THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1788

Author: Bloom (D), et al.

Amended: 8/28/20 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/19/19

AYES: Allen, Hill, Skinner, Stern

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Dahle, Wieckowski

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 7-1, 7/9/19

AYES: Stern, Allen, Caballero, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning

NOES: Jones

NO VOTE RECORDED: Borgeas

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/20/20

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Hill, Leyva, Wieckowski

NOES: Bates, Jones

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 49-16, 5/6/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Pesticides: use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides

SOURCE: Animal Legal Defense Fund

Center for Biological Diversity

Raptor Are The Solution

DIGEST:

This bill, the California Ecosystems Protection Act of 2020, prohibits the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) statewide until the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) director certifies specified measures have been taken to evaluate, restrict, and only use SGARs when necessary. During that prohibition, provides exemptions for specified activities and locations necessary for public health and the continued production of uncontaminated food and other biological products.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/28/20 remove the definition of “significant adverse effects to nontarget wildlife” from the bill.

ANALYSIS: Existing federal law, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), tasks the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)—in conjunction with state agencies—with regulating pesticides in order to protect applicators, consumers, and the environment. (7 U.S.C. 136-136y)

Existing state 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, the use 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 products. (FAC § 564 and 54004)
   
4. 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 California Code of Regulations § 6471 (2014))

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations related to the value of Californian wildlife, and the prevalence of anticoagulant rodenticides.
   
2. Defines second generation anticoagulant rodenticide to mean a pesticide product containing any of 4 specified chemicals.
3. Prohibits, until the director of DPR makes a specified certification, the use of any second generation anticoagulant rodenticide in a wildlife habitat area, with exceptions for:
   
   1. Use by a governmental agency employee for public health activities or to protect water supply infrastructure.
   2. Use by a mosquito or vector control district to protect public health.
   3. Use to eradicate any nonnative invasive species on offshore islands.
   4. Use to control an actual or potential rodent infestation associated with a public health need, as declared by a state or local public health officer.
   5. Use for research purposes needed to reevaluate SGARs, with written authorization.
   6. Any facility generating medical waste, as defined.
   7. Agricultural activities, as defined, and including a warehouse storing foods, an agricultural food production site, or a factory, brewery, or winery.
   8. A registered facility subject to inspection under Section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (producers of drugs or devices).
      
4. Requires that the certification above by the director of DPR include:
   
   1. The completed reevaluation of SGARs by DPR.
   2. The adoption of any additional restrictions, as developed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), as necessary to ensure that continued SGAR use is not reasonably expected to result in significant adverse effects to nontarget wildlife.
   3. The determination by CDFW whether SGARs are necessary to control or eradicate invasive rodent populations to protect threatened or endangered species.

Background

1. Anticoagulant rodenticides. Anticoagulants are compounds that prevent the clotting of blood through one of several mechanisms. Warfarin, a common blood thinner used clinically, was first discovered and used for its rodenticide properties. At the doses used in rodenticide applications, anticoagulants cause uncontrolled internal bleeding.
   
   Although anticoagulant rodenticides are poisonous to pets or humans that consume them accidentally, they have the benefit of existing antidotes. Depending on the dose, time since ingestion, and mechanism of the coagulant, a doctor or veterinarian may be able to administer the appropriate antidote before the effects are lethal. Advocates for anticoagulant rodenticides emphasize that this is an important advantage over other rodenticides.
   
   All anticoagulants have a delay between consumption of a lethal dose and death of the exposed organism. As a result, the target organism may continue to consume the bait. In some cases, this allows for super-lethal concentrations of the rodenticide to accumulate in its body. Secondary non-target wildlife exposure may occur, when non-target wildlife feed on the exposed target pest, which still contains the poison.
   
2. Brief history of DPR evaluations. In 1999, DPR placed pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredient brodifacoum into reevaluation based on exposure and adverse impacts to non-target wildlife caused by persistent residue in target pests. In 2014, DPR closed the reevaluation after adopting regulations to designate the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone as California restricted materials and to add use restrictions, in an attempt to change the use patterns of these pesticides.
   
   After implementing these regulatory actions, DPR continued to receive reports claiming that SGARs may have caused or are likely to cause significant adverse impacts to non-target wildlife. Under existing regulations, the Director is required to investigate such reports. The Director then has authority to begin a reevaluation if the investigation finds that the pesticide caused or is likely to cause significant adverse impacts.
   
