Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of any pesticide, as prescribed. Existing law prohibits the use of any pesticide that contains one or more of specified anticoagulants in wildlife habitat areas, as defined. Existing law exempts from this prohibition the use of these pesticides for agricultural activities, as defined. Existing law requires the director, and each county agricultural commissioner under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the provisions regulating the use of pesticides. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor.

This bill would expand this prohibition to include a pesticide containing any anticoagulant and would also prohibit the use of a pesticide containing an anticoagulant in the entire state. The bill would authorize a qualified applicator to submit an application to the Department of Pesticide Regulation to use a pesticide that contains one of specified anticoagulants for a particular pest infestation but would authorize the department to approve the application only if the qualified applicator demonstrates that he or she exhausted specified alternatives to the use of the pesticide and the use of the pesticide is required as a final treatment for the pest infestation. The bill would also authorize the use of a pesticide containing a specified anticoagulant if the State Department of Public Health determines that there is a public health emergency due to a pest infestation and the Department of Pesticide Regulation determines that controlling or eradicating the pest infestation requires the use of a pesticide containing an anticoagulant. local health authority determines that an emergency pest infestation poses an immediate threat to public health or could cause significant economic damage and the county agricultural commissioner determines that use of a pesticide that contains an anticoagulant is necessary to remediate the emergency pest infestation. The bill would also authorize a pest management provider to apply to the county agricultural commissioner to request the use of an anticoagulant relative to an emergency pest infestation. The bill would authorize the county agricultural commissioner to impose additional conditions for emergency applications of an anticoagulant. The bill would expand the exemption for agricultural activities to include activities conducted in certain locations. locations and would also exempt from its provisions the use of pesticides by any governmental agency employee who uses pesticides for public health activities and a mosquito or vector control district that uses pesticides to protect the public health.

To the extent the bill would impose additional duties on county agricultural commissioners, and because the bill would expand the definition of a crime, this 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law regulates pesticide use and generally provides that, except for specified provisions that are within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, the enforcement of these provisions is the duty of the Director of Pesticide Regulation. Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to establish a competitive grants program to make funds available to qualified public and private entities to conduct pest management research projects.

This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to these latter provisions.

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Eduardo Garcia, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2422 (

Author:Bloom) – As Amended Ver:April 3, 2018

SUBJECT: Pesticides: use of anticoagulants

SUMMARY: Prohibits the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains an anticoagulant. Specifically, this bill:

1. Declares that the provisions in the bill shall be known as the California Natural Predator Protection Act of 2018.
2. Prohibits the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains an anticoagulant.
3. Provides that anticoagulants include, but are not limited to, brodifacoum, bromadiolone, chlorophacinone, difenacoum, difethialone, diphacinone, and warfarin.
4. Provides that the prohibition on the use of an anticoagulant pesticide does not apply if the local health authority determines that an emergency pest infestation poses an immediate threat to public health or could cause significant economic damage and the county agricultural commissioner determines that use of a pesticide that contains an anticoagulant pesticide is necessary to remediate the emergency pest infestation.
5. Provides that a pest management provider may apply to the county agricultural commissioner to request the use of an anticoagulant pesticide in the case of an emergency pest infestation that poses an immediate threat to public health or could cause significant economic damage.
6. Requires the county agricultural commissioner to respond to the request in a timely manner.
7. Authorizes the county agricultural commissioner to impose additional conditions for emergency applications of an anticoagulant pesticide.
8. Exempts the following from the prohibition on the use of an anticoagulant pesticide:
   1. Any governmental agency employee who is a vector control technician who uses pesticides for public health activities.
   2. A mosquito or vector control district that uses pesticides to protect public health.
   3. The use of pesticides for agricultural activities, as defined in statute.
9. Adds the following locations to the “agricultural activities” exemption:
   1. Warehouses used to store foods for human or animal consumption;
   2. Agricultural food production sites, including, but not limited to, slaughterhouses and canneries; and
   3. Factories, breweries, wineries, or any other location where rodent or pest populations need to be controlled for food safety or agricultural purposes.
10. Deletes existing statute that prohibits the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) in wildlife habitat areas, as defined.
11. Makes legislative findings about the utility of wild predators in maintaining ecosystem health and about the deleterious impacts of rodenticides on predatory species.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the state’s pesticide regulatory program and mandates the 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, for the protection of public health and safety, and for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating, or ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides.
2. Prohibits, except for use for agricultural activities, the use in a state park, state wildlife refuge, or state conservancy of any pesticide that contains one or more of the following second generation anticoagulant pesticides: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone.
3. Defines "agricultural activities" as those activities that generate products, including any horticultural, viticultural, aquacultural, forestry, dairy, livestock, poultry, bee, or farm product.
4. Requires the director of the DPR to control and otherwise regulate the use of restricted materials.
5. Prohibits a person from using or possessing any pesticide designated as a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the local agricultural commissioner.
6. Prohibits, except as provided by regulation, the possession or use of a restricted material by any person except a certified private or commercial applicator, or someone under the direct supervision of a certified private or commercial applicator.
7. Designates as restricted materials pesticides containing brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone.
8. Prohibits the use of brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone in any above ground bait more than 50 feet from a man-made structure unless there is a feature associated with the site that is harboring or attracting the pests targeted on the label between the 50-foot limit and the placement limit specified on the label.
9. Authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to, among other things, manage California's fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: This bill prohibits the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains an anticoagulant.

