04
Apr
Landmark Agricultural Pesticide Use Notification Takes Form, as Efforts to Eliminate Pesticides Gain Traction
(Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2025) In March, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced the launch of SprayDays California, “a first-of-its-kind statewide system designed to provide transparent, accessible and timely notifications and information about the use of specific pesticides[,]“ according to the agency’s press release. The state says that notification will occur in “advance of the scheduled use of California restricted material pesticides in production agriculture.â€
Growing out of the passage of AB 617 Community Emissions Reduction Act in California, passed in 2017, farmworker safety advocates have long been urging an implementation strategy that provides notification of pesticide spraying. In late 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) began implementation of AB 617, a bill enacted with the stated intent of addressing the air quality crisis in many communities of predominantly people of color who are disproportionately harmed by toxic chemicals. While the overall goal of the law is to reduce air pollution in these communities, farmworker advocates have sought to operationalize a pesticide spraying notification system to warn communities when nearby spraying is scheduled to take place.
The idea behind notification programs and transparency in government is that it enables those potentially exposed to take precautionary measures to reduce exposure, which may or may not be possible given the ability of people, workers, or families to secure adequate protection from drift and the chemicals’ intrusion into homes, schools, and other buildings.
However, requirements for public disclosure of toxic pesticide ingredients have historically had the effect of encouraging pesticide users and manufacturers to find less hazardous products or ingredients. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a policy to require chemical companies to disclose on pesticide product labels inert (typically undisclosed chemicals) ingredients “of toxicological concern” (List 1 inert ingredients), they began removing the toxicants from their products. Under this policy, the label is required to disclose the following: “This product contains the toxic inert ingredient (name of inert).â€
The specific active ingredients (some categories overlap) that are now required for monitoring and submission to SprayDays include the
- 23 existing federally restricted use pesticides;
- Handful of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 18 pesticides for limited-time “emergency exemption,â€
- “Pesticides formulated as a dust, labeled to permit outdoor use, and packaged in containers of more than 25 pounds,†except those that are exempt under California Section 6402 “exempt†pesticides (under California law) for certain uses;
- 105 pesticides labeled on the Groundwater Protection List;
- Among “certain other pesticides†listed in subsection E. (See here for further information.)
According to EPA’s Active Pesticide Product Registration Informational Listing (APPRIL), there are over 56,000 registered pesticide products with over 1,000 approved active ingredients.
In an era of federal deregulation, funding freezes and deep cuts, and elimination of public data, this California program is providing an incredible public service for frontline and fenceline communities to access more information on pesticide use. Living amid chemical pollution creates the need for immediate mitigation measures in an attempt to reduce exposure. Mitigation measures, however, are often found to be lacking because of ongoing risks that may be reduced, but not eliminated, despite the availability of nontoxic practices that current policies do not require.
Beyond Pesticides has written extensively that focusing on mitigation efforts (buffer zones, notification systems, etc.) fails to identify the root cause being the failure of EPA to adequately assess the lack of pesticide essentiality and pesticide hazards in the face of unprecedented chronic illness diagnoses, biodiversity collapse (pollinators, birds, and butterflies alone), and the climate crisis. In partnership with farmers, community organizers, public health professionals, and some policymakers, we believe that adopting land management and food supply chain systems rooted in organic principles and criteria translates to a pesticide-free future. Â
Background on Notification System
Based on DPR’s website, the agency began developing SprayDays California in 2021 after receiving funding in the state budget. That same year, pilot projects were voluntarily launched in four counties (Stanislaus, Riverside, Santa Cruz, and Ventura), and a two-year public outreach effort culminated in four focus groups and eight public meetings. The UC Davis Center for Regional Change conducted an independent evaluation of the notification system from the four notification pilot projects, echoing some concerns raised by local groups and Beyond Pesticides. (See here.) In 2023, DPR moved to propose regulations to implement this system across the state, with final regulations approved in December 2024. Â
SprayDays California requires that “restricted material pesticides†must be added to the notification system, with a 48-hour minimum notice expected for soil fumigants and 24-hour notice for all other pesticides in this category. The notifications will be sent via email and text messages, with opt-out options available depending on the user’s needs. The pesticide map component of this system organizes the pesticide applications into one-square-mile sections, including relevant information, such as pesticide product name, active ingredient(s) name(s), application method (ground, aerial, fumigation, other), number of treated acres, and EPA registration number.
