California pesticide regulators say they are making progress toward shortening reviews of chemicals already on the market. Yet they warn that new statutory deadlines could collide with the time needed to develop complex science and regulations.
A new report to the Legislature outlines how the Department of Pesticide Regulation plans to meet a goal established under AB 2113 of completing new pesticide reevaluations within five years. The 2024 law also requires DPR to begin at least one new reevaluation annually through 2028, increase that to two in 2029, and generally adopt necessary mitigation within 24 months after identifying potential adverse effects.
For farmers, those reviews could eventually lead to label changes, new use restrictions, restricted material designations or cancellation of products. DPR says it is trying to move faster by narrowing reviews to the specific toxicity concerns or exposure pathways that triggered them, relying on federal analyses where appropriate and beginning mitigation discussions before the scientific evaluation is complete.
The department has also added staff, created a twice-yearly public tracker and launched the Scientific Prioritization and Review Committee, or SPARC, to recommend as many as four priorities each year. DPR currently has seven reevaluations, two risk assessments and 10 mitigation efforts underway. Its latest reevaluations cover paraquat and total release foggers, commonly called bug bombs. DPR initiated the fogger review after receiving reports of 391 illnesses or injuries from 2018 through 2024.
The report acknowledges the Legislature’s timelines may create tradeoffs. A formal reevaluation gives DPR authority to order pesticide manufacturers to produce missing studies, but the department says a narrower risk assessment can sometimes move more quickly when sufficient information already exists. DPR cautioned it may have to initiate a reevaluation simply to satisfy the annual statutory quota.
Long-term studies involving cancer, chronic health effects or environmental impacts can also take years, while interagency consultation, public engagement and rulemaking can consume much of the two-year mitigation window. DPR pointed to its neonicotinoid review, which required three years to develop a new pollinator risk framework before registrants could complete more than 50 studies across 20 crops.
DPR says its current reevaluations remain on schedule and it will continue assessing whether more staffing or specialized expertise is needed. The report does not identify specific statutory changes but signals the department may need flexibility to choose faster regulatory pathways without sacrificing scientific rigor or stakeholder input.