Background: Rodents. Many species of rodents inhabit California, including squirrels, chipmunks, beavers, gophers, rats, and mice. Rodents native to California play an important ecological role, and are a major food source for predators and scavengers, including hawks, eagles, foxes, coyotes, and bobcats. However, rodents are considered pests when they threaten public health or damage or destroy critical habitat, native plants and animals, property, agricultural crops, and food supplies. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, rats and mice spread more than 35 diseases to humans worldwide. In North America, some diseases that spread from rats and mice to humans include hantavirus, leptospirosis, plague, and salmonellosis.

Rodent Control. Approaches for managing pests are often grouped in the following categories. Biological control is the use of natural enemies - predators, parasites, pathogens, and competitors - to control pests and their damage. Cultural controls are practices that reduce pest establishment, reproduction, dispersal, and survival. For example, a cultural control is removing all potential sources of food and water. Mechanical and physical controls kill pests directly, block pests out, or make the environment unsuitable. Traps for rodents are examples of mechanical control. Physical controls include barriers such as screens to keep birds, rodents, or insects out. Chemical control is the use of pesticides.

Integrated pest management (IPM) is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of the above techniques. In IPM, pesticides are used only when needed and in combination with other approaches for more effective, long-term control. Pesticides are selected and applied in a way that minimizes their possible harm to people, non-target organisms, and the environment.

Rodenticides. Rodenticides are pesticides designed to kill rodents. Rodenticides are usually formulated as baits, which are designed to attract animals. Baits used in agriculture and natural areas may contain ground meat, vegetables, grains, or fruits, which may be attractive to non-target wildlife, children, and pets. The ingestion of, or sometimes contact with, rodenticides can have the same type of effect on any mammal. Contact with rodenticides can also affect birds and fish.

Anticoagulant Rodenticides. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), most rodenticides used today are anticoagulant compounds, either first or second generation, that interfere with blood clotting and cause death from excessive bleeding.

First generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) include anticoagulants that were developed before 1970. These compounds are much more toxic when feeding occurs on several successive days rather than on one day only. Deaths typically occur between four days and two weeks after rodents begin to feed on the bait. FGARs that are registered to control rats and mice in the United States include chlorophacinone, diphacinone, and warfarin. Consumers in California can purchase FGARs currently.

Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) were developed beginning in the 1970s to control rodents that are resistant to FGARs. SGARs are more likely than FGARs to be able to kill after a single feeding, and tend to remain in animal tissues longer than first generation compounds. Due to this, SGARs pose greater risks to non-target species that might feed on bait only once or that might feed upon animals that have eaten the bait. SGARS are no longer registered for use in products geared toward consumers in the United States and are registered only for the commercial pest control and structural pest control markets. SGARs registered in the United States include brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone.

In California, pesticides are generally regulated through labeling requirements and the designation of the pesticide as a restricted material. However, there are examples in statute of specific pesticide use restrictions and requirements. The goal of this bill is to augment existing regulatory and legislative action by prohibiting the use of FGARs and SGARs, except in public health emergencies, for vector control, or for agricultural activities. Vector control is any method to limit or eradicate mammals, birds, insects or other species that transmit disease pathogens. The most frequent type of vector control is mosquito control using a variety of strategies.

Wildlife Impacts. According to the DPR, the main factors governing pesticide exposure rates in non-target wild animals are use patterns (i.e., the way that the products are used), use rates (i.e., the amount used), and the physical and chemical characteristics of the pesticides. According to the DFW, many species of wildlife in California, such as golden eagles, great-horned owls, Cooper’s hawk, American kestrels, black bears, fishers, red foxes, gray foxes, San Joaquin kit foxes (federally endangered), coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats, and badgers, are at risk for accidental anticoagulant poisoning. Studies in California show that in some fisher populations, most of the animals have ingested anticoagulant rodenticides.

