The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), has primary responsibility for regulating all aspects of pesticide sales and use to protect the public health and the environment. It promotes reduced risk pest management strategies, assesses human health risks from pesticides, licenses pest control businesses and monitors pesticide residue in the environment. The department ensures compliance with pesticide laws and regulations through its oversight of County Agricultural Commissioners, who enforce pesticide laws at the local level and employ approximately 400 biologists.

Program Descriptions (DPR website)

Databases (DPR website)

The Department of Pesticide Regulation has been an official government department since 1991 but state pesticide regulation has been around since the early 1920s as part of the California Department of Agriculture. Although California first passed a pesticide law in 1901 (ensuring the quality of the widely-used arsenic-based “Paris green”), pesticide regulation was a low priority for the country before World War II. Insecticides and fungicides were primarily used in agriculture instead of pesticides. During this time, there wasn’t much concern about the long-term effects on health or the environment.

In 1910, Congress passed the Federal Insecticide Act, which was mostly a law to protect consumers from ineffective products or deceptive labeling. In 1921, legislation gave the California Department of Agriculture authority to control the manufacture, sale and use of pesticides. The law required manufacturers to register their products and to supply information on how a product was formulated, as well as a product sample to assure quality standards. The new law was called The Economic Poison Act and it wasn’t until the 1990s that references to “economic poison” in statutes were changed to “pesticide.”

In 1926, the state’s pesticide regulators began analyzing small quantities of fresh produce for residues because an outcry in Great Britain about arsenic-treated fruit coming from the U.S. had led to the threat of a British embargo. After World War II, many new synthetic organic pesticides started being used in agriculture, including agents that controlled nematodes and weeds, defoliated plants, preserved wood, as well as those  that stimulated or retarded plant growth.

In the late 1940s there was a dramatic increase in pesticide use. The pesticide drift caused damage to non-target crops and killed livestock and honeybees. Improper handling caused injury and death to workers and the public. A 1944 state Department of Agriculture report warned about the “hazards of new products.” By 1947, California was arguably ahead of the federal government in regulatory control of pesticides. It had more control of pesticide registration (i.e., the power to ban a product) and use of pesticides in fields than the feds.  In 1949, the first statewide regulations were developed governing pesticide handling and imposed restrictions on certain pesticides that had the potential to cause injury to people, crops and the environment. The new law moved authority from the county level to a shared responsibility between the state and County Agricultural Commissioners.

The number of pesticide products on the market more than doubled between 1925 and 1935, from 1,700 to 3,500, and by 1945 had doubled again to 7,000. By 1950 the number was 9,070 and by 1956 reached 11,904. That number now fluctuates from year to year but is still around 12,000.

Society’s attitude about pesticide use changed dramatically in 1962 with publication of   “Silent Spring,” a book often credited with launching the modern environmental movement. The author, Rachel Carson, published information that pesticides and other chemicals were being used with little regard for their impact on either human health or the environment. In 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act,  which required federal agencies to consider environmental matters before undertaking new actions and a year later created the Environmental Protection Agency. Landmark legislation was enacted in California, requiring “thorough evaluation” of pesticides before registration and giving the Department of Agriculture clear authority to establish a program for identifying which pesticides were legal and how they could be used. Two years later, the department hired its first “in-house” evaluation scientists to review data submitted to support registration requests rather than rely on outside sources.

In 1970, the state passed the California Environmental Quality Act, its principal law requiring environmental impact review of development projects, which generally applies to all state and local agencies and to private activities that the agencies finance or regulate. Two years later, the Department of Agriculture added Food to its title, which reflected a new emphasis on protecting the public’s health, safety and welfare. And in 1977, the department consolidated its pesticide activities in a single agency called the Division of Pest Management, Environmental Protection and Worker Safety.

In 1984, the Birth Defect Prevention Act was passed requiring all registered pesticides to undergo chronic health effects studies. This led to the creation in 1985 of a separate Medical Toxicology Branch to evaluate toxicological data and prepare health evaluations and risk assessments. The Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act of 1984 required the Department of Agriculture to establish a database of wells sampled for pesticides, to collect data on the physical properties of pesticides that might lead to groundwater contamination and to control the use of, and monitor for, these pesticides. In the 1980s, the federal EPA began developing a national worker protection standard and created the Priority Pesticide Program, which was designed to assess data on dietary risk and products treated with pesticides.