   On November 16, 2018, DPR issued a notice of its proposed decision to begin the reevaluation of pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone.
   
3. Considerations vary with geography. Given California’s immense geographic and environmental diversity, it makes sense that rodenticides should not be applied identically statewide. Rodenticide registrants must consider the applicable factors for their individual use case. Several such use cases requiring different considerations include:
   
   1. Wildlife in mainland forests. Due to their close proximity to human development, there are a number of predator species that have been found to have varying concentrations of anticoagulant rodenticides in their bodies. In order to reduce indiscriminate wildlife poisoning, rodenticides must (with some specified exceptions) be applied within 50 feet of a building. Given the close proximity of buildings to woodlands, and frequent encroachment of wild animals on cities, many of these predators or their prey are still encountering these rodenticides.
      
   2. Typhus in cities. Typhus is a disease caused by bacteria (Ricksettia spp.) which causes fever, body aches, stomach pain, and a rash. Most people recover on their own, but more severe cases can lead to damage to the heart, brain, and lungs without treatment. The pathogen is carried in fleas, which are frequently carried on rats and other rodents.
      
      According to the LA Times, officials said nine cases were reported in the county from July to September 2018. LA County health officer Dr. Muntu Davis “encourage[d] all cities in the county to ensure maintenance of their trash cleanup and rodent control activities.” More recently, an employee at a downtown LA police station contracted typhus in the station itself. While non-rodenticide control measures are important, they may not be sufficient to control disease outbreaks on their own.
      
   3. Invasive species on fragile islands. California encompasses many unique ecosystems, and some come with unique challenges for wildlife and pest management. The Channel Islands, in particular, house dozens of endangered or threatened species that rely on carefully preserved ecosystems to support them. Some of these species are found exclusively on the Channel Islands. Based on models informed by past experiences, the custodians of these islands may have as little as 72 hours after an invasive rodent is introduced (be it through accidental stowaways or wrecked vessels) to take action while it can still be contained.
      
4. Public health pesticides. FIFRA defines public health pesticides as “any minor use pesticide product registered for use and used predominantly in public health programs for vector control or for other recognized health protection uses…” Rats and other rodents frequently carry fleas, which themselves may carry pathogenic microorganisms, and are an important vector to control from a public health perspective. According to a 2010 study in the Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, an average of 1.75 million pounds of public health pesticides were used annually in California, accounting for less than 1% of total state pesticide use. Of these, the vast majority were used to control mosquitoes. The US EPA formally recognizes rats as a “pest of significant public health importance”. While rodenticides are proportionally a small amount of applied public health pesticides, they are still an important tool in that arsenal.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “Since the 1980’s, and even as most recently as this week the Department of Fish and Wildlife have been warning about the impacts rodenticides are having on all wildlife in the state. As a result of these warnings, in 2014 the California Department of Pesticide Regulation enacted regulations to restrict the use of Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides in hopes of decreasing the non-targeted deaths. But, these regulations have not resulted in a decrease in secondary wildlife poisonings; instead they have stayed constant or increased in some instances.
   
   “In order to protect wildlife AB 1788 will prohibit the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) throughout the state and also prohibits the use of first generation anticoagulant (FGARs) rodenticides on state-owned property, with exemptions for agricultural and food processing uses.”
   
2. Balancing public and wildlife safety. AB 1788 takes an important step to protect California’s fragile and unique wildlife. Although illegal, unregistered applications may still introduce rodenticides to some ecosystems, a statewide prohibition of SGARs would be expected to reduce exposures. However, the importance of appropriate tools for vector control (including rodents) should not be dismissed, especially in urban settings where conditions may support rodent proliferation and associated disease outbreaks.
   
3. Senate floor amendments of 8/27/20. A recent letter from a coalition of agricultural groups opposed to AB 1788 stated that the included definition of “significant adverse effects to nontarget wildlife” as the “loss of any individual bird or mammal bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian, or fish not designated as a target pest on the pesticide product label,” would create an impossible standard to achieve. The author amended the bill to remove this definition.
   