One way wildlife can ingest anticoagulant rodenticides is by eating the bait itself (primary poisoning). Baits are often placed in areas that are easily accessible to wild animals, and this increases the risk of primary poisoning. Another very common way that wildlife are poisoned is by eating a rodent that ingested rodenticide (secondary poisoning). This occurs in species such as raptors, bobcats, and fox because rodents are a part of their diet. Poisoned rodents also become more lethargic and exhibit abnormal behavior such as sitting out in the open and making little to no attempts to escape from predators, and this increases the chance that they will be caught and eaten by a predator. Lastly, wild animals may suffer from chronic intoxication when they regularly ingest low levels of anticoagulants in their prey. This exposure is not fatal by itself, but it does cause anticoagulant levels to increase in the animal’s body over time. This decreases overall health and makes the animal more susceptible to other health problems and diseases.

In July 2011, the DFW requested that the DPR designate all SGARs as California-restricted materials in order to mitigate non-target wildlife exposure in California. In response to the DFW’s 2011 request, the DPR took steps to obtain wildlife incident and mortality data between 1995 and 2011, which it analyzed together with land use data and rodenticide use and sales data between 2006 and 2010. The DPR considered data from multiple sources, including the DFW, private agencies, individuals, available journal articles, and other resources. Of the 492 non-target mammals and bird necropsies included in the DPR’s analysis, 368 (74.8 percent) had residues of one or more anticoagulant rodenticide (FGARs and SGARs). Of the 368 animals that tested positive for at least one anticoagulant rodenticide, 65 (17.7 percent) had residues of at least one FGAR, while 359 (97.6 percent) had residues of at least one SGAR.

SGARs Classified As Restricted Materials in 2014. Following its findings on the impacts of SGARs on wildlife throughout the state, the DPR designated the active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone as California-restricted materials on March 18, 2014, making all SGAR products restricted materials.

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). California requires permits for restricted materials so that the local CAC can assess, in advance, the potential effects of the proposed application on public 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.

Further SGAR Restrictions. SGARs target rodents such as the house mouse, Norway rat, and roof rat, which generally live in close association with humans and are dependent upon human habits for food, water, and shelter. In the March 2014 action, the DPR further restricted the use of SGARs by prohibiting the placement of aboveground baits containing SGARs more than 50 feet from a human-made structure, unless there is a feature associated with the site that is harboring or attracting pests. These use restrictions for SGARs went into effect on July 1, 2014.

Have SGAR Restrictions Been Effective? In 2013, the DPR entered into a contract with WildCare, a nonprofit organization that operates a wildlife rehabilitation hospital in the San Francisco Bay Area, to study non-target wild animal exposure to SGARs. The DPR renewed the contract in 2014 for two more years. Through December 2016, WildCare provided the DPR with exposure data for 115 domestic pets and 276 wild animals.

In March 2017, the DPR released a draft report noting that of the 276 wild animals tested, non-target wild animal exposure rates to SGARs were high, both before and after the new regulations took effect. Specifically, of the wild animals tested in 2013-14 prior to the new regulations taking effect, 86 percent (82 out of 95) were exposed to SGARs. Following the new regulations, 91 percent (75 out of 82) and 77 percent (76 out of 99) of animals tested were exposed to SGARs in 2015 and 2016 respectively. The DPR contends that there is no long-term trend apparent in the data among the wild animals selected for testing. Additionally, the dataset was composed of wild animals that died at the WildCare wildlife rehabilitation hospital, not randomly selected animals, so the DPR concluded that it is unclear to what extent the biases in the sampling/selection method in the WildCare study affected the reported exposure rates.

By restricting the use of all SGARs to only certified applicators and limiting their use to near structures, the DPR intended to reduce unintended exposures by non-target wildlife. Based on the results of the WildCare study, the DPR concluded that additional data is needed to determine if there is a long-term trend in the exposure rates, and to determine if the new regulations will decrease exposure rates among tested wild animals.

Potential Unintended Consequences. Acute toxicants are another category of rodenticides. These rodenticides are not anticoagulant rodenticides, but have differing ways of affecting rodents, including affecting the nervous system, causing heart and kidney failure, and reacting to stomach acid to cause rapid death. Chemicals such as bromethalin, zinc phosphide, and strychnine are included in this category, and kill rodents often within a few hours after one feeding. Formulated as baits, they are highly toxic to people, pets, and wildlife. A common antidote to bromethalin does not exist. Cholecalciferol, another acute toxicant, usually requires multiple feedings to kill rodents, and can only be used by licensed pesticide applicators. It is possible the use of acute toxicants to control rodents may increase if the prohibition on FGARs and SGARs in this bill is enacted.

