BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1282
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Leno and Allen |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Version: |2/19/2016 |Hearing |4/20/2016 |
| | |Date: | |
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Rachel Machi Wagoner |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Pesticides: neonicotinoids: labeling and restricted
material designation
ANALYSIS:
Existing federal law:
1)Provides, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), for federal regulation of pesticide
distribution, sale, and use, and does the following:
a) Requires all pesticides to be registered by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
b) Authorizes the Administrator of the US EPA, if a pesticide
generally causes unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment, to take actions to cancel its registration or to
change its classification.
c) Authorizes a state to regulate the sale or use of any
federally-registered pesticide or device in the state, but
only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any
sale or use prohibited by FIFRA.
Existing California law:
1)Authorizes the state's pesticide regulatory program and mandates
the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to,
among other things, provide for the proper, safe, and efficient
use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber
SB 1282 (Leno) Page 2 of
?
and for the protection of public health and safety, and protect
the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides by
prohibiting, regulating, or ensuring proper stewardship of those
pesticides.
2)Requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any
pesticide, as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration
from DPR before the pesticide is offered for sale.
3)Requires, if during or after the registration of a pesticide the
registrant has factual or scientific evidence of any adverse
effect or risk of the pesticide to human health, livestock,
crops, or the environment that has not been previously submitted
to DPR, the registrant to submit the evidence to DPR.
Authorizes the director of DPR to adopt regulations to carry out
the reevaluation process.
4) Requires DPR, on or before July 1, 2018, to issue a
determination with respect to its reevaluation of
neonicotinoids, and to adopt control measures necessary to
protect pollinator health within 2 years, as specified.
This bill:
1) Requires the Director of DPR, on and after July 1, 2017, to
require labeling of commercially available seeds and plants
sold at retail establishments, excluding noxious weed seeds and
plants, that have been treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide,
and, by regulation,
2) Requires the Director of DPR to designate neonicotinoid
pesticides as restricted materials by January 1, 2018. Because
a violation of the regulations adopted pursuant to the bill's
provisions would be a misdemeanor, the bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
3) Allows the Director of DPR to exempt products sold or applied
by veterinarians from the restrictions and requirements
governing the use and possession of neonicotinoid pesticides.
SB 1282 (Leno) Page 3 of
?
Background
1) Neonicotinoids. According to the US EPA, neonicotinoids are a
class of insecticides with a common mode of action that affects
the central nervous system of insects, causing paralysis and
death. Some uncertainties have been identified since the
initial registration of neonicotinoids regarding their
potential environmental fate and effects, particularly as they
relate to pollinators. Data suggests that neonicotinic
residues can accumulate in pollen and nectar of treated plants,
potentially exposing pollinators to high levels of the
chemicals. Adverse effects data and bee kill incidents have
also been reported, highlighting the potential direct and/or
indirect effects of neonicotinic pesticides on pollinators.
2) Pollinators and Neonicotinoids. Factors affecting pollinator
health and bee colony losses due to Colony Collapse Disorder
began to be identified in 2006. A National Research Council
report in 2007, Status of Pollinators in North America,
documented the decline of pollinators and discussed some of the
possible causes as well as research and other actions needed to
address the issue.
The prevailing theory among scientists in US EPA, United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the global scientific and
regulatory community is that the general declining health of
honey bees is related to complex interactions among multiple
stressors including:
Pests (e.g., varroa mite), pathogens (e.g., the bacterial
disease American foulbrood) and viruses.
Poor nutrition (e.g., due to loss of foraging habitat and
increased reliance on supplemental diets).
Pesticide exposure.
Bee management practices (e.g., long migratory routes to
support pollination services).
SB 1282 (Leno) Page 4 of
?
Lack of genetic diversity.
In California, beekeepers lost 40% of their hives in the last
year. Since 2006, there has been an average loss of 30% of
California hive. Wild bee populations have declined by 23%
between 2003 and 2008 in the United States.
