aquaculture (30)
    • Aquatic Organisms (37)
    • Bats (7)
    • Beneficials (52)
    • Biofuels (6)
    • Biological Control (34)
    • Biomonitoring (40)
    • Birds (26)
    • btomsfiolone (1)
    • Bug Bombs (2)
    • Cannabis (30)
    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (10)
    • Chemical Mixtures (8)
    • Children (113)
    • Children/Schools (240)
    • cicadas (1)
    • Climate (30)
    • Climate Change (86)
    • Clover (1)
    • compost (6)
    • Congress (20)
    • contamination (155)
    • deethylatrazine (1)
    • diamides (1)
    • Disinfectants & Sanitizers (19)
    • Drift (17)
    • Drinking Water (16)
    • Ecosystem Services (15)
    • Emergency Exemption (3)
    • Environmental Justice (167)
    • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (535)
    • Events (89)
    • Farm Bill (24)
    • Farmworkers (198)
    • Forestry (5)
    • Fracking (4)
    • Fungal Resistance (6)
    • Fungicides (26)
    • Goats (2)
    • Golf (15)
    • Greenhouse (1)
    • Groundwater (16)
    • Health care (32)
    • Herbicides (43)
    • Holidays (39)
    • Household Use (9)
    • Indigenous People (6)
    • Indoor Air Quality (6)
    • Infectious Disease (4)
    • Integrated and Organic Pest Management (71)
    • Invasive Species (35)
    • Label Claims (49)
    • Lawns/Landscapes (251)
    • Litigation (344)
    • Livestock (9)
    • men’s health (4)
    • metabolic syndrome (3)
    • Metabolites (4)
    • Microbiata (22)
    • Microbiome (28)
    • molluscicide (1)
    • Nanosilver (2)
    • Nanotechnology (54)
    • National Politics (388)
    • Native Americans (3)
    • Occupational Health (16)
    • Oceans (11)
    • Office of Inspector General (4)
    • perennial crops (1)
    • Pesticide Drift (163)
    • Pesticide Efficacy (10)
    • Pesticide Mixtures (14)
    • Pesticide Regulation (783)
    • Pesticide Residues (185)
    • Pets (36)
    • Plant Incorporated Protectants (2)
    • Plastic (8)
    • Poisoning (20)
    • Preemption (45)
    • President-elect Transition (2)
    • Reflection (1)
    • Repellent (4)
    • Resistance (119)
    • Rights-of-Way (1)
    • Rodenticide (33)
    • Seasonal (3)
    • Seeds (6)
    • soil health (17)
    • Superfund (5)
    • synergistic effects (23)
    • Synthetic Pyrethroids (16)
    • Synthetic Turf (3)
    • Take Action (596)
    • Textile/Apparel/Fashion Industry (1)
    • Toxic Waste (12)
    • U.S. Supreme Court (1)
    • Volatile Organic Compounds (1)
    • Women’s Health (26)
    • Wood Preservatives (36)
    • World Health Organization (11)
    • Year in Review (2)
  • Most Viewed Posts

Daily News Blog

18
Dec

Take Action: Tell California You Care about Transparency in How Your Food Is Grown

California Department of Pesticide Reg new regulations

(Beyond Pesticides, December 18, 2023) Since nearly three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts are grown in California, new regulations being proposed by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), governing public disclosure of pesticide use, concern all food eaters. Food consumers are increasingly concerned about not only the residues of pesticides and other toxic materials in their food, but the impact of the production practices to the workers, the communities, and the environment where their food is grown. While the precedent-setting DPR proposal is an important step in providing the public with information on the chemicals used in California food production, advocates are asking that the regulations include information on the exact location of planned pesticide applications so that people in the toxic chemical application area can take protective action.

Tell DPR to require exact field locations for dangerous pesticide applications and commit to improvements based on community input.