Considerations. The author may wish to amend the bill to do the following:

• address the potential increased use of acute toxicants as a result of prohibitions on FGARs and SGARs;
• clarify the responsibilities of the local health authority, County Agricultural Commissioner, and pest management provider; and
• clarify whether restaurants and other establishments that serve food would be included under the definition of "agricultural activities."

Prior and Related Legislation:

AB 1687 (Bloom), 2017, would have prohibited the use of any pesticide that contains one or more of nine specified active ingredients (including all FGARs and SGARs and some acute toxicants). The Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials hearing on this bill was canceled at the request of the author and the bill subsequently died on file.

AB 2596 (Bloom), 2016, would have prohibited the use of SGARs. The Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials hearing on this bill was canceled at the request of the author and the bill subsequently died on file.

AB 2657 (Bloom), Chapter 475, Statutes of 2014, prohibits the use of SGARs in wildlife habitat areas, defined as any state park, state wildlife refuge, or state conservancy.

Double Referral: This bill passed the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials 4-2.

Arguments in Support: Those in support argue that better regulation of anticoagulant rodenticides leads to the protection of children, pets, and wildlife. AB 2422 will reduce unnecessary poisoning of non-target organisms while still allowing the use of rodenticides to protect public health and agriculture activities. Supporters maintain that previous regulatory changes have not lessened non-target poisonings of wildlife, and that rodents should be controlled using methods such as better sanitation, sealing of buildings, and removing food, water, and habitat.

Arguments in Opposition: Those in opposition argue that AB 2422 will leave California with fewer and, in some cases, less effective methods for controlling rodent populations. The opposition states that the risk to human health is lessened the sooner a pest problem can be treated with proven products. In addition, the process for certified applicators to be able to use rodenticides is unclear. The opposition also has specific concerns about legislating the control of these products when the DPR and USEPA have the authority to regulate their use if they pose harm to wildlife, the environment, or humans. Some of the opposition expressed an interest in the DPR facilitating a stakeholder process not to exceed one year, to be followed by regulations that would lead to reductions in rodenticide use in California.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Center for Biological Diversity

Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife

Friends of the Earth

Malibu Monarch Project

Poison Free Malibu

Project Coyote

Raptors Are The Solution

Individuals (188)

Opposition

American Chemistry Council

Animal Pest Management Services, Inc.

California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California League of Food Producers

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

California Restaurant Association

California Retailers Association

Crop Life America

Household & Commercial Products Association

National Pest Management Association

Pest Control Operators of California

RISE

Syngenta

Western Plant Health Association

Analysis Prepared by: Keith Cialino / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096

Date of Hearing: April 10, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS

Bill Quirk, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2422 (

Author:Bloom) – As Amended Ver:April 3, 2018

SUBJECT: Pesticides: use of anticoagulants

SUMMARY: Prohibits the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains an anticoagulant. Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes legislative findings about the utility of wild predators in maintaining ecosystem health and about the deleterious impact of rodenticides on predatory species.
2. Declares that the provisions in the bill shall be known as the California Natural Predator Protection Act of 2018.
3. Prohibits the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains an anticoagulant.
4. Provides that anticoagulants include, but are not limited to, brodifacoum, bromadiolone, chlorophacinone, difenacoum, difethialone, diphacinone, and warfarin.
5. Provides that the prohibition on the use of an anticoagulant pesticide does not apply if the local health authority determines that an emergency pest infestation poses an immediate threat to public health, or could cause significant economic damage and the county agricultural commissioner determines that use of a pesticide that contains an anticoagulant pesticide is necessary to remediate the emergency pest infestation.
6. Provides that a pest management provider may apply to the county agricultural commissioner to request the use of an anticoagulant pesticide in the case of an emergency pest infestation that poses an immediate threat to public health or could cause significant economic damage.
7. Requires the county agricultural commissioner to respond to the request in a timely manner.
8. Authorizes the county agricultural commissioner to impose additional conditions for emergency applications of an anticoagulant pesticide.
9. Provides that the prohibition on the use of an anticoagulant pesticide does not apply to any governmental agency employee who is a vector control technician who uses pesticides for public health activities.
10. Provides that the prohibition on the use of an anticoagulant pesticide does not apply to a mosquito or vector control district that uses pesticides to protect public health.
11. Provides that the prohibition on the use of an anticoagulant pesticide does not apply to agricultural activities, as defined in statute.
12. Adds the following locations to the 'agricultural activities' exemption for use of an anticoagulant pesticide:
    1. Warehouses used to store foods for human or animal consumption;
    2. Agricultural food production sites, including, but not limited to, slaughterhouses and canneries; and,
    3. Factories, breweries, wineries, or any other location where rodent or pest populations need to be controlled for food safety or agricultural purposes.
13. Deletes existing statute that prohibits the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in wildlife habitat areas, as defined.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the state’s pesticide regulatory program and mandates the 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, for the protection of public health and safety, and for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating, or ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) § 11401 et seq.)
2. Prohibits, except for use for agricultural activities, the use in a state park, state wildlife refuge, or state conservancy of any pesticide that contains one or more of the following second generation anticoagulant pesticides: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone. (FAC § 12978.7)
3. Defines "agricultural activities" as those activities that generate products, including any horticultural, viticultural, aquacultural, forestry, dairy, livestock, poultry, bee, or farm product. (FAC § 564 and 54004)
4. Requires the director of DPR to control and otherwise regulate the use of restricted materials. (FAC § 14001)
5. Prohibits a person from using or possessing any pesticide designated as a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the local agricultural commissioner. (FAC § 14006.5)
6. Prohibits, except as provided by regulation, the possession or use of a restricted material by any person except a certified private or commercial applicator, or someone under the direct supervision of a certified private or commercial applicator. (FAC § 14015)
7. Designates as restricted materials pesticides containing brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone. (Title 3 California Code of Regulations (CCR), § 6400 (2014))
8. Prohibits the use of brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone in any above ground bait more than 50 feet from a man-made structure unless there is a feature associated with the site that is harboring or attracting the pests targeted on the label between the 50-foot limit and the placement limit specified on the label. (Title 3 CCR § 6471 (2014))