In 1991, the pesticide regulation program was removed from the state Department of Food and Agriculture and given a higher status as the Department of Pesticide Regulation within the newly-created CalEPA. The department began focusing on the collection of health effects data on 200 pesticides of highest health concern, and collecting data on potential groundwater-polluting pesticides.

A grants program established in 1996 was expanded in 1998 with a complementary program of public-private alliances targeted at reducing pesticide risks to workers, consumers, and the environment.

History of DPR (CalEPA website) (pdf)

A Guide to Pesticide Regulation in California (DPR website)

Pesticide Use (DPR website)

County Agricultural Commissioners

The Department of Pesticide Regulation is one of six CalEPA branches. The department has nearly 400 employees, including more than 120 toxicologists, environmental specialists and other highly trained scientists. But the size and complexity of California’s agriculture require a broader regulatory network and the state has elected to partner with its 58 counties. County Agricultural Commissioners (CAC), selected by county Boards of Supervisors, receive state as well as county funding. They enforce state laws and regulations that cover environmental protection, pest prevention, worker and consumer protection, and a variety of special services. Some of the smaller counties have banded together to share commissioner services.

CACs investigate pesticide-related illnesses and injuries. All reported pesticide-related illnesses and injuries are investigated by the commissioner in the county in which the illness occurred. Farmers must obtain permits from their CAC to use many agricultural chemicals. Part of the commissioner’s permit responsibility is to decide the need for a particular pesticide and whether a safer pesticide or better method of application can be used.

Although they are called “agricultural” commissioners, CAC duties range far beyond  farming. CAC employees check maintenance gardeners to ensure they are licensed to apply pesticides and that their pesticides are labeled for professional landscaping. CAC biologists inspect home pesticide applications, such as structural fumigations for termites, and check structural pest control employees for proper training and equipment.

The Department of Pesticide Regulation has two divisions: Administrative Services and the Pesticide Program.  The latter has seven branches:

Pesticide Registration evaluates and registers pesticide products before sale or use in California. If manufacturers cannot demonstrate that their products can be used safely, the department will not allow the pesticide to be used.

Medical Toxicology has two major functions: review of toxicology studies and preparation of risk assessments. Data are reviewed for acute and chronic health effects of pesticides. Reviews are mandated under the department's general authority to register pesticides and under various specific statutory mandates. Toxicology data are reviewed for adequacy and the presence of possible adverse effects. The results of these reviews as well as exposure information from other branches are used in conducting health risk characterizations.

Worker Health and Safety is responsible for assessing human exposure, assessing safety of workers and consumers in any area where pesticides are used, and for developing measures to reduce exposure. This is accomplished through several programs: Exposure Assessment and Mitigation, Exposure Monitoring, Industrial Hygiene, Pesticide Illness Surveillance and Worker Protection.

Pesticide Enforcement enforces pesticide laws and regulations, manages the nation’s largest state produce residue monitoring program, does outreach, and conducts compliance assessment and assistance. Field use enforcement is largely carried out by County Agricultural Commissioners and their staffs (about 400 biologists). Enforcement branch staff provides training, coordination, supervision and technical support. The department supports local enforcement with specified funds from an assessment on pesticide sales.

Environmental Monitoring systematically surveils the environment to determine the fate of pesticides, protecting the public and the environment from contamination through analyzing hazards and developing pollution prevention strategies.

Product Compliance conducts inspections where pesticides are sold. When violations of sales, labeling or registration are found, the Product Compliance Branch takes the lead in investigating the violation. The Branch also audits pesticide registrants, dealers and brokers, and others selling pesticide products into or within California to ensure that they have paid required fees on their sales.

Pest Management and Licensing evaluates pesticide and pest management problems and provides information to develop new strategies that reduce adverse environmental impacts and hazards from pesticide use. The Branch also oversees licensing and certification of dealers, pesticide brokers, agricultural pest control advisers, pest control businesses and applicators. It also manages the Endangered Species Program, which includes mitigation development and outreach, and collects, reviews, analyzes and publishes pesticide use reporting data. 

