BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2657
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2657
AUTHOR: Bloom
AMENDED: May 5, 2014
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: June 25, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Karen Morrison
SUBJECT : WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS: ANTICOAGULANTS
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), provides federal control of pesticide distribution,
sale, and use, and requires the registration of all pesticides
with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA).
2) Authorizes the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to
protect human health and the environment by regulating
pesticide sales and use (Food and Agricultural Code (FAC)
§11401 et seq.).
3) Requires the director of DPR to designate restricted materials
and control their use, and prohibits, except as provided by
regulations, the possession or use of a restricted material by
any person unless they are a certified applicator (FAC §14001
et seq.).
4) Designates four second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides
(SGARs: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and
difethialone) as restricted materials (3 CFR §6400).
5) Prohibits the use of above-ground bait containing brodifacoum,
bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone more than 50 feet
from a man-made structure unless there is a feature on the
site that is harboring or attracting the targeted pests
between the 50-foot limit and the placement limit specified on
the label (3 CFR §6471).
AB 2657
Page 2
This bill :
1) Prohibits four SGARs (brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum,
and difethialone) from being used in wildlife habitat areas,
unless they are used for defined agricultural activities.
2) Defines "wildlife habitat area" as any state or national park,
state or federal wildlife refuge, or state conservancy.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, this bill "augments
DPR regulations that will go in effect in July by making it
clear that resident and commercial areas that are in the
Sensitive wildlife (State Conservancies, State Parks and
National Parks) areas would also not be able to use the second
generation anti-coagulant rodenticides even through a
commercial provider. The objective of the bill is to further
reduce the exposure our wildlife has to these harmful
rodenticides."
2) Rodenticides development and use . Mice and rats can directly
and indirectly spread disease, contaminate food, damage homes,
and destroy crops, thereby posing a significant economic and
health risk to people. In response to this risk, several
types of rodenticides (pesticides known to kill rodents,
including mice and rats) have been developed. Rodenticides
can be broadly divided into two categories: anticoagulant and
non-anticoagulant.
First generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) were first
introduced and marketed in the 1950s and include
chlorophacinone, diphacinone, and warfarin. FGARs require
several days of intake in order to accumulate a lethal dose,
and in some cases, rodents develop bait shyness and ultimately
survive the dosage. Within 20 years of their introduction,
resistance to warfarin had been noted in rodents in Europe and
the United States, which led to the development of second
generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs).
Four SGARs have been registered by DPR since 1980: bromadiolone
(1982), brodifacoum (1983), difethialone (1997), and
AB 2657
Page 3
difenacoum (2008). In contrast with FGARs, SGARs typically
require fewer feedings of bait to deliver a lethal dose, and
in some cases only a single dose is required.
Non-anticoagulant rodenticides include bromethalin,
cholecalciferol, and zinc phosphide. This class of
rodenticides is not as broadly used and are regulated at the
federal and state level.
3) Environmental impacts of rodenticides . Although rodenticides
are marketed for use against rodents, both FGARs and SGARs can
cause harm to non-target animals.
FGARs typically have a short half-life in both target and
non-target animals. However, certain animal populations, such
as cats and dogs, can be more susceptible to the effects of
FGARs, depending on the method of ingestion.
In contrast, SGARs typically bioaccumulate in target and
non-target animals and can remain in the body for days or
months. In addition, it can take several days for a rodent to
die following ingestion of the rodenticide, resulting in the
accumulation of super-lethal concentrations prior to death.
If a rodent is then consumed by a predator, the predator can
become affected by the rodenticide. Ironically, this leads to
the depletion of species that are natural predators of
rodents. Because necropsies are not always performed on
wildlife, it is likely that the known cases of rodenticide
poisoning of non-target animals underrepresent the actual
impact of SGARs.
California Mountain Cats .
The impact of SGARs on the California bobcat and mountain lion
population is one example of the non-target effects of this
class of rodenticides.
Between 1997 and 2003, 43 bobcats and mountain lions were
surveyed in southern California. Necropsies revealed that
over 90% of the cats had anticoagulant rodenticides in their
livers and SGARs accounted for almost 90% of those cases.
Of the 492 animals tested by the Department of Fish and Wildlife
AB 2657
Page 4
(DFW) between 1995 and 2011, approximately 73% had residues of
at least one SGAR. Preliminary data by the National Park
Service (NPS) revealed that between 88 and 95% of the bobcat
population was exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides.
In all of these cases, the cats did not have bait in their
stomachs, suggesting that the rodenticides were entering the
cats via their consumption of prey.
Recently, the mountain lion P-22 in the Griffith Park area of
southern California showed signs of mange, a condition
associated with anticoagulant rodenticides. Biologists with
NPS are working to reverse the poisoning.
4) Response to rodenticides . In response to the observed
environmental impacts of SGARs, federal, state, and local
governments have taken steps to curb the use of SGARs.
Federal efforts .
The US EPA started to conduct risk assessments on rodenticides in
the early 2000s. In 2004, the US EPA released a report on the
potential risks of nine rodenticides to non-target mammals and
birds.