Historically, US EPA's pesticide risk assessment process for bees
has been qualitative (i.e., not measured). The process relied
primarily on developing an understanding of the types of effects
that might be caused by the pesticide (hazard characterization),
based on toxicity studies.
In 2011, US EPA began expanding the risk assessment process for
bees to quantify or measure exposures and relate them to effects
at the individual and colony level. This involved identifying
additional data that would be needed to inform that process.
In November, 2012, US EPA, in collaboration with Health Canada's
Pest Management Regulatory Agency and DPR, presented a
quantitative risk assessment process for bees and other insect
pollinators to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel.
US EPA has begun to employ its new risk assessment framework for
bees as part of its regulatory decision-making process for all
pesticide chemistries. The new framework relies on a tiered
process.
a) The lowest tier (Tier I) is intended to serve as a
screening tool. It employs conservative assumptions
regarding exposure (i.e., assumptions that are likely to
overestimate exposure) and uses the most sensitive toxicity
estimates from laboratory studies of individual bees to
calculate risk estimates.
SB 1282 (Leno) Page 5 of
?
b) Higher tiers (Tiers II and III) rely on characterization
of risk based on measured exposure values and colony-level
effects studies and so are more realistic.
c) Focuses on the major routes of exposure, including
contact exposure (e.g., from overspray or direct contact
with the pesticide on the plant surface) and dietary
exposure (e.g., from consumption of contaminated pollen or
nectar).
d) Distinguishes different types of pesticide treatments,
such as compounds applied to plant leaves or
seed/soil-applied (systemic) compounds.
In June 2014, President Obama issued a memorandum establishing a
Pollinator Health Task Force, co-chaired by USDA and US EPA, to
create a National Pollinator Health Strategy that promotes the
health of honey bees and other pollinators (including birds,
bats, butterflies, and insects).
US EPA's actions to protect pollinators from pesticide exposure
include:
Proposing a plan to prohibit the use of pesticides that
are toxic to bees when crops are in bloom and bees are under
contract for pollination services. The plan also recommends
that states and tribes develop pollinator protection plans
and best management practices.
Prohibited the use of certain neonicotinoid pesticides
when bees are present.
Expediting the re-evaluation of the neonicotinoid family
of pesticides, as well as other pesticides, using the
harmonized risk assessment process.
SB 1282 (Leno) Page 6 of
?
Temporarily halted the approval of new outdoor
neonicotinoid pesticide uses until new bee data is submitted
and pollinator risk assessments are complete.
Expediting the review of new Varroa mite control products.
Developing new bee exposure and effect testing priorities
for the registration of new pesticides, new pesticide uses,
and registration review of existing pesticides.
Issued data requirements and risk assessment approaches
for pollinators as we review the registrations of all of the
neonicotinoid pesticides.
Established guidance and best practices for regional,
state and tribal inspectors conducting FIFRA inspections of
apparent cases of pesticide-related bee deaths.
Developing a new risk management approach for considering
the impacts of herbicides on monarch butterfly habitats and
protecting milkweed from pesticide exposure.
Issued a benefits analysis of neonicotinoid seed
treatments for insect control in United States soybean
production. EPA found neonicotinoid seed treatments were of
little or no benefit to U.S. soybean production.
Providing farmers and beekeepers with EPA's residue
toxicity time (RT25) data as a means of gauging the lengths
of time that specific pesticide products may remain toxic to
bees and other pollinators following application of these
products to plants.
Working with pesticide manufacturers to develop new
seed-planting technologies that will reduce dust that may be
toxic to pollinators during the planting of pesticide-treated
SB 1282 (Leno) Page 7 of
?
seed.
Incorporating pollinator protection at EPA Facilities, on
epa.gov , and in other EPA programs.
In January, 2016, US EPA and DPR released their draft assessment
focused on how one of the most prominent neonicotinoids-Bayer's
imidacloprid-affects bees. A finalized risk assessment is
expected by December, 2016.
This is the first of four risk assessments conducted by the US
EPA and DPR on the class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids.
The rest are slated for completion by the end of 2017, after
which the agency could tighten controls over the insecticides.