Departmental Organization (DPR website) (pdf)

Pesticide Regulation 101 (DPR slideshow) (pdf)

Enforcing Pesticide Rules (DPR website) (pdf)

CalEPA Enforcement Report (pdf)

Revenues

The Department of Pesticide Regulation is funded by regulatory fees, with a small amount of federal money and reimbursements. Its largest revenue source is the mill assessment, a fee levied on pesticide sales. As of 2010, the assessment was at the statutory maximum of 21 mills, or 2.1 percent on each dollar of sales. (A mill is equal to one-tenth of a cent.) An additional three-fourths mill is assessed on agricultural and dual-use products (pesticides labeled for use in both agriculture and nonagricultural settings) to support pesticide consultation activities of the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Other sources of revenue include: annual certificates of product registration; pesticide-related licenses issued to people and businesses that sell, apply or recommend the use of pesticides; civil penalties; and structural pest control activity fees. Only 2% of its funding comes from the levy of civil penalties, its smallest revenue source. The department also receives funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Department of Agriculture for activities it performs with or on behalf of these agencies.

Expenses

The department’s largest expenditure in fiscal year 2010-2011 was for Enforcement and Compliance, 36% of its budget, which was largely carried out at the local level by the County Agricultural Commissioners. The money goes for direct local assistance and oversight at the state level, including training, coordination, and technical and legal support.

The next largest category, at 15% of budget, is Product Registration. This process includes evaluation of the product, preparation of public notices, labeling and public dissemination of information. Monitoring/Surveillance, at 12%, is the third largest category. These activities include evaluation of pesticide illnesses, testing of produce and water monitoring. The rest are single-digit percentage expenditures for risk assessments, mitigation measures to reduce risks, structural activities such as licensing and product compliance reviews. 

3-Year Budget (pdf)

History of Pesticide Regulation Funding (DPR website) (pdf)

Balance Sheet (DPR website) (pdf)

Wild Strawberries

When the Department of Pesticide Regulation in December 2010 approved the use of methyl iodide by farmers planting strawberries, some of its harshest criticism was homegrown. "It is painful for me personally and professionally to have to report the science was subverted in the DPR approval," John Froines told a California Assembly committee in February 2011. Froines, professor of environmental health sciences at UCLA (and former member of the anti-war Chicago Seven in the 1960s), was the lead scientist hired by the department to conduct an independent review of the controversial fumigant. “There is no safe level for methyl iodide," he testified. A year earlier he had called it “without question one of the most toxic chemicals on Earth.”

Methyl iodide is a replacement for methyl bromide, a pesticide that is known to contribute to depletion of the ozone layer and is being phased out under the 1989 Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances. Methyl iodide is an effective pesticide and easy on the ozone, but is a known mutagen and may cause cancer, nerve damage or fetal development problems for those in close proximity to fumigated fields. Methyl iodide is listed under California Proposition 65 as a chemical known by the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.

Assessing the danger – Just how dangerous it is and what constitutes proper mitigation are serious points of contention. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved methyl iodide in 2007, finding it safe for use. A group of over 50 renowned scientists, including five Nobel Laureates, sent a letter to the EPA protesting the decision. “Because of methyl iodide’s high volatility and water solubility, broad use of this chemical in agriculture will guarantee substantial releases to air, surface waters and groundwater, and will result in exposures for many people. In addition to the potential for increased cancer incidence, US EPA’s own evaluation of the chemical also indicates that methyl iodide causes thyroid toxicity, permanent neurological damage, and fetal losses in experimental animals.” The letter concludes, “It is astonishing that the Office of Pesticide Programs is working to legalize broadcast releases of one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing into the environment.”

Two years later, the DPR conducted its own study and agreed with the protesters. It concluded that methyl iodide posed “significant health risks” and commissioned an independent review, led by Froines, to settle the debate. The February 2010 report by Froines’ group sided with the DPR and said, “In every instance where the DPR findings differed from the US EPA risk assessment for methyl iodide, this was attributable to a more insightful and scientifically rigorous approach having been undertaken by the DPR.”

