{"id":21893,"date":"2018-01-11T00:00:06","date_gmt":"2018-01-11T04:00:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=21893"},"modified":"2018-01-11T08:57:33","modified_gmt":"2018-01-11T12:57:33","slug":"court-rejects-californias-blanket-approval-pesticide-applications","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2018\/01\/court-rejects-californias-blanket-approval-pesticide-applications\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Rejects California’s Blanket Approval for Pesticide Applications"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, January 11, 2018)\u00a0A California court has halted a state program allowing \"\"pesticide spraying at schools, organic farms, and backyards across California because of inadequate public disclosure of the chemicals\u2019 adverse effects.\u00a0The California Department of Food and Agriculture\u2019s (CDFA) statewide \u201cpest management\u201d program required no site-specific analysis of risks before the application of 79 pesticides, including some known to cause cancer and birth defects and to be highly toxic to bees, butterflies, fish and birds.<\/p>\n

Relating to the broad application of pesticide use allowances under the state’s required Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), issues of concern in the case included: i) a failure to conduct site-specific environmental impact asssessment, while allowing the “substantially similar” uses without environmental review; (ii) broad application of a PEIR to subsequent activities without a Notice of Determination ; (iii) includes an inadequate project description; (iv) a failure to adequately describe the baseline environmental conditions; (v) a failure to adequately analyze the Project’s environmental impacts (including biological, water, human health, and farming impacts); (vi) a failure to adequately analyze cumulative impacts; (vii) legally inadequate mitigation measures; (vii) a failure to consider a reasonable range of alternatives; and (viii) a failure comply with public agency consultation and notice requirements.<\/p>\n

In a sweeping decision<\/a> issued Monday, Judge Timothy M. Frawley ruled that CDFA failed to adequately review impacts or provide adequate notice of pesticide spraying. The agency also didn\u2019t account for the full range of dangers caused by the program, including risks of contaminating water supplies and the cumulative danger of adding even more pesticides to the more than 150 million pounds of pesticides already being used in California each year.<\/p>\n

“Federal and state pesticide registration laws do not provide adequate protection from pesticides for\u00a0 environmental and health effects where they are used, and environmental impact reports (EIRs) fulfill an important oversight and review function for proposed pesticide uses,” said Jay Feldman, executive director, Beyond Pesticides. “Addtionally, pesticide registration laws have not forced an alternatives assessment, required under EIRs, which can determine whether there are less hazardous approaches, either products or practices, to a proposed pesticide application.” The findings of the court in this lawsuit are intended to improve the overall review and assessment of pesticide use.” he continued.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are thrilled that the court has ruled that the state does not have free rein to use pesticides as a first resort and hope that this decision will inspire the Department of Food and Agriculture to move toward sustainable pest-management practices that honor the public\u2019s desire to make protecting the health of our communities and food supply the top priority,\u201d said Nan Wishner of the California Environmental Health Initiative.<\/p>\n

Pesticides used in the program include these dangerous chemicals:<\/p>\n