Reviewing dozens of studies from independent and industry-funded
researchers, the US EPA's risk-assessment team established that
when bees encounter imidacloprid at levels above 25 parts per
billion-a common level for neonics in farm fields-they suffer
harm. "These effects include decreases in pollinators as well
as less honey produced," the US EPA's press release states.
California already prohibits use of the chemical on almonds and
limits its application for other crops during bloom periods when
bees are most likely to be present.
"Clearly, as a result of this, there might be more restrictions
coming," said Charlotte Fadipe, spokeswoman for the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation in a Los Angeles Times
article published January 6, 2016.
1) Restricted use. Restricted materials are pesticides deemed to
have a higher potential to cause harm to public health, farm
workers, domestic animals, honeybees, the environment,
wildlife, or other crops compared to other pesticides. With
certain exceptions, restricted materials may be purchased and
used only by or under the supervision of a certified commercial
or private applicator under a permit issued by the County
Agricultural Commissioner (CAC).
SB 1282 (Leno) Page 8 of
?
Certification and licensing of commercial pesticide applicators
falls to DPR while certification of private applicators is
carried out by the CACs.
California requires permits for restricted materials so that
the local CAC can assess, in advance, the potential effects of
the proposed application on health and the environment. Permits
are time - and site - specific, and include use practices to
reduce adverse effects. The CAC may deny permits or require
feasible alternatives to be used.
2) Other States. Several other states are considering similar
legislation, including Maryland. On April 8, 2016 Maryland's
Legislature sent a bill restricting neonicotinoid use to the
Governor's desk.
Comments
1) Purpose of Bill. According to the author, "the labeling of
neonicotinoid-treated plants and the restriction of the sale of
neonicotinoid pesticides to certified applicators will help to
protect bees and other pollinators, one of the most critical
components of our fragile ecosystem.
Neonicotinoids are now the most widely used class of
insecticides in the world and their use continues to grow.
Research has shown that consumers often overuse neonicotinoids.
Products approved for home and garden use may be applied at
rates up to 120 times higher than what is approved for
agricultural uses. According to a recent survey by the
Department of Pesticide Regulation, 39% of homeowners contract
with a certified pest control operator, while about 33% apply
pesticides themselves.
In 2014, the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, a group of
global, independent scientists studying the impact of
pesticides, reviewed more than 1100 peer-reviewed studies, and
concluded that neonicotinoids are a key factor in bee declines
and also harm other essential organisms. Their report called
for immediate regulatory action to restrict the use of
neonicotinoids.
SB 1282 (Leno) Page 9 of
?
We must stop perpetuating this crisis by continuing the
irresponsible use of dangerous and toxic chemicals. SB 1282 is
an opportunity to have a tremendously positive impact on a part
of our world to which we usually give very little thought.
Without bees and other pollinators, the world we live in would
be a very different place."
Related/Prior Legislation
1.AB 1789 (Williams, Chapter 578, Statutes of 2014) requires, on
or before July 1, 2018, the DPR to issue a reevaluation of
neonicotinoids and requires, within two years after making the
reevaluation, DPR to adopt any control measures necessary to
protect pollinator health.
DOUBLE REFERRAL:
If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to re-refer
the bill to the Senate Rules Committee.
SOURCE: Bee Smart California
SUPPORT:
Azul
Bee Bold Mendocino
Bee Love Sacramento
California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG)
California ReLeaf
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Food Safety
Clean Water Action
Defenders of Wildlife
Environmental Working Group
Environment California
Food & Water Watch
Friends of the Earth
Healdsburg Citizens for Sustainable Solutions
LabelGMOs.org
Pesticide Action Network (PAN)
Sacramento Food Policy Council
Sierra Club California
Slow Food California
SB 1282 (Leno) Page 10 of
?