The report concluded that “adequate control of human exposure would be difficult, if not impossible,” and “any anticipated scenario for … use of this agent would result in exposures to a large number of the public and thus would have a significant adverse impact on the public health.”

DPR begs to differ – In April 2010, the department decided that with proper restrictions, the chemical compound could be safely used. “We acknowledge there are strong and diverse opinions on methyl iodide registration,” said DPR Director Mary-Ann Warmerdam. “We based our decision on the risk assessment by our scientists and a risk-management process that determined what measures are required to keep exposures to methyl iodide within safe levels. With these safeguards, methyl iodide can be used without exposing workers and the public to harmful levels.”

Risk assessment balances the threats from a product with other factors, such as the costs to users and the public. ”The review members are experts in assessing pesticide risks, not in regulatory risk management that leads to decisions on registration. Risk management is a distinct process of weighing scientific and other factors,” the DPR said in a statement.

Warmerdam said that based on the available data, the chemical could be used safely with precautions like respirators, impermeable tarps and extra restrictions on use around schools, businesses and homes.

A lot at stake – The department’s decision was supported by strawberry farmers who say the state’s regulations far exceed those set by the federal government for the chemical. “The 500-plus growers of strawberries in the state are largely family farmers who live where they grow,” said Carolyn O’Donnell, spokeswoman for the California Strawberry Commission. “When they make decisions about how and where they farm, they make those decisions with the health and safety of workers and the community in mind.”

California grows 90% of the nation’s strawberries in a $2 billion a year industry.

Dr. Susan Kegley, Consulting Scientist with Pesticide Action Network, said, “The Department of Pesticide Regulation has made a decision that a certain number of miscarriages caused by methyl iodide is acceptable. In the minds of Californians, no level of miscarriages or cancer or any other condition caused by methyl iodide is in any way acceptable.”

Sisquoc community resident, Deby DeWeese, lives at the edge of strawberry fields where methyl iodide could be used disagrees with the DPR’s decision to allow the use of the pesticide. “DPR says allowing use of methyl iodide will be fine because of the extra precautions they would require—better tarps, better protective gear, buffer zones around some areas,” she said. “But a buffer zone around our kids’ schools won’t protect them when we live so close to the fields, and even the hardiest tarps blow off.”

The Midas Touch – Methyl iodide, also known as iodomethane and marketed as Midas, was developed at the University of  California, Riverside, and UC granted Arysta LifeScience, one of the largest privately-held pesticide companies in the world,  a license to market it. In 2006, Arysta spent $100,000 on lobbying efforts to promote the pesticide. That grew to $120,000 the year  EPA approved methyl iodide. In 2008-2010, it spent $50,000, $85,000 and $40,000, respectively on lobbying efforts, though not all of it specifically earmarked for its pesticide product.

On Gov. Jerry Brown’s first day in office, January 3, 2011, a coalition of farmworkers, community advocates and environmental health organizations announced a lawsuit  challenging the state's approval of methyl iodide on the grounds that the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s approval violated the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Birth Defects Prevention Act and the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act that protects groundwater against pesticide pollution. In addition, the suit contends that DPR violated the law requiring involvement of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in the development of farmworker safety regulations and made an unlawful finding of emergency with its request for Restricted Materials status for methyl iodide.

The EPA is due to review its approval of methyl iodide in 2013, four years earlier than previously planned. The chemical is already registered for use in 48 states.

Scientists Fume Over California's Pesticide Plans (Nature News)

Dispute Over Pesticide for California Strawberries (New York Times)

DPR Proposes Registration of Carcinogenic Pesticide (Californians for Pesticide Reform)

Scientists Testify to the Dangers of Methyl Iodide (Pesticide Action Network)

Arysta Life Sciences Annual Lobbying Expenditures (Open Secrets)

DPR’s Own Scientist Disagrees With Decision (Organic Consumers Association)

The Midas Effect (Monterey County Weekly)

Methyl Iodide Lawsuit Filed (Pesticide Action Network)

No Wriggle Room

George Hahn had a great idea. His company sold soil, called “worm castings,” that had been processed by worms.  Once the worms were through wriggling around in the dirt, he maintained, the soil acted as a natural insect repellant. But when he tried to advertise Worm Gold on the internet with a pitch that it deters pests, the Department of Pesticide Regulation stepped in and fined him $100,000 for promoting a pesticide that was not registered. Hahn and his attorneys took the matter to Sacramento County Superior Court, arguing that the department had no authority to regulate natural products. On August 16, 2010, the court said that Hahn had advertised his product as a pesticide and ruled in the department’s favor. The decision has been appealed.