   Ultimately, when the director of DPR produces their certification pursuant to FAC §12978.7 (g), it will still need to include a determination that “the department has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure that continued use of SGARs is not reasonably expected to result in significant adverse effects to nontarget wildlife and those restrictions are operative.” Given the latest amendments, the director of DPR will need to define “significant adverse effects to nontarget wildlife” for that determination, instead of using a definition provided in statute.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Unknown, potentially significant costs (special fund) for CDPR to make a scientific determination.
• Unknown costs (special fund) associated with potential appeals of the CDPR director’s decision to approve or deny an emergency application request.
• Unknown, potentially significant costs (General Fund or special fund) to the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that costs to county agricultural commissioners, who will have to conduct more inspections into rodent investigations and enforcement-related activities, are reimbursable state mandates.
• Unknown revenue losses (special fund), likely around $100,000 to $200,000 annually, due to a reduction in registration and renewal fees related to rodenticides as well as CDPR no longer collecting a mill assessment on SGARs.
• Minor and absorbable costs for the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to review CDPR’s assessment.
• Minor savings (special fund) to DFW for a reduction in the need for testing wildlife for anticoagulant rodenticides exposure.
  

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/27/20)

Animal Legal Defense Fund (co-source)

Center for Biological Diversity (co-source)

Raptors Are The Solution (co-source)

California Association of Professional Scientists

California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators

California Environmental Health Initiative

California League of Conservation Voters

California Wilderness Coalition

California Wildlife Center

Californians for Pesticide Reform

CalPIRG

Center for Food Safety

Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife

City of Agoura Hills

City of Los Angeles

City of Malibu

City of Moorpark

City of Thousand Oaks

Clean Water Action

Conejo Valley Audubon Society

Council District 5, City Of Los Angeles

Defenders of Wildlife

Environment California

Environmental Protection Information Center

Environmental Working Group

Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Friends of Griffith Park

Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks

Friends of the Inyo

Friends of the LA River

Friends of the Santa Clara River

Golden West Humanitarian Foundation

Griffith Park Advisory Board

Hills for Everyone

Humane Society of the United States

In Defense of Animals

Indivisible Ventura

Injured & Orphaned Wildlife

Los Angeles City Council Member David Ryu, 4^th District

Los Angeles City Council Member Paul Koretz, 5^th District

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

Los Padres Forestwatch

Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth

Malibu Monarch Project

Mayor of Richmond, Tom Butt

Mendocino Coast Audubon Society

Mendocino Wildlife Association

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

Mountain Lion Foundation

Mt. Diablo Audubon Society

National Association for Wildlife Emergency Services

National Parks Conservation Association

Native Animal Rescue

Pacific Forest Trust

Paw Project

Poison Free Agoura

Poison Free Malibu

Project Coyote

Public Land Alliance Network Plan

Sacramento Heron and Egret Rescue

San Diego Audubon Society

San Diego Humane Society and SPCA

San Fernando Valley Audubon Society

San Francisco SPCA

Santa Cruz Bird Club

Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy

Santa Monica Mountains Fund

Santa Susana Mountain Park Association

Save Chatsworth, Inc.

Sierra Club of California

Social Compassion in Legislation

Sonoma County Wildlife Rescue

Sustainable North Bay

The Nature Conservancy

The River Otter Ecology Project

Topanga Creek Watershed Society

UNITE HERE! Local 11

Ventura Audubon Society

Wholly H2O

Wildearth Guardians

Wildlife Research Institute

16 Members of the City of Los Angeles Biodiversity Expert Council

Approximately 800 individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/27/20)

American Chemistry Council

Animal Pest Management Services, Inc.

California Apartment Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Food Producers

California Landscape Contractors Association

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

California Retailers Association

California Waterfowl

Household and Commercial Products Association

National Federation of Independent Business

National Pest Management Association

Pest Control Operators of California

Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment

San Andreas Land Conservancy

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

Southwest California Legislative Council

Syngenta

Western Plant Health Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to one of the sponsors, Raptors Are The Solution, “AB 1788 allows for common sense controls on anticoagulant rodenticides by narrowly targeting the most toxic rodenticides throughout the state, while providing exemptions for agricultural activities and true public health emergencies. The scientific evidence is clear that anticoagulant rodenticides have a massive impact on California’s ecosystems and the state must act now to prevent the continued degradation of our wildlife and environment.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Pest Control Operators of California, “Anti-coagulant rodenticides are used by the professional pest management industry, to control rodents that infest and damage our buildings, eat and contaminate our food, and spread diseases. These same tools are used to control burrowing rodents (i.e. gophers) that damage our playing fields resulting in costly repairs to the property and injuries to our children playing on those fields. Recently, in Los Angeles, there has been a noted outbreak of flea-borne typhus that has been attributed to a large rodent population. This is a prime example that we, as citizens of this state, need every tool available to use to keep our citizens and property free of preventable damage and disease. Rodent baits are one of those key tools.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 49-16, 5/6/19

