Existing law generally regulates pesticide use by the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and requires the Director of Pesticide Regulation to endeavor to eliminate from use any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment. A violation of those provisions and regulations adopted pursuant to those provisions is generally a misdemeanor. Existing law requires the department, 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 would require the director, bill, on and after July 1, 2017, to would require labeling labeling, as specified, 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, designate neonicotinoid pesticides as restricted materials by January 1, 2018. Because a violation of the regulations adopted pursuant to the bills provisions would be a misdemeanor, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. pesticide. The bill, by January 1, 2018, would prohibit the noncommercial use of neonicotinoids, except as provided. The bill would specify that a violation of these requirements is not a crime but would constitute an unfair and unlawful business act or practice.

Existing law generally regulates pesticide use by the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and requires the Director of Pesticide Regulation to endeavor to eliminate from use any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment. A violation of those provisions and regulations adopted pursuant to those provisions is generally a misdemeanor. Existing law requires the department, 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 would require the director, 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, designate neonicotinoid pesticides as restricted materials by January 1, 2018. Because a violation of the regulations adopted pursuant to the bills provisions would be a misdemeanor, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1282

Author:

Amended: 5/31/16

Vote:

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 4-2, 4/20/16

AYES: Wieckowski, Hill, Leno, Pavley

NOES: Gaines, Bates

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jackson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/27/16

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Bee Smart California

DIGEST: This bill requires labeling of all commercially available seeds and plants treated with neonicotinoid pesticide and states that it is a violation of Business and Professions Code unfair business practice provisions not to do so and prohibits the use of neonicotinoid pesticides, and exempts certain uses.

ANALYSIS: Existing federal law provides, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use, and does the following:

1. Requires all pesticides to be registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
   
2. 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.
   
3. 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 state 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 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.

1. 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 two 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 this bill’s provisions would be a misdemeanor, this bill imposes 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.

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).
• 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.

• 1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. 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), including measures to prohibiting or limiting the use of pesticides that are toxic to bees.

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 DPR 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).

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.

1. 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.

“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

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.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill has minor fiscal impact on DPR to correspond with the public regarding new laws, and incorporate labeling requirements and the prohibition into regulations and guidance.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/27/16)

Bee Smart California (source)
Azul
Bee Bold Mendocino
Bee Love Sacramento
California Public Interest Research Group
California ReLeaf
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Food Safety

City of Sacramento
Clean Water Action
Defenders of Wildlife

Ecological Farming Association
Environmental Working Group
Environment California
Food & Water Watch
Friends of the Earth
Healdsburg Citizens for Sustainable Solutions

High Shams Ranches
LabelGMOs.org
Pesticide Action Network
Sacramento Food Policy Council
Sierra Club California
Slow Food California
Thanksgiving Coffee
Turning Green
UrbanBeeSF
Wine and Water Watch
Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/27/16)

Agricultural Council of California
Almond Hullers and Processors Association
American Pistachio Growers

Apartment Association, California Southern Cities

Apartment Association of Orange County
California Agricultural Aircraft Association

California Agricultural Commissioners & Sealers 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 League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Retailers Association

California Seed Association
California Tomato Growers Association

Consumer Specialty Products Association
CropLife America

East Bay Rental Housing Association
Family Winemakers of California

North Valley Property Owners Association
Nursery Growers Association
RISE
San Diego Flower and Plant Association
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers Association
Western Plant Health Association

Prepared by:

5/31/16 22:15:39

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

SB 1282 (Leno) - Pesticides: neonicotinoids: labeling and restricted material designation

Bill Summary:

SB 1282 requires the Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR), on and after July 1, 2017, to require labeling of all commercially available seeds and plants sold at retail establishments, excluding noxious weed seeds and plants, that have been treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide. The bill also requires DPR, by January 1, 2018, to designate neonicotinoid pesticides as restricted materials.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 27, 2016

Fiscal Impact:

Minor fiscal impact on DPR to correspond with the public regarding new laws, and incorporate labeling requirements and the prohibition into regulations and guidance.

Author Amendments:

• Strikes language requiring DPR, on and after July 1, 2017, to require labeling of all commercially available seeds and plants sold at retail establishments that have been treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide.
• Strikes language requiring DPR, by January 1, 2018, to designate neonicotinoid pesticides as restricted materials.
• States that failure to label commercially available seeds and plants treated with neonicotinoid pesticide is a violation of Business and Professional Code.
• Prohibits the use of neonicotinoid pesticides, and exempts certain uses.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

SB 1282 (Leno) - Pesticides: neonicotinoids: labeling and restricted material designation

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

SB 1282 requires the Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR), on and after July 1, 2017, to require labeling of all commercially available seeds and plants sold at retail establishments, excluding noxious weed seeds and plants, that have been treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide. The bill also requires, by January 1, 2018, to designate neonicotinoid pesticides as restricted materials.

Fiscal Impact: Significant cost impacts, potentially in the low millions (General Fund), to DPR.

Background:

Chapter 2 of Division 7 of the Food and Agricultural Code (Commencing with §12751) establishes the state’s pesticide regulatory program and requires that DPR, among other things, provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides; protection of public health and safety; and protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating, or ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. Specifically, §12824 requires the director to eliminate from use any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment.

Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides that affect the central nervous system of insects causing paralysis and death. Concerns have been raised since the initial registration of neonicotinoids regarding their potential environmental fate and effects, particularly as they relate to pollinators. In 2009, DPR began reevaluating a class of neonicotinoids in response to its evaluation of data that found that foraging bees may be exposed to levels of the insecticide well above the lethal concentration.

Based on data showing a potential hazard to honey bees, in 2009, the Department of Pesticide Regulation initiated reevaluation of pesticide products containing four neonicotinoid chemicals, including imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and dinotefuran. DPR is required to complete its reevaluation by July 1, 2018, and to adopt necessary control measures for these pesticides by July 1, 2020.

Proposed Law:

This bill:

1. Requires 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.
2. Requires 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.

Related Legislation:

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.

Staff Comments:

DPR indicates General Fund costs of approximately $13 million (as outlined below) to establish a new program to regulate the sales of neonicotinoid treated seeds and plants. Costs include developing new regulations; registering and tracking companies that sell neonicotinoid treated plants and seed; enforcing compliance with labeling requirements at the retail establishments; and to enforce and monitor for neonicotinoids on plants and seeds. DPR notes that General Fund monies are required because seeds and plants are not pesticides so DPR will not collect a mill on these products. Staff notes that sufficient information to support some of the costs indicated below was not available.

            Regulation development                          $       33,000

            Outreach (printing and contractual)         $     350,000

            Compliance and Enforcement                 $  9,100,000

            Information technology                            $  3,600,000

                                                            Total         $13,083,000

DPR also notes a potential revenue loss of $1.1 million annually in mill assessments resulting from the designation of neonicotinoid pesticides as a restricted material, as well as a reduction of approximately $660,000 annually to the local county agricultural commissions. It is unclear how much of these potential revenue reductions would be offset by restricted material fees, the purchases of alternative consumer use pesticides, and mill assessments paid by certificated pesticide applicators who could legally apply neonicotinoid pesticides after 2018.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Wieckowski, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: SB 1282

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:
   
   1. Requires all pesticides to be registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
      
   2. 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.
      
   3. 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 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.

1. 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.

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).
• 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.

• 1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
• 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 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).

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.

1. 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.

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

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 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 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 --