The DPR proposal, while precedent-setting in providing Californians with the basic right-to-know about planned use of toxic chemicals in their neighborhoods, will not provide the exact location of planned pesticide applications. Under the DPR proposal, the public would be provided with an application location of one square mile—even though the exact field location is known to county officials in advance.

The limitation of the one square mile approach to notification has been shown to be inadequate in four small pilot notification projects last year. In those pilots, DPR received unanimous feedback: Without exact location, these notifications do not provide the information people need to protect themselves. 

DPR has also repeatedly promised that the proposed notification program is just a starting point, and the regulation will be revised in future. However, the proposed notification does not provide any opportunity for communities to weigh in—just a report by DPR staff after three years with zero commitment to make any changes. 

Advocates are asking DPR to use this historic opportunity to ensure full transparency for communities where pesticides are being used with disclosure of the exact location of pesticide applications in California, and a commitment to listen to impacted residents and to make real changes if the regulation is not working.

Tell DPR to require exact field locations for dangerous pesticide applications and commit to improvements based on community input.

Letter to DPR Director

The state of California is often in the lead in regulating pesticides. The state’s protective actions provide a model for the nation. In addition, California supplies the nation with a third of the country’s vegetables and nearly three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts, so people throughout the country have a stake in California’s regulation of pesticides.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has proposed a new regulation to provide advance notification to all Californians of some of the most hazardous pesticides used in agriculture. This proposed regulation does not go far enough.

I applaud this precedent-setting proposal to provide Californians with the basic right to know about planned use of toxic chemicals in our neighborhoods. However, DPR’s proposal will not provide the exact location of planned pesticide applications, instead giving only the 1×1 square mile “section”—even though the exact field location is known to county officials in advance.

This has been shown to be inadequate in four small pilot notification projects last year. In those pilots, DPR received unanimous feedback: Without exact location, these notifications do not provide the information people need to protect themselves. 

DPR has also repeatedly promised that the proposed notification program is just a starting point, and the regulation will be revised in future. But the proposed notification doesn’t provide any opportunity for communities to weigh in – just a report by DPR staff after three years with zero commitment to make any changes. 

Please do not to waste this historic opportunity to protect Californians and provide a model for the nation. We want the exact location of pesticide applications in California, and a commitment to listen to impacted residents and to make real changes if the regulation is not working.

Thank you.

 

 

Share

6 Responses to “Take Action: Tell California You Care about Transparency in How Your Food Is Grown”

  1. 1
    Lisa Zure Says:

    Citizens have a right to know about the quality of their food. The people of California really do care.

  2. 2
    russ ziegler Says:

    The state of California is often in the lead in regulating pesticides. The state’s protective actions provide a model for the nation. In addition, California supplies the nation with a third of the country’s vegetables and nearly three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts, so people throughout the country have a stake in California’s regulation of pesticides.

    The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has proposed a new regulation to provide advance notification to all Californians of some of the most hazardous pesticides used in agriculture. This proposed regulation does not go far enough.

    I applaud this precedent-setting proposal to provide Californians with the basic right to know about planned use of toxic chemicals in our neighborhoods. However, DPR’s proposal will not provide the exact location of planned pesticide applications, instead giving only the 1×1 square mile “section”—even though the exact field location is known to county officials in advance.

    This has been shown to be inadequate in four small pilot notification projects last year. In those pilots, DPR received unanimous feedback: Without exact location, these notifications do not provide the information people need to protect themselves.

    DPR has also repeatedly promised that the proposed notification program is just a starting point, and the regulation will be revised in future. But the proposed notification doesn’t provide any opportunity for communities to weigh in – just a report by DPR staff after three years with zero commitment to make any changes.

    Please do not to waste this historic opportunity to protect Californians and provide a model for the nation. We want the exact location of pesticide applications in California, and a commitment to listen to impacted residents and to make real changes if the regulation is not working.

    Thank you.

  3. 3
    Michael Potter Says:

    The lazy insanity of poisons in our food must be addressed.