Thanksgiving Coffee
Turning Green
UrbanBeeSF
Wine and Water Watch
Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation
OPPOSITION:
Almond Hullers and Processors Association
American Pistachio Growers
California Agricultural Aircraft Association
California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers
California Association of Pest Control Advisors
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Citrus Nursery Society
California Cotton Ginners Association
California Cotton Growers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grocers Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Retailers Association
California Tomato Growers Association
California Seed Association
CropLife America
Family Winemakers of California
Nursery Growers Association
RISE
San Diego Flower and Plant Association
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers Association
Western Plant Health Association
ARGUMENTS IN
SUPPORT: Supporters assert that "there is a wealth of
scientific literature showing adverse impacts to bees and other
pollinators from uses of neonicotinoids, and the EPA has confirmed
that these systemic insecticides can adversely impact bees. In
their 2015 proposed action, "Proposal to Mitigate Exposure to Bees
from Acutely Toxic Pesticide Products," the agency notes,
"Systemic pesticides and/or pesticides with prolonged residual
toxicity may result in residues in pollen and nectar at levels
that can impact bees and hive health." These adverse impacts to
SB 1282 (Leno) Page 11 of
?
bees and hive health can cause direct harm to growers as a result
of decreased pollination services."
Supporters assert that, "In addition to killing bees outright,
research shows that even low levels of these toxic pesticides
cause serious harm by impairing bees' ability to learn, find their
way back to the hive, collect food, produce new queens and mount
an effective immune response. Additional studies on impacts to
bumblebees show that exposure to neonicotinoids is associated with
fewer queen bees, reduced reproduction, and impaired foraging and
homing abilities."
Supporters state, "Neonicotinoids are now the most widely used
class of insecticides in the world and their use continues to
grow. Research has shown that consumers often overuse
neonicotinoids. Products approved for home and garden use may be
applied at rates up to 120 times higher than what is approved for
agricultural uses. According to a recent survey by the Department
of Pesticide Regulation, 39% of homeowners contract with a
certified pest control operator, while about 33% apply pesticides
themselves."
Supporters are concerned that "consumers also may be unaware that
many 'bee friendly' garden plants and vegetable seedlings sold at
home garden centers have been pre-coated or pre-treated with these
bee-killing pesticides. According to a 2014 report, more than half
of "bee-friendly" plants purchased at Home Depot, Walmart, and
Lowes stores in 18 cities across the US and Canada had levels of
neonicotinoids at sufficient levels to kill bees outright."
According to supporters, "SB 1282 will help consumers support
local bee populations by avoiding landscape plantings and
pesticide products that contain harmful neonicotinoids. In
addition, reclassifying neonicotinoids as "restricted materials"
will ensure that only licensed pesticide applicators are applying
these chemicals, properly and according to the labels in order to
minimize impacts to pollinators. California has the ability to be
a leader in protecting bees and other pollinators, one of the most
critical components of our food supply and fragile ecosystem."
ARGUMENTS IN
OPPOSITION: The oppositions states that, "hundreds of studies
on bee health have been published, adding to an extensive body of
knowledge on this issue. The consensus of these studies points to
SB 1282 (Leno) Page 12 of
?
multiple factors affecting bee health, especially lack of diverse
forage and the impact of parasites like the Varroa mite. USDA and
US EPA convened a working group several years ago to address the
question of pollinator health. Their report found the biggest
culprit to bee die-off to be the parasitic Varroa mite."
The opposition argues that "SB 1282 creates serious problems for
others in the agriculture industry. First, by changing the status
of the entire class of neonicotinoids to restricted use, this bill
threatens the future existence of California's $3 billion citrus
industry. California citrus farmers have been fighting the spread
of the Asian Citrus Psyllid (ACP) for a number of years because of
its ability to transmit the deadly disease Huanglongibing (HLB),
which has no known cure and is the singular cause for destroying
citrus industries in other parts of the country and world."
The opposition states that "the California Citrus industry
assesses itself $16 million annually to conduct an outreach and
educational program in urban parts of the state to restrict the
spread of ACP."
The opposition continues that "SB 1282 attempts to require a
warning label where science has yet to determine one is needed.
In California, DPR has the responsibility for risk assessment and
risk management for any registered pesticide used in California.
If a potential risk can be identified, DPR and US EPA will
mitigate that risk either through appropriate changes in use or
label restrictions."
-- END --