In May 2008, the US EPA announced its final Risk Mitigation
Decision for Ten Rodenticides (RMD). The goal of the RMD
included reducing children's exposure, wildlife exposure, and
ecological risks.
The RMD required the use of solid formulations in a bait station
if the rodenticide could not be applied in locations out of
the reach of children. Most FGARs and SGARs are required to
be labeled only for use to control rats and mice in and around
homes, industrial, commercial, agricultural and public
buildings in urban areas. FGARs may also be labeled for
agricultural uses. Additional restrictions on the sale site
and volume of SGARs sold were intended to remove the product
from general consumer access while still having the products
available for certain agricultural purposes and professional
users.
On February 5, 2013, the US EPA took steps to cancel several
remaining noncompliant SGAR products by filing a "Notice of
AB 2657
Page 5
Intent to Cancel Registration of, and Notice of Denial of
Application for, Certain Rodenticide Bait Products." In
response, Reckitt Benckiser LLC (the maker of d-CON, a popular
brand of rat killer that uses FGARs and SGARs) filed a lawsuit
against US EPA to forestall this action. In May 2014, Reckitt
Benckiser LLC and US EPA reached an agreement where d-CON
products will be voluntarily removed from the marketplace and
replaced in 2015 with alternative products
California efforts .
In 1999, DFW requested that DPR place products containing the
SGAR brodifacoum into reevaluation because of emerging
concerns over its non-target effects. Following its
reevaluation, DPR recommended a number of mitigation measures
for SGARs, including their restricted use indoors. However,
based on industry concerns and ongoing efforts at the federal
level, DPR decided to focus its reevaluation in coordination
with US EPA.
Following the release of the RMD in 2008, DPR found that
homeowners in California living in more rural areas could
still purchase 8 to 16 pound quantities of SGARs, even though
they were not professional users. This potential loophole has
created an opportunity for residential use in spite of the
federal regulations.
In March 2014, DPR adopted regulations to designate SGARs as
"restricted use materials." Restricted materials can apply to
pesticides that have hazards to public health, applicators,
farm workers, domestic animals, honeybees, the environment,
wildlife, or crops other than those being treated. As a
result, SGARs may only be purchased by certified applicators,
rather than by the general public. The regulations will go
into effect on July 1, 2014.
Local Efforts .
In California, roughly twenty cities, counties, and areas have
already passed resolutions urging residents not to purchase
and businesses not to sell SGARs. These include San
Francisco, Agoura Hills, Marin County, Berkeley, Richmond,
Albany, Emeryville, El Cerrito, Belmont, San Anselmo,
Brisbane, Foster City, Malibu, Whittier, Fairfax, Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy, Calabasas, and Humboldt County.
AB 2657
Page 6
5) Conservation strategies for island species . A letter from the
Nature Conservancy expresses concern that "the current version
of AB 2657 will inadvertently reverse the conservation gains
made on California islands.
"When introduced to islands and other sensitive areas, invasive
alien species upset the natural equilibrium and severely
impact native plants and animals that lack adaptations to
protect themselves from the intruders. Rodents (rats and
mice), the most prolific of all invasive vertebrate species,
are estimated to have been introduced to more than 80% of the
world's islands as the result of human activities. Rats kill
native birds, and small mammals and reptiles, and devour seeds
and other plant parts and have driven many species to
extinction.
"Fortunately, there is a relatively simple, efficient,
cost-effective and proven solution to the island extermination
crisis; when invasive alien species are eradicated, native
plants, animals, and ecosystems recover more dramatically than
with other interventions. [?] To date, thousands of
island-dependent species have been protected worldwide by
successful eradications of more than 1,100 invasive species
populations on more than 700 islands. Nearly 500 of these
were rodent eradications using first or second generation
anticoagulant rodenticides.
"Use of conservation rodenticides, including SGARs, to protect
native species on islands and sensitive species on the
mainland is highly regulated by the US EPA and restricted to
conservation use by or in cooperation with government
conservation agencies. [?] For these reasons we request that
you exempt conservation efforts on marine islands off the
coast of California and for the protection of sensitive
species from the prohibition contained in AB 2657."
It is unclear why the Nature Conservancy is seeking an exemption.
First, lands under the control of the Nature Conservancy are
private lands, and thus this bill does not apply. Second,
concerns expressed by the Nature Conservancy stem from federal
properties that may be impacted. However, the federal
government is not required to follow state law unless is
AB 2657
Page 7
chooses to do so. The risks associated with providing an
exemption to this statute do not appear to be justified
against any real need.
6) Trading SGARs for FGARs ? One consequence of banning the use
of SGARs is that consumers will turn to alternate
rodenticides, including FGARs, in order to eliminate rodents.
For example, the makers of d-CON have already committed to
replacing the SGARs with a "new line of rodenticide baits
which have been registered with the US EPA and are approved
for consumer use in every state." It is possible that these
new rodenticides may have unintended consequences for the
environment that are currently unanticipated. Are we trading
one environmentally-damaging compound for another? The
Legislature may wish to revisit the issue of rodenticide use
as alternative products enter the market that may cause
environmental harm.
SOURCE : Author
SUPPORT : The Humane Society
OPPOSITION : None on file