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill: According to the author, "AB 2422, seeks to take stronger measures to protect children, pets, and wildlife from unintentional rodenticide poisoning. The use of rat, mouse, and rodent poisons by the general public and licensed applicators leads to the deaths of wildlife and pets, and the hospitalization and illness of children. AB 2422 allows for common sense controls on these dangerous poisons in order to eliminate their use where they lead to unnecessary poisonings to non-target organisms while still allowing for their use to protect California’s agricultural economy and to protect public health and the environment."

Rodents: Many species of rodents inhabit California, including squirrels, chipmunks, beavers, gophers, rats, and mice. Rodents native to California play an important ecological role, and are a major food source for predators and scavengers, including hawks, eagles, foxes, coyotes, and bobcats. Rodents, however, are pests when they infest houses, threaten public health, and destroy property. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, rats and mice spread more than 35 diseases to humans worldwide. In North America, diseases that spread from rats and mice to humans include hantavirus and salmonellosis. Rodent infestations can also damage or destroy critical habitat, native plants and animals, crops, property, and food supplies.

Rodent control: According to the United States Environmental Protection (USEPA), the most important steps in eliminating and preventing rodent infestations are keeping living spaces clean; preventing rodent access; and, eliminating potential nesting areas. Other options to control rodent infestations include lethal traps, live traps, and chemical control (rodenticides).

Rodenticides: Rodenticides are pesticides designed to kill rodents, but the ingestion of, or sometimes contact with rodenticides can have the same type of effect on any mammal. Contact with rodenticides can also affect birds and fish. Rodenticides are usually formulated as baits, which are designed to attract animals. Baits used in agriculture and natural areas may contain ground meat, vegetables, grains, or fruits, which may be attractive to non-target wildlife, children, and pets.

According to the USEPA, most of the rodenticides used today are anticoagulant compounds, either first or second generation, that interfere with blood clotting and cause death from excessive bleeding. Deaths typically occur between four days and two weeks after rodents begin to feed on the bait.

First-generation anticoagulants (FGARs) include the anticoagulants that were developed as rodenticides before 1970. These compounds are much more toxic when feeding occurs on several successive days rather than on one day only. Chlorpophacinone, diphacinone, and warfarin are FGARs that are registered to control rats and mice in the United States.

Second-generation anticoagulants (SGARs) were developed beginning in the 1970s to control rodents that are resistant to FGARs. SGARs are more likely than FGARs to be able to kill after a single night's feeding, and tend to remain in animal tissues longer than do first-generation compounds. Because of this, SGARs pose greater risks to non-target species that might feed on bait only once or that might feed upon animals that have eaten the bait. Due to these risks, SGARS are no longer registered for use in products geared toward consumers and are registered only for the commercial pest control and structural pest control markets. SGARs registered in the United States include brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone.

The third category of rodenticides consists of those considered acute toxicants. Acute toxicant rodenticides have differing ways of affecting rodents, including affecting the nervous system, causing heart and kidney failure, and reacting to stomach acid to cause rapid death. In this category, bromethalin, zinc phosphide, and strychnine kill rodents after one feeding, often within a few hours. Formulated as baits, they are highly toxic to people, pets, and wildlife. Cholecalciferol, another acute toxicant, usually requires multiple feedings to kill rodents, and can only be used by licensed pesticide applicators.