  4. 4
    Wayne Says:

    DPR Director,

    We are exposed to too many hazardous toxins in our environment which cause health issues, thanks to our government putting production of food or wealth before health.

    It is not enough that you warn people of the use of toxic, hazardous chemicals on our food, you need to stop allowing their use—period!

    Sincerely,

    Wayne Carpenter

  5. 5
    Josette Jackson Says:

    Please do not to waste this historic opportunity to protect Californians and provide a model for the nation. We want the exact location of pesticide applications in California, and a commitment to listen to impacted residents and to make real changes if the regulation is not working.

    Thank you.

  6. 6
    Sonia Romero Villanueva Says:

    As nearly three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts are grown in California, the new regulations proposed by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) that govern public disclosure of pesticide use concern the whole nation

Leave a Reply

  • Archives

  • Categories

    • air pollution (8)
    • Announcements (604)
    • Antibiotic Resistance (41)
    • Antimicrobial (18)
    • Aquaculture (30)
    • Aquatic Organisms (37)
    • Bats (7)
    • Beneficials (52)
    • Biofuels (6)
    • Biological Control (34)
    • Biomonitoring (40)
    • Birds (26)
    • btomsfiolone (1)
    • Bug Bombs (2)
    • Cannabis (30)
    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (10)
    • Chemical Mixtures (8)
    • Children (113)
    • Children/Schools (240)
    • cicadas (1)
    • Climate (30)
    • Climate Change (86)
    • Clover (1)
    • compost (6)
    • Congress (20)
    • contamination (155)
    • deethylatrazine (1)
    • diamides (1)
    • Disinfectants & Sanitizers (19)
    • Drift (17)
    • Drinking Water (16)
    • Ecosystem Services (15)
    • Emergency Exemption (3)
    • Environmental Justice (167)
    • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (535)
    • Events (89)
    • Farm Bill (24)
    • Farmworkers (198)
    • Forestry (5)
    • Fracking (4)
    • Fungal Resistance (6)
    • Fungicides (26)
    • Goats (2)
    • Golf (15)
    • Greenhouse (1)
    • Groundwater (16)
    • Health care (32)
    • Herbicides (43)
    • Holidays (39)
    • Household Use (9)
    • Indigenous People (6)
    • Indoor Air Quality (6)
    • Infectious Disease (4)
    • Integrated and Organic Pest Management (71)
    • Invasive Species (35)
    • Label Claims (49)
    • Lawns/Landscapes (251)
    • Litigation (344)
    • Livestock (9)
    • men’s health (4)
    • metabolic syndrome (3)
    • Metabolites (4)
    • Microbiata (22)
    • Microbiome (28)
    • molluscicide (1)
    • Nanosilver (2)
    • Nanotechnology (54)
    • National Politics (388)
    • Native Americans (3)
    • Occupational Health (16)
    • Oceans (11)
    • Office of Inspector General (4)
    • perennial crops (1)
    • Pesticide Drift (163)
    • Pesticide Efficacy (10)
    • Pesticide Mixtures (14)
    • Pesticide Regulation (783)
    • Pesticide Residues (185)
    • Pets (36)
    • Plant Incorporated Protectants (2)
    • Plastic (8)
    • Poisoning (20)
    • Preemption (45)
    • President-elect Transition (2)
    • Reflection (1)
    • Repellent (4)
    • Resistance (119)
    • Rights-of-Way (1)
    • Rodenticide (33)
    • Seasonal (3)
    • Seeds (6)
    • soil health (17)
    • Superfund (5)
    • synergistic effects (23)
    • Synthetic Pyrethroids (16)
    • Synthetic Turf (3)
    • Take Action (596)
    • Textile/Apparel/Fashion Industry (1)
    • Toxic Waste (12)
    • U.S. Supreme Court (1)
    • Volatile Organic Compounds (1)
    • Women’s Health (26)
    • Wood Preservatives (36)
    • World Health Organization (11)
    • Year in Review (2)
  • Most Viewed Posts