During the August 11 Joint Legislative Oversight Hearing on the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), held after the press event, legislators and community members raised several critical concerns about DPR’s performance.
Convened jointly by the California Assembly Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials Committee and the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, the hearing drew more than 110 attendees—primarily residents of agricultural communities—who traveled from throughout California to provide public comment and call for accountability. Other legislators that joined the committees in the dias to question panelists include Assemblymembers Diane Dixon (R-Newport), Kate Sanchez, (R-Rancho Santa Margarita), and Nick Shultz (D-Burbank).
As DPR’s first broad legislative oversight examination in nearly a decade, the hearing raised serious questions about whether California’s pesticide regulator is adequately fulfilling its mandate to protect public health, workers, and communities from pesticide-related harms.
The hearing revealed significant concerns about conflict of interest and financial incentives built into California’s pesticide regulatory system that promote the use of pesticides.
- Panelists noted that roughly 80% of DPR’s budget is funded through a fee on pesticide sales, even as the department is charged with reducing pesticide risks and advancing safer pest management.
- They also questioned a system in which growers can rely on Pest Control Advisers (PCAs) who work for pesticide dealers and can earn commissions on pesticide sales, potentially discouraging recommendations of effective nonchemical alternatives.
Lawmakers questioned whether DPR is moving fast enough and whether its decisions are adequately grounded in science.
Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) said DPR’s pesticide-by-pesticide approach “is not working,” that the department is “not moving nearly fast enough,” and that “our constituents deserve better.”
Looking at DPR’s handling of rodenticides after multiple laws were passed to reduce their use, ESTM Chair Damon Connolly (D-San Rafael) questioned why DPR proposed rodenticide regulations—including expanded use at grocery stores and restaurants—before completing its scientific assessments: “How could DPR know that these draft proposed regs would be sufficiently protective of wildlife and public health when the scientific assessments were not yet done and, frankly, still are not done?”
Paraquat, whose product registrations DPR announced the day before the hearing are being voluntarily canceled by manufacturers, provides a particularly stark example of the concerns lawmakers raised about DPR’s slow response to hazardous pesticides.
- Schultz noted that DPR had identified paraquat as a pesticide of high concern as early as 2011 but did not begin reevaluating it until the Legislature required it in 2024. When DPR later required manufacturers to provide missing human-health data, they chose instead to voluntarily cancel their products. Schultz asked: “Shouldn’t we … as the public be concerned when pesticide manufacturers decide to voluntarily cancel registration of their products rather than providing the data requested by the department regarding their impact on human health and the environment?” And despite the cancellation announcement, existing paraquat stocks can continue to be sold and used in California for up to two more years.
The full hearing is recorded here.
A transcript of the hearing can also be found here.