AYES: Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Daly, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gloria, Gonzalez, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Mayes, McCarty, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Bigelow, Brough, Cooley, Cunningham, Dahle, Diep, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Gray, Kiley, Mathis, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Cervantes, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Eggman, Frazier, Gipson, Maienschein, Medina, Ramos, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas

Prepared by: Eric Walters / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108

8/31/20 11:44:47

**** END ****

(Without Reference to File)

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1788

Author:(Bloom)

As Amended Ver:August 28, 2020

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Prohibits the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) until the director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) certifies, as described, a completed reevaluation of SGARs.

The Senate Amendments:

1. Add to and update the legislative findings.
2. Clarify that the use of any SGAR is prohibited in a wildlife habitat area, per current law.
3. Delete provisions that prohibit the use of SGARs in the state and that prohibit the use of first generation anticoagulant rodenticides on state-owned property and instead prohibit the use of any SGAR in the state until DPR makes the certification, as described, of a completed reevaluation of SGARs and DPR adopts any additional restrictions necessary to limit significant adverse effects of SGARs to nontarget wildlife.
4. Exempt the following activities from the prohibition on the use of SGARs:
   1. The use of SGARs when used by any governmental agency employee for the purposes of protecting water supply infrastructure and facilities in a manner that is consistent with all otherwise applicable federal and state laws and regulations;
   2. The use of any SGARs for the eradication of nonnative invasive species inhabiting or found to be present on offshore islands in a manner that is consistent with all otherwise applicable federal and state laws and regulations;
   3. The use of any DPR-registered SGAR to control an actual or potential rodent infestation associated with a public health need, as defined, as determined by a supporting declaration from the State Public Health Officer or a local public health officer; and,
   4. The use, following a specified authorization process, of any DPR-registered SGAR for research purposes related to the reevaluation of SGARs.
5. Exempt the following locations from the prohibition on the use of SGARs:
   1. A medical waste generator, as defined;
   2. A facility for producing drugs or medical devices, as defined;
   3. An agricultural production site housing water storage and conveyance facilities; and,
   4. An agricultural production site housing rights-of-way and other transportation infrastructure.
6. Require the director of DPR, after determining that all of the following conditions have occurred, to certify to the Secretary of State of that determination that:
   1. DPR has completed the reevaluation of SGARs, as commenced by DPR on March 12, 2019;
   2. DPR has adopted any additional restrictions, developed in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), necessary to ensure that continued use of SGARs is not reasonably expected to result in significant adverse effects to nontarget wildlife and those restrictions are operative; and,
   3. DFW has determined that control or eradication of invasive rodent populations is necessary for the protection of threatened or endangered species or their habitats and requires the use of a SGAR.

COMMENTS:

Rodent control: Rodents native to California play an important ecological role, and are a major food source for predators and scavengers; however, rodents are pests when they infest houses, threaten public health, and destroy property. Rodent infestations can also damage or destroy critical habitats, native plants and animals, crops, and food supplies.

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 controls (rodenticides).

Rodenticides: While rodenticides are pesticides designed to kill rodents, the ingestion of, or sometimes contact with, rodenticides can have the same type of effect on other animals. Predatory and scavenging birds and mammals that eat dead or dying rodents that have consumed these baits will also be poisoned. DFW contends that the use of poison baits to control rodents has injured and killed hundreds or thousands of pets and wild animals throughout California, including the golden eagle, great-horned owl, black bear, fisher, San Joaquin kit fox (federally endangered), coyote, mountain lion, bobcat, and badger.

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. While both compounds can impact nontarget species, SGARs are more likely than first generation anticoagulants 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.

