California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation is gearing up to release a first-in-the-nation pesticide notification system, but county agricultural commissioners and pest control advisers worry the platform’s limitations may generate doubt over existing public safety protections.
Concerns with the tool’s unintended consequences carried over to the March 4 State Board of Food and Agriculture meeting, where newly appointed DPR Director Karen Morrison and department staff provided a software demonstration and took questions.
The final software includes a web mapping tool that allows users to view where applications are happening and sign up for notifications. DPR also included resources for users to learn how pesticides are regulated in California.
SprayDays regulation also requires the department to collect annual feedback and write a three-year report after the system is launched.
Board members raised longstanding issues with the system, for instance, that users could interpret the notifications to mean all pesticide applications pose a human health risk or allow bad actors – such as antipesticide activists – too much access to application locations.
California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association Executive Director Lindsey Carter highlighted several remaining SprayDays technical issues that need to be resolved. For instance, if an application does not occur after a Notice of Intent is submitted or if an agricultural commissioner denies a request, growers cannot undo their submission and SprayDays users will still be notified.
“I think when you look at the volume of NOIs versus the actual applications, there's potentially some disconnect in the numbers…How do you pass that down to the general public?” said Ruthann Anderson, California Association of Pest Control Advisers president and CEO.
She noted that DPR has not provided growers with a master list of restricted materials, despite requests from CAPCA to do so. Leia Bailey, DPR deputy director of communications and outreach, clarified in an email to Agri-Pulse that DPR has a searchable list of both state and federal restricted materials and that the SprayDays platform contains information on California's restricted materials – meaning pesticides used for production agriculture.
Instead, growers may choose to rely on third party software systems to cross-check available material lists. That allows growers to forgo manually entering their NOIs into the agricultural commissioners’ CalAgPermits system, but for an additional cost.
Bailey added that county permit requirements are not considered restricted materials in the "same designation."
Both Carter and Anderson said the notification system may cause the public to undervalue the work agricultural commissioners and pest control advisers do to ensure safe pesticide application.
State Board of Food and Agriculture member Joy Sterling told her colleagues they should use Carter and Anderson’s presentation to make a list of recommendations for future SprayDays evaluations. Fellow board member and University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources Vice President Glenda Humiston went a step further, suggesting that the board send a letter to DPR asking the department to report back on a shorter timeline than required by regulation.
Carter told Agri-Pulse that CACASA would be willing to participate in more frequent program updates over the next year of implementation but doesn't think a letter is necessary.
She hopes the board will continue listening to agricultural commissioners and applicators experiences with the tool and feels confident the new director will listen to feedback.
“I don't see [Morrison’s] approach being any different, other than moving these things into actual deployment,” said Carter. “We're very much looking forward to a very productive working relationship with Karen, and have only felt that thus far since she has assumed her role.”
She added that the board and other stakeholders should keep a close eye on user data from the first few months of SprayDays deployment, since the 2021 pilot projects showed some users from out of the pilot counties – even out of state – were using the software.
“I think that will really show the success of the program, and [if it is] accomplishing the task that the legislature wanted it to accomplish,” said Carter.
Matthew Allen, Western Growers Association vice president of state government affairs, told Agri-Pulse some of his grower privacy concerns were relieved by DPR settling on a square-mile cap on application locations.
“As long as everybody's following label requirements and anything else, the use of these tools is very safe and effective, and so [SprayDays] is just one additional system that's meant to provide just an additional layer of information to interested parties,” said Allen.
He added that WGA is focused on monitoring implementation to ensure their members understand the NOI process. WGA continues to educate growers that SprayDays solely tracks restricted use materials within a single square mile area and will remain in touch with DPR after the March 24 launch.
State Board of Food and Agriculture President Don Cameron asked why DPR is not including urban applications like fumigation, despite these being included in the Sustainable Pest Management Roadmap.
Bailey clarified that since the department only receives advanced notice of restricted materials, nonagricultural applications require a “very different process.”
“I think at this stage for getting the system up and running, we wanted to minimize disruptions to the process of how the system was created overall,” said Morrison, adding that the department is keeping other applications in mind as they consider the “broader landscape” of pest management.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
This article was updated to include clarification from the Department of Pesticide Regulation on restricted materials.