Critical Analysis of Pesticide Notification Systems
“This is a first-in-the-world pesticide notification system,†says Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) Co-Director Angel Garcia in a CPR blog post on March 25, 2025. “Since California uses more pesticides than any other state, including more than 130 pesticides that are not approved in the European Union, farmworker communities have demanded a ‘heads up’ in order to take measures to reduce the risk of exposure to our loved ones. We need far better protections from the State, but this is a giant step forward toward transparency about toxic pesticide use.â€
While advancing a strategy to transition chemical-intensive agriculture to certified organic practices, Beyond Pesticides has supported mitigation measure policies, including neighbor and public notification systems, across the nation for years (see previous Daily News and Actions of the Week here, here, and here). Additional examples include federal rulemaking, such as the proposed Draft Herbicide Strategy Framework for pesticide spraying in designated critical habitats; additionally, the organization mobilized in the state of Michigan in 2024 in support of a neighbor notification bill in the state legislature. Beyond Pesticides has also mobilized the public in California in 2023 before this new program was finalized to ensure that DPR would require exact field locations and commit to improvements suggested by communities directly impacted by potential sprayings.
This last point was a concern shared by several local groups and individuals, including Irene Gomez – a resident of Oxnard, CA, and member of the Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety – Ventura County (CAPS 805). “When my community in Nyeland Acres had the pilot notification project, our biggest issue was that you couldn’t find out exactly where the pesticides would be applied – which farm? That’s still a problem with Spray Days,†says Ms. Gomez. “You can only know pesticides are being applied within a square mile, but not whether it’s coming from behind your house, across the street, or even a mile away.â€
The issue of knowing exactly where and when a pesticide application is occurring is critical to public safety for communities living near or around spray zones, particularly in the California context where a significant quantity of the toxic fumigant 1,3D (Telone) is sprayed in some instances for dozens of acres in one given logged application; for instance, as of April 1, 2025, there are three restricted material pesticide applications planned on approximately 24.2 acres of farmland in Tulare County – all Telone.
There are several additional components about which DPR will likely face questions from the public, including the notification system’s omission of general use pesticides, despite known health risks, whether SprayDays applies to nonagricultural pesticide applications (e.g., mosquito spraying, structural/indoor use, privately-owned public land, private homes, homeowner associations (HOAs), etc.). Concerns of lackluster public participation and privacy concerns have also emerged, as evidenced in a review of several of the pilot notification systems in Stanislaus, Riverside, Santa Cruz, Ventura, and Tulare counties, reported by The Modesto Bee in February 2024.
“During the pilot program in Grayson [Stanislaus County], only 46 people out of the community’s nearly 800 adult residents enrolled in the notification system, according to Stanislaus County Agricultural Commissioner Linda Pinfold,†as reported in the article. Farmworker and immigrant communities, as shared by Bianca Lopez of the environmental justice nonprofit Valley Improvement Project as well as others, are concerned about the way in which personal information would be used to undermine their ability to maintain residence in the country.
Another issue is limiting the scope of the program to “intended†or “scheduled†versus actual pesticide applications. According to the program’s frequently asked questions page, “Not all scheduled pesticide applications included on SprayDays will occur.†In terms of instilling public trust in real-time information on applications appearing on the platform, some advocates are concerned about the flexibility and possible discrepancy between projected and actual pesticide use: “If the intended application is approved by the county agricultural commissioner, a grower or applicator has up to four days following the scheduled application date to start the pesticide application,†the policy says. On the topic of the one-square-mile sections on the pesticide map, DPR settled on this decision after pushback from Farm Bureau and other chemical-intensive industrial farmers out of fear that protestors would disrupt their farming operations if more specific details were publicly listed.