State regulatory action on SGARs: While certain mitigation efforts had previously been in effect for some SGARS, due to the impacts of SGARs on wildlife throughout the state, on March 18, 2014, DPR designated all SGAR products as restricted materials, thus restricting their purchase and use by, or under the supervision of, a certified commercial or private applicator under a permit issued by the County Agricultural Commissioner.

Reevaluation of SGARs: In November 2018, DPR released an investigation that found that while the 2014 regulations changed SGAR use patterns by restricting their purchase, sale, and use, reported rates of non-target wildlife exposure to SGARs have not decreased. Additionally, the investigation found evidence of possible population-level impacts among non-target wildlife in California due to statistically significant associations with SGAR exposure and sublethal impacts. In response to these findings and public comment, on March 12, 2019, the director of DPR noticed the final decision to begin the reevaluation of SGARs.

According to DPR, reevaluations end in several ways. If the data show that use of the pesticide presents no significant adverse effects, DPR closes the reevaluation without added mitigation measures. If new restrictions are necessary, DPR places controls on the use of the pesticide to mitigate the potential adverse effect. DPR may also revise labels to mitigate hazards. If the adverse effect cannot be mitigated, DPR suspends or cancels the product registration.

For the SGAR reevaluation, DPR required registrants to submit existing data related to nontarget wildlife exposure. The information received is currently under review, and DPR will use the information to develop additional data requirements for SGAR products subject to reevaluation. There is no set time frame for completion of the reevaluation. Of note, however, is that, in response to the reevaluation, registrants submitted voluntary cancellations for all three previously registered difenacoum products. As of May 2019, DPR no longer has any difenacoum products, which are a SGAR, registered for use in California.

This bill: Prohibits the use of SGARs until the director of DPR certifies a completed reevaluation of SGARs; DPR adopts any additional restrictions necessary to limit significant adverse effects of SGARs to nontarget wildlife; and, DFW has determined that control or eradication of invasive rodent populations is necessary for the protection of threatened or endangered species or their habitats and requires the use of a SGAR. Given the current structure of the bill, it is unclear how the DFW determination will, and should, inform DPR's certification process.

According to the Author:

"Regulations enacted in 2014 by DPR to minimize harm from one subset of rodenticides—SGARs—by prohibiting their use by consumers, have proven ineffective. Necropsy data performed by DFW and other scientists have demonstrated that these toxins have been poisoning California ecosystems, and continue to pose a rampant threat to children, pets, and wildlife."

Arguments in Support:

A coalition of supporters state, "Too many of California's wild animals are experiencing avoidable deaths due to rodenticide poisoning. Despite being prohibited for consumer use since 2014, SGARs continue to poison large numbers of non-targeted animals, according to DPR's analysis of eleven different wildlife studies…There are good alternatives to these poisons, and no good excuse for continuing their use when rodenticides kill animals like mountain lions, owls, hawks, eagles, bobcats, and coyotes that are nature's natural rodent controls… Assembly Bill 1788 takes important steps to dramatically reduce rodenticide use pending DPR's re-evaluation and that such precautionary measures are needed to protect imperiled native wildlife."

Arguments in Opposition:

A coalition of opponents state, "This legislation would circumvent the scientific and research-based reevaluation process by declaring the loss of a single non-target bird or mammal exposed to SGARs as the determining factor whether SGARs can continue to be used in the state- an impossible standard to meet. This bill ignores potential risks to human health or the environment from alternative pest control methods. The AB 1788 amendments amount to significant policy changes which warrant a policy committee hearing. Further, we fail to see the urgent need to pass this bill in 2020, as our state faces an unprecedented pandemic, and request this issue be tabled until next year."

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, enactment of this bill could result in:

1. Unknown, potentially significant costs (special fund) for DPR to make a scientific determination;
2. Unknown costs (special fund) associated with potential appeals of the DPR director's decision to approve or deny an emergency application request;
3. Unknown, potentially significant costs (General Fund or special fund) to the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that costs to county agricultural commissioners, who will have to conduct more inspections into rodent investigations and enforcement-related activities, are reimbursable state mandates; and,
4. Unknown revenue losses (special fund), likely around $100,000 to $200,000 annually, due to a reduction in registration and renewal feeds related to rodenticides as well as DPR no longer collecting a mill assessment on SGARs;
5. Minor and absorbable costs for DFW to review DPR's assessment; and,
6. Minor savings (special fund) to DFW for a reduction in the need for testing wildlife for anticoagulant rodenticide exposure.