Dangers of rodenticides: According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), the use of poison baits to control rodents has injured and killed hundreds or thousands of wild animals and pets throughout California. Predatory and scavenging birds and mammals that eat dead or dying rodents that have consumed these baits will also be poisoned. Large predators, such as mountain lions, can be impacted by consuming smaller predators that have preyed upon poisoned rodents. Pets will also eat dead or dying rodents and unprotected bait.

Request for California-restricted materials designation for SGARs: In July 2011, DFW requested that DPR designate all SGARs as California-restricted materials in order to mitigate non-target wildlife exposure in California. DFW contends that dozens of species are impacted by anticoagulant pesticides, including the golden eagle, great-horned owl, Cooper’s hawk, American kestrel, black bear, fisher, red fox, gray fox, San Joaquin kit fox (federally endangered), coyote, mountain lion, bobcat, and badger.

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).

California requires permits for restricted materials so that the local CAC can assess, in advance, the potential effects of the proposed application on public 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.

Analysis of anticoagulant rodenticides on wildlife in California: In response to DFW’s 2011 request, DPR took steps to obtain wildlife incident and mortality data between 1995 and 2011, which it analyzed together with land use data and rodenticide use and sales data between 2006 and 2010. DPR considered data from multiple sources, including DFW, private agencies, individuals, available journal articles, and other resources. Of the 492 non-target mammals and bird necropsies included in DPR’s analysis, 368 (74.8 percent) had residues of one or more anticoagulant rodenticide (FGARs and SGARs). Of the 368 animals that tested positive for at least one anticoagulant rodenticide, 359 (97.6 percent) had residues of at least one SGAR while 65 (17.7 percent) had residues of at least one FGAR.

After reviewing all the data obtained from both urban and rural areas, DPR found that SGAR exposure and toxicity to non-target wildlife is a statewide problem, regardless of the setting. DPR found that the use of SGARs presents a hazard related to persistent residues in target animals resulting in impacts to non-target wildlife.

State regulatory action on SGARs: While certain mitigation efforts had previously been in effect for some SGARS, following its findings on the impacts of SGARs on wildlife throughout the state, on March 18, 2014, DPR designated the active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone as California-restricted materials, making all SGAR products restricted materials.

In the March 2014 action, DPR further restricted the use of SGARs by prohibiting the placement of aboveground baits containing SGARs more than 50 feet from a human-made structure, unless there is a feature associated with the site that is harboring or attracting pests. SGARs target commensal rodents, such as the house mouse, Norway rat, and roof rat, which generally live in close association with humans and are dependent upon human habits for food, water, and shelter. DPR contends that restricting the use of all SGARs to only certified applicators and limiting its use to near structures will significantly reduce unintended exposures to non-target wildlife. These use restrictions for SGARs went into effect on July 1, 2014.

Have the regulations been effective? In order to determine a positive regulatory outcome, which in this case would be a decrease in SGAR exposure rates, in 2013, DPR entered into contract with WildCare, a nonprofit organization that operates a wildlife rehabilitation hospital in the San Francisco Bay Area. The contract was for WildCare to provide DPR SGAR exposure data on non-target wild animals. DPR renewed the contract in 2014 for two more years. Through December, 2016, WildCare provided DPR with exposure data for 115 domestic pets and 276 wild animals.

On March 14, 2017, DPR drafted a report about the study noting that of the 276 wild animals tested, exposure rates to non-target wildlife SGARs were high, both before and after the new regulations took effect. Specifically, of the wild animals tested in 2013-14, 86% (82/95) were exposed to SGARs (before the new regulations took effect), 91% (75/82) in 2015, and 77% (76/99) in 2016. DPR contends that there is no long-term trend apparent in the data among the wild animals selected for testing. Additionally, DPR concluded that it is unclear to what extent the biases in the sampling/selection method in the WildCare study affected the reported exposure rates (the dataset was composed of wild animals that died at the WildCare wildlife rehabilitation hospital, not randomly selected animals).

DPR contends that the main factors governing pesticide exposure rates in non-target wild animals are use patterns (i.e., the way that the products are used), use rates (i.e., the amount used), and the physicochemical characteristics of the pesticides. The new SGAR regulations changed the use patterns, and restricted the purchase, sales, and use of SGARs to certified applicators only, but, DPR contends, it is most likely still too early to determine if the regulations are having an effect on non-target wildlife exposure. Secondary exposure is more difficult to control, because a mouse or a rat that has a SGARs in its body can still move around and be consumed by animals higher up on the food chain. DPR ultimately concluded that additional data is needed to determine if there is a long-term trend in the exposure rates, and to determine if the new regulations will decrease exposure rates among tested wild animals.

