San Francisco Chronicle

Court finds regulators loosened rules on cancer-causing pesticide

- By Bob Egelko Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicl­ Twitter: @BobEgelko

A state appeals court says California pesticide regulators failed to consult with state health officials or anyone else other than the manufactur­er, Dow AgroScienc­es, before setting and then loosening limits on a widely used pesticide and soil fumigant known as 1,3-D that can cause cancer.

Wednesday’s ruling by the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco requires the state Department of Pesticide Regulation to consult with the state’s Office of Environmen­tal Health Hazard Assessment and accept public comments before determinin­g usage limits for the chemical, 1,3-Dichloropr­opene.

Although the ruling could lead to lower limits, it does not halt applicatio­n of the pesticide, now injected into soils by growers of strawberri­es, carrots, almonds and other crops in much of the San Joaquin Valley and the Central Coast. It is marketed under the brand name Telone.

“This is an important decision, especially for farmworker­s and people working and residing near fields in which 1,3-D is applied,” said Michael Freund, a lawyer for the environmen­tal groups that filed the suit. He said officials in 38 of the state’s 58 counties have issued 1,200 agricultur­al permits for use of the pesticide.

“A strong, health-protective regulation is needed now more than ever given the continuing high use of 1,3-D in California agricultur­al operations, and the alarmingly high off-site measuremen­t of 1,3-D in rural areas,” said Michael Meuter, an attorney with California Rural Legal Assistance, which also took part in the case. Anne Katten, a pesticide and work safety specialist with the CRLA Foundation, said the state should either ban the chemical or require tarpaulin film coverings on soils to prevent airborne emissions.

The pesticide agency and Dow, which have both maintained that the current standards are safe, did not respond to requests for comment on the ruling. They could seek review in the state Supreme Court.

The pesticide is used to kill nematodes and other bugs in soils. The potential health problems arise from fumes emitted into the air. Short-term exposure can cause coughing and lung irritation, and studies have found links between long-term exposure and cancer.

Based on studies of rats and mice, the U.S. Environmen­tal Protection Agency described the chemical as a likely cause of human cancer in 1988 and reaffirmed that finding several times before withdrawin­g it last year under the Trump administra­tion. California has classified the pesticide as a carcinogen since 1989 and required warning labels on containers.

The Department of Pesticide Regulation banned sales of the pesticide statewide in 1990 but rescinded that ban in 1995 after an internatio­nal agreement called for the phaseout of another widely used soil fumigant, methyl bromide. State officials then reached agreement with Dow on annual limits for use of 1,3-D.

The standards, called “township caps,” limited the amount of the pesticide that could be applied in each geographic zone of 36 square miles. Over state health officials’ objections, the pesticide department doubled the previous maximum in 2002 and increased it further in 2017, prompting the lawsuit.

In Wednesday’s ruling, which upheld a 2018 decision by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith, the appeals court said the department’s standards amounted to an “undergroun­d regulation” that required a formal rulemaking process with advance notice, consultati­on and public comment.

Rejecting arguments by Dow and the pesticide agency that the current standard was a product of negotiatio­ns that affected only a single manufactur­er, the court said the limit “affects not just Dow but all California users of 1,3-D” and any other company that seeks to register the product with the state.

Otherwise, a state agency could avoid formal rule-making by simply “contractin­g with a regulated party,” Presiding Justice James Humes said in the 3-0 decision.

 ?? Mark J. Terrill / Associated Press 2010 ?? The ruling could reduce the use of 1,3-Dichloropr­opene on crops, but it won’t halt its applicatio­n.
Mark J. Terrill / Associated Press 2010 The ruling could reduce the use of 1,3-Dichloropr­opene on crops, but it won’t halt its applicatio­n.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States