Truth in Advertising (Pacific Legal Foundation)

Healthy Schools

Shortly before leaving office in January 2011, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a series of bills which impact, or have the potential to impact, the Department of Pesticide Regulation. The one bill he vetoed, the Healthy Schools Act of 2010, would have required all school sites to adopt an integrated pest management program as established, administered and enforced by the department as of January 1, 2014. The bill also would have required the department  to reimburse all local agencies and school districts for the costs of this program. Schwarzenegger said he supported the reform but didn’t want to pay for it. “To do so,” he wrote in his veto message, “would start a dangerous precedent for finding unrelated revenue sources to fund, expand, or create K-12 programs outside of the Proposition 98 guarantee.”

Among the reforms that were approved was transfer of the Structural Pest Control Board from the Department of Consumer Affairs to the DPR per a recommendation from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. 

2010 Legislative Summary (DPR website) (pdf)

Revolving Doors

Environmental health advocates say the DPR’s approval of methyl iodide illustrates the coziness of government officials and the industries they are supposed to oversee.

The economic interests of farmers and pesticide manufacturers affect environmental  decisions as much as science, according to Ted Schettler, science director of the Science and Environmental Health Network in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “There's probably no better example than pesticide regulation where you see strong interests attempt to affect policy.”

On March 18, 2011, just months after a controversial decision to green-light use of the controversial pesticide methyl iodide, DPR director Mary-Ann Warmerdam announced that she was leaving government work for a job at The Clorox Company, a giant chemical company (that does not make pesticides). Cameron Scott, who blogs at SFGate.com’s The Thin Green Line, posed the question, “Was DPR head, Mary-Ann Warmerdam, in the pocket of the chemical industry?”

Although Warmerdam’s departure was voluntary, it was known that environmental and public health advocates had been pushing for her removal for months. The groups say that she let the chemical company, Arysta LifeScience, influence her when the department approved the use of methyl iodide. Kathryn Gilje, co-director of the Pesticide Action Network of North America, said she wasn’t surprised about Warmerdam’s transition to Clorox. “Unfortunately, we see far too often this revolving door between people from pesticide companies and government regulators.”

Exhibit A – According to her biography at Businessweek, Elin D. Miller “has more than 20 successful years of experience in a unique combination of agriculture, government and public affairs expertise.” The combination isn’t really that unique, according to OpenSecrets.org, which maintains a searchable database called Revolving Door on people who drift back and forth between positions in the federal government and jobs as lobbyists, consultants and strategists seeking to influence it. A search for “Environmental Protection Agency” turns up 139 names, although Miller is not one of them. She should be.

Miller worked for Shell Oil and the Western Agricultural Chemicals Association for seven years before joining the California Department of Pesticide Regulation as chief deputy director in 1991. She was appointed director of the California Department of Conservation in 1995 and stayed for a year before heading to the Dow Chemical Company.  Miller held various positions with Dow over the next eight years, including vice president of the Global Pest Management Business Unit for Dow AgroSciences and global vice president of public affairs. In 2004, she left Dow for Arysta LifeScience, the company peddling the controversial pesticide methyl iodide, where she was president and chief executive officer, North America/Australia. Two years later she was back in government as a regional administrator at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. She was at the agency when it approved use of methyl iodide. She left government in 2009 to be a private consultant and farmer in Oregon.

DPR Head Leaves to Work for Clorox (Civil Eats)

Elin D. Miller Biography (LinkedIn)

Pesticide’s Elin D. Miller (The Writing Corner)

Revolving Door (OpenSecrets.org)

Mary-Ann Warmerdam, 2004 – 2011

Paul Helliker, 1999 – 2004

James Wells, 1991 – 1999