|
California agricultural associations are pressing state pesticide regulators to limit new reporting and disclosure requirements for growers, while environmental and farmworker groups are seeking more detailed information on applications and the use of treated seeds.
The competing requests are emerging as the Department of Pesticide Regulation evaluates two initiatives: the first annual review of the SprayDays notification system and a regulatory proposal for pesticide-treated seeds.
In both proceedings, agricultural organizations are urging DPR to avoid placing new reporting duties on growers who may not possess all the requested information. They are also raising concerns over licensing, confidentiality, farm security and requirements designed for conventional pesticide applications rather than treated seeds.
Environmental and community organizations contend that more precise information is necessary for residents, workers and researchers to understand potential exposure. They are calling on DPR to disclose exact application locations through SprayDays and to collect detailed records on where, when and how treated seeds are planted.
Isabella Quinonez, CAFB assistant director of policy advocacy (LinkedIn)A focus on field-level disclosure
SprayDays provides advance notice of any planned applications of restricted materials in California. The system sends alerts up to 48 hours ahead of an application and displays its location within a square-mile section.
It has drawn intense scrutiny from environmental justice advocates. Most of the nearly 3,000 comments submitted to DPR requested exact locations. A Center for Biological Diversity petition carried more than 2,500 signatures and a coalition of 80 environmental, farmworker and public health organizations also urged DPR to provide field-level information.
They argue the current 640-acre grid does not tell residents whether a planned application is next to a home, school or workplace or farther away. The coalition says precise locations would allow residents to make more informed decisions about closing windows, bringing children’s belongings indoors or temporarily avoiding an area.
Californians for Pesticide Reform lists exact application locations as its top recommendation. The organization is also asking DPR to develop a mobile app, improve the process for subscribing to alerts, and include active ingredients and city names in text messages.
The coalition urges DPR to provide plain-language health information for about 50 pesticide active ingredients and to identify schools, childcare centers, hospitals and parks on SprayDays maps.
Pesticide Action Network North America recommends expanding the program to include pesticides identified through CalEnviroScreen as public health concerns. It also calls for displaying prevailing wind direction and conducting additional outreach through schools, health providers and farmworker organizations.
Agricultural groups oppose exact field identification.
A coalition representing growers and pesticide licensees is raising alarms that precise locations could direct activists to active agricultural operations. The coalition warns that unauthorized visitors may lack personal protective equipment and could encounter pesticide applications or moving farm machinery.
The Western Plant Health Association says the one-square-mile format strikes an appropriate balance between public notification and the safety and security of agricultural operations.
The California Farm Bureau is questioning whether DPR has established that SprayDays is improving health outcomes. It also warns that increasingly specific information could facilitate trespassing, vandalism or interference with farm operations.
CAFB emphasizes that SprayDays identifies planned rather than completed applications, noting that growers or applicators may cancel or change treatments because of weather, equipment problems or changing pest conditions.
Agricultural organizations oppose requiring growers, pest control advisers, applicators or county agricultural commissioners to continually report whether each proposed application has occurred. They say those updates would create additional administrative work.
Western Plant Health instead asks DPR to display cancellation information for soil fumigations when counties already receive it. The group also recommends multilingual materials explaining pesticide registration, application rules and the role of county agricultural commissioners.
Questions over who reports
DPR’s treated-seed proposal would establish registration and reporting requirements for seeds coated with pesticides before planting. In comment letters obtained by Agri-Pulse, agricultural organizations argue DPR should limit the regulation to reporting and avoid triggering broader pesticide requirements.
The California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association reasons that defining treated seeds as pesticides could require seed companies to obtain pest control dealer licenses. It says custom planting companies could also be considered pest control businesses, even when their work consists of planting commercially purchased seed.
The association is stressing that California’s existing qualified applicator license categories do not clearly correspond with planting treated seed.
The industry has asked DPR to explicitly exempt ordinary seed sales and planting services from those licensing provisions. They are also seeking clarification or exemptions involving storage rules, container labeling, field postings and worker notifications.
The California Farm Bureau argues that the reporting should focus on the companies that possess treatment information, such as seed manufacturers, treatment facilities, dealers or distributors.
CAFB says growers may know which seed product they purchased but may not know the precise quantity of pesticide active ingredient applied to it. It is asking DPR to limit the reports to information found on the seed tag or label.
Other agricultural commenters suggest allowing growers, dealers and other businesses to designate which party would file a report. They oppose requiring farmers to calculate pesticide quantities using treatment rates, seed counts or active ingredient concentrations.
The Grower-Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties is asking DPR to clarify how the proposal would apply to transplant nurseries. The association questions whether treated seed would be reported when it is sown at the nursery, when the resulting plants are transplanted in a field, or at both points. It also notes that greenhouse production is commonly measured in trays, cells or square footage rather than acres.
Industry organizations are also requesting confidentiality protections for field-level planting information, reasoning that detailed records could reveal crop locations and production practices.
CropLife America is asking DPR whether planting information could eventually appear in SprayDays or another public system. According to the pesticide makers, presenting information on below-ground seed planting alongside spray or fumigation notices could lead users to misunderstand the potential for exposure.
Renee Pinel, WPH president and CEO (Fred Greaves/Agri-Pulse)More details on planting and dust
Environmental and farmworker commenters are urging DPR to collect more detailed treated-seed records and retain protections that agricultural groups want the department to waive.
They raised concerns about dust contaminated with pesticides that could be released as treated seeds move through planting equipment and want DPR to collect exact planting dates, locations and methods.
Those commenters opposed exempting treated-seed plantings from rules on school buffers and worker protections without further analysis of the potential exposure.
Environment California submitted a petition with more than 18,000 signatures, though just 3,000 were from California. The advocates are calling for limits on neonicotinoid-treated seeds. The petition also seeks reporting on when, where and how treated seeds are used.
Other environmental commenters are urging DPR to collect data that researchers could use to evaluate potential effects on pollinators, birds, aquatic organisms, farmworkers and nearby communities.
Beyond Pesticides is calling on DPR to reject pesticide-treated seeds and use organic production as its benchmark for determining whether pesticide risks are necessary.
Agricultural organizations, on the other hand, are presenting treated seeds as a targeted pest-management tool, contending that the coatings use relatively small pesticide quantities and may reduce the need for later foliar or soil treatments.
Farm groups also dispute DPR’s assessment of the proposal’s costs, finding that the analysis did not fully account for licensing, training, recordkeeping, storage changes and county enforcement.
DPR will review the treated-seed comments as it decides whether to revise the proposed regulation. SprayDays will undergo another progress review and public comment period in 2027 ahead of the department’s final three-year report in 2028.