Beyond Pesticides has covered the fundamental flaws in similar types of mitigative, rather than preventive, efforts in a 2018 Daily News, Protections from Agricultural Pesticide Drift over Schools Take Effect in California, in the context of developing pesticide buffer zones for California schools. In this context, intense pressure from the industry led to the weakening of the draft proposed regulation. For example, the original proposal required growers to give schools 48-hour notice of any pesticide use planned within a quarter mile. This was removed from the final regulation, leaving only the requirement to provide general notice to schools of possible pesticide use over the year. At that time, concerned parents and advocates said it was unacceptable for DPR to water down already insufficient protections.
“I told my daughter: When I die, I want this [SprayDays California] to be on my tombstone. I want everyone to know that I fought for you, your future, your family and their future,†says Byanka Santoyo, community organizer at the Center on Race, Poverty, & the Environment, one of over 200 coalition partners working on this notification system over the course of a decade, according to reporting by Environmental Health News. Critics of the notification system acknowledge the thousands of hours, blood, sweat, and tears that have gone into developing this novel monitoring system while understanding the limitations of mitigation measures and the need to urgently transition agriculture to nontoxic practices.
As is the case with buffer zones putting the onus on school systems and those farming without toxic chemicals, so too do public notification systems place the burden on rural, farmworker, and working-class communities of color who are expected to easily access a system with known flaws. Instead, pesticide use is no longer a fixed variable in 21st-century agriculture with a $70 billion organic sector demonstrating an alternative pathway forward. See Daily News, Recent Census Shows 24 Percent Jump in Organic Sales; Integrity Issues before Organic Board, for analysis before the Fall 2024 NOSB meeting and recent trends in the organic sector.
Pesticide Drift and Health Effects
Various peer-reviewed studies and reports highlight the ecological and human health impacts of chemical-intensive food systems. Pesticide harms for exposed children include:
- Higher risk of childhood leukemia linked to pesticides commonly used in vineyards (See Daily News here.)
- A literature review of over 200 studies finds racialized disparities in neurodevelopmental disorders a matter of environmental justice. (See Daily News here.)
- There are statistically significant positive associations between pesticide usage rates and children with cancer, specifically brain and central nervous system (CNS) cancers and leukemia. (See Daily News here.)
Pesticide drift contaminates soil in urban and “naturalâ€/rural environments equally, based on a 2023 study published by an international group of scientists spanning all continents. (See Daily News here.) Pesticide drift is also a threat from indoor agricultural facilities such as greenhouses; a 2020 study finds that children living near floricultural greenhouses spraying organophosphate and carbamate pesticides exhibit reduced activity of the acetylcholinesterase enzyme (AChE) and abnormal functioning of the nervous system. (See Daily News here.) Additionally, pregnant women living within just 2.5 miles of chemical-intensive farming face an increased risk of their children developing central nervous system (CNS) tumors. (See Daily News here.)
There are calls for alternative systems, including organic agriculture, as made clear in an Environmental Pollution literature review of numerous studies from North and South America, Africa, Europe, and Asia in late 2024. (See Daily News here.) Â
Call to Action
Advocates continue to look for regulatory pathways built into existing federal pesticide law to expedite the registration review process for toxic pesticides. While it is valuable to develop tools for the most at-risk communities and workers to protect themselves and their loved ones from exposure, Beyond Pesticides continues to support these efforts coupled with structural changes to risk assessment and organically managed land and food systems. See the previous Daily News, Beyond Pesticides Makes Science-based Case that It Is Imperative to Phase Out Pesticides in a Decade, to learn more about our mission to eliminate toxic petrochemical-based pesticides and fertilizers from food and land management systems by 2032. Â
The Spring 2025 meeting for the National Organic Standards Board will be held virtually from April 29 to May 1. Written comments are due by April 28, with public comment webinars scheduled for April 22 to April 24 from 12-5pm EDT. See Keeping Organic Strong to stay tuned for more information and learn how to engage in the public comment process to strengthen integrity in organic standards!
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