State legislative action on SGARs: In 2014, the Legislature passed, and Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr signed, AB 2657 (Bloom, Chapter 475, Statutes of 2014), which prohibits the use of SGARs in wildlife habitat areas, defined as any state park, state wildlife refuge, or state conservancy. The provisions of this bill went into effect on January 1, 2015.

Next steps: While the author of AB 2422 believes that the regulations put forth by DPR and legislation on SGARs in wildlife areas are important steps toward protecting the public and wildlife from unintended exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides, he does not believe that they sufficiently protect vulnerable wildlife, pets, or children from unintentional rodenticide exposure. The goal of AB 2422 is to augment existing regulatory and legislative action by prohibiting the use of FGARs and SGARs, except in public health emergencies, for agricultural activities, or for vector control.

Alternatives to FGARs and SGARs: According to DFW and DPR, the most effective and safest ways to address rodent issues are through exclusion and sanitation—by eliminating factors that allow rodents to reproduce and thrive. DPR notes that rodenticides do not eradicate rodents and may not reduce their numbers for long. If there is an area-wide population of rodents, rodents from the edges move into the available space vacated by the poisoned rodents. Rodent numbers surge when people leave unpicked fruit on trees and pet food outside. Rodents find shelter when people ignore clutter and overgrown vines and allow access inside houses and garages.

To address these issues, DPR and DFW suggest that people who have identified a rodent population should eliminate rodent entrances to the structure (seal holes, fill cracks, and install door sweeps); remove brush piles and debris near the structure; and, remove other food sources, such as pet food, wild bird seed, and fruit from trees. In addition to exclusion and sanitation, traps and electrocution devices can also be employed to address rodent pests.

Unintended consequences? While sanitation and exclusion are the most effective methods for long-term rodent control, should the prohibition on FGARS and SGARS be enacted though this bill, acute toxicant rodenticides would still be allowed. Consumers could still purchase and use bromethalin, zinc phosphide, and strychnine. Professional applicators could additionally use cholecalciferol.

According to DPR, bromethalin, which is designed to kill in a single feeding, affects the nervous system and causes symptoms such as lack of coordination, tremors, seizures, paralysis, and often death within 2 to 4 days after ingestion. Antidotes to bromethalin do not exist. Treatment includes intravenous fluids and drugs to decrease brain swelling.

Most brands of pesticides that contain zinc phosphide are registered for consumer use for pocket gopher control only. Professional applicators can additionally use a few brands for mouse and rat control. When rodents feed on bait containing zinc phosphide, they die quickly because their stomach acid reacts with phosphide to produce toxic phosphine gas. Predators and scavengers can be poisoned if they eat enough of the gut content of animals recently killed with zinc phosphide. Zinc phosphide is toxic to birds, fish, and other wildlife.

Some strychnine-containing bait products are labeled for consumer use in California and others are restricted materials. Strychnine causes nerve cells to fire rapidly, which causes severe muscle spasms and leads to death. Several recent deaths of non-target wildlife have been caused by improper use of strychnine.

Baits containing the acute toxicant cholecalciferol (Vitamin D) can be used by professional applicators, but not consumers. High doses of cholecalciferol raise blood calcium levels and cause heart and kidney failure in rodents. Secondary poisoning cases related to cholecalciferol are less frequent than those for other rodenticides, but it is not a very effective tool for rodent control.

Should the prohibition on FGARs and SGARs in this bill be enacted, without corresponding requirements or support of an integrated pest management approach to rodent management, it is possible that the use of acute toxicants to control rodents would increase. Additionally, cholecalciferol is not very effective, raising the concern that should it be used widely, resistance could occur. Instituting stronger state support of, or requirements for, integrated pesticide management approaches to rodent control would likely reduce the use of rodenticides overall.

Should the use of FGARs and SGARs be restricted through the existing regulatory framework? In California, pesticides are generally regulated though labeling requirements and the designation of the pesticide as a restricted material. However, there are examples in statute of specific pesticide use restrictions and requirements, such as Education Code § 17610.1, which prohibits the use of specified pesticides on a school site, as defined, and FAC § 12978.7, which prohibits the use of SGARs in wildlife habitat areas. Instead of adding restrictions for the use of FGARs and SGARs through legislation, should the proposed restrictions in this bill instead be examined through the regulatory process?

