Assemblymember Laura Friedman of Glendale has shelved an unprecedented attempt to enable residents to sue pesticide retailers on behalf of animals. The concept stemmed from California’s contentious Proposition 65 cancer warning labels, which businesses have long condemned as enabling so-called frivolous lawsuits.
Friedman amended Assembly Bill 2552 recently to instead authorize the attorney general to bring legal action against any person who violates the rules on selling first-generation anticoagulants.
But: Ag groups still oppose the measure, arguing lawmakers should trust regulatory agencies to set limits on use and enforce the laws.
Keep in mind: According to ag lobbyist Taylor Roschen, AB 2552 is the fifth bill this session targeting pesticides under the premise the state is not moving fast enough to protect the public or the environment.
Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse here.
Roschen had a warning for the most recent committee considering the bill.
“If we keep legislating products away without ensuring there are alternatives—or at least a process to register alternatives—we will forever be in a feedback loop,” she said.
The Department of Pesticide Regulation, she explained, will continue to be underfunded if lawmakers step in to ban the products that drive its revenue, through the mill assessment on pesticide sales. And lawmakers would continue to blast DPR for not acting fast enough as it bans more products.