Clarification needed: AB 2442 exempts "agricultural activities," as defined in statute, from the pesticide prohibition in the bill. Additionally, the bill adds the following to the definition of agricultural activities, "Factories, breweries, wineries, or any other location where rodent or pest populations need to be controlled for food safety or agricultural purposes." As it is unclear whether restaurants and other establishments that serve food would be included under the definition of "agricultural activities," as it is currently drafted, and it was not the author’s intent to exempt restaurants from the requirements of the bill, the author may wish to amend the bill to clarify his intent. Additionally, the author may wish to clarify the local entities and classifications of pesticide applicators referenced in the bill.

Arguments in support: The Center for Biological Diversity argues, "The use of rat, mouse, and rodent poisons by the general public and licensed applicators leads to the deaths of wildlife and pets and the hospitalization and illness of people, especially children. AB 2422 allows for common sense controls on these dangerous poisons in order to eliminate their use where they lead to unnecessary poisonings to non-target organisms while still allowing for their use to protect public health and California’s agricultural economy…AB 2422 is narrowly targeted to the most dangerous rodenticide uses and specifically exempts agricultural activities and uses by licensed professionals after essential steps necessary to reduce long term rodent infestations have been taken… Given the wide array of cost-effective alternatives available on the market today to address rodent infestations, there is no need for our families and the environment to continue to suffer poisonings due to rodenticides. Integrated pest management strategies prevent infestations by sealing buildings and eliminating food and water sources, and are a necessary first step. Lethal rodent control strategies that involve snap traps, electric traps, and other non-toxic methods can then be implemented to address any infestations. Several types of less toxic rodenticides are available as well. More information on effective and affordable alternatives can be found at www.SafeRodentControl.org... According to safety calculations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the estimated child exposure from taking just one 5-gram bite of rodenticide bait greatly exceeds possible safe levels. Between 1999 and 2009, the American Association of Poison Control Centers received reports of an average of 17,000 human exposures to rodenticides each year, with 85% of these exposures, (i.e., approximately 15,000 per year), occurring to children less than 6 years of age."

Arguments in opposition: According to the Pest Control Operators of California, "If all anticoagulant rodenticides are banned in California, communities from San Diego to Yreka will be overrun with unwanted rodents carrying diseases including Hantavirus, rat bite fever, trichinosis, plague, murine typhus, infectious jaundice and more… Anticoagulant rodenticides are the most effective tools available to control rodents. Recent research shows that rodents can detect mechanical traps and then teach each other of presence of these traps causing these interventions to be useless in controlling that rodent population. Restricting the use of anticoagulant baits could lead to more problems than solutions. One aspect of anticoagulants is that there is an antidote in the case of an unintended exposure while acute rodenticides do not. The availability of an antidote is one reason anticoagulants are the preferred rodenticides by all users, including structural."

The California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association (CACASA) argues, "CACASA is concerned that prohibition of anticoagulants may pose significant public health issues for those who would typically use rodenticides to assist with issues in pest control to protect the public and themselves against rodents with potentially deadly diseases, such as hantavirus and the bubonic plague. Further, the county agricultural commissioner does not currently recommend or prescribe uses of pesticides as directed by the bill. Commissioners issue use permits to certified applicators and the label dictates the appropriate use of the product."

Double referral: This bill has been double referred to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee.

Recent related legislation:

1. AB 1687 (Bloom, 2017). Would have prohibited the use of any pesticide that contains one or more of nine specified active ingredients (including all first and second generation anticoagulant rodenticides and some acute toxicants). The Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials hearing on this bill was cancelled at the request of the author and the bill subsequently died on file.
2. AB 2596 (Bloom, 2016). Would have prohibited the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides. The Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials hearing on this bill was cancelled at the request of the author and the bill subsequently died on file.
3. AB 2657 (Bloom, Chapter 475, Statutes of 2014). Prohibits the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in wildlife habitat areas, as defined.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Center for Biological Diversity

Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife

City of Malibu

City of Moorpark

Friends of Griffith Park

Humane Wildlife Control

In Defense of Animals

Laguna Greenbelt, Inc.

Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc.

Morro Coast Audubon Society

Raptors are the Solution

Rodenticide Free Project

Santa Cruz Bird Club

Santa Monica Mountains Fund

Save Open Space/Santa Monica Mountains

Sea and Sage Audubon Society

Social Compassion in Legislation

Topanga Creek Watershed Committee

The Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations, Inc.

Wildlife Care of Southern California

Wildlife Research Institute

382 Individuals

Opposition

American Chemistry Council

Animal Pest Management Services, Inc.

California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California League of Food Processors

California Manufacturing and Technology Association

California Retailers Association

Crop Life America

Household & Commercial Products Association

National Pest Management Association

Pest Control Operators of California

RISE

Syngenta

Western Plant Health Association

Analysis Prepared by: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. /