VOTES:

ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 6-2-1

YES: Quirk, Bloom, Bauer-Kahan, Cristina Garcia, Holden, Muratsuchi

NO: Melendez, Mathis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Dahle

ASM WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE: 8-5-1

YES: Chu, Friedman, Cristina Garcia, Robert Rivas, Gloria, Kalra, Luz Rivas, Wood

NO: Gallagher, Bigelow, Choi, Dahle, Salas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Blanca Rubio

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-5-1

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Gabriel, Jones-Sawyer, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow, Brough, Diep, Fong, Obernolte

ABS, ABST OR NV: Eggman

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 49-16-15

YES: Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Daly, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gloria, Gonzalez, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Mayes, McCarty, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO: Bigelow, Brough, Cooley, Cunningham, Dahle, Diep, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Gray, Kiley, Mathis, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Waldron

ABS, ABST OR NV: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Cervantes, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Eggman, Frazier, Gipson, Maienschein, Medina, Ramos, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas

UPDATED:

VERSION: August 28, 2020

CONSULTANT: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0003624

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1788

Author: Bloom (D), et al.

Amended: 8/20/20 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/19/19

AYES: Allen, Hill, Skinner, Stern

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Dahle, Wieckowski

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 7-1, 7/9/19

AYES: Stern, Allen, Caballero, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning

NOES: Jones

NO VOTE RECORDED: Borgeas

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/20/20

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Hill, Leyva, Wieckowski

NOES: Bates, Jones

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 49-16, 5/6/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Pesticides: use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides

SOURCE: Animal Legal Defense Fund

Center for Biological Diversity

Raptor Are The Solution

DIGEST:

This bill, the California Ecosystems Protection Act of 2020, prohibits the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) statewide until the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) director certifies specified measures have been taken to evaluate, restrict, and only use SGARs when necessary. During that prohibition, provides exemptions for specified activities and locations necessary for public health and the continued production of uncontaminated food and other biological products.

ANALYSIS: Existing federal law, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), tasks the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)—in conjunction with state agencies—with regulating pesticides in order to protect applicators, consumers, and the environment. (7 U.S.C. 136-136y)

Existing state 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 products. (FAC § 564 and 54004)
   
4. 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 California Code of Regulations § 6471 (2014))

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations related to the value of Californian wildlife, and the prevalence of anticoagulant rodenticides.
   
2. Defines second generation anticoagulant rodenticide to mean a pesticide product containing any of 4 specified chemicals, and defines “significant adverse effects to nontarget wildlife” to include birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, or fish affected but not targeted by a pesticide.
3. Prohibits, until the director of DPR makes a specified certification, the use of any second generation anticoagulant rodenticide in a wildlife habitat area, with exceptions for:
   
   1. Use by a governmental agency employee for public health activities or to protect water supply infrastructure.
   2. Use by a mosquito or vector control district to protect public health.
   3. Use to eradicate any nonnative invasive species on offshore islands.
   4. Use to control an actual or potential rodent infestation associated with a public health need, as declared by a state or local public health officer.
   5. Use for research purposes needed to reevaluate SGARs, with written authorization.
   6. Any facility generating medical waste, as defined.
   7. Agricultural activities, as defined, and including a warehouse storing foods, an agricultural food production site, or a factory, brewery, or winery.
   8. A registered facility subject to inspection under Section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (producers of drugs or devices).
      
4. Requires that the certification above by the director of DPR include:
   
   1. The completed reevaluation of SGARs by DPR.
   2. The adoption of any additional restrictions, as developed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), as necessary to ensure that continued SGAR use is not reasonably expected to result in significant adverse effects to nontarget wildlife.
   3. The determination by CDFW whether SGARs are necessary to control or eradicate invasive rodent populations to protect threatened or endangered species.

Background

1. Anticoagulant rodenticides. Anticoagulants are compounds that prevent the clotting of blood through one of several mechanisms. Warfarin, a common blood thinner used clinically, was first discovered and used for its rodenticide properties. At the doses used in rodenticide applications, anticoagulants cause uncontrolled internal bleeding.
   
   Although anticoagulant rodenticides are poisonous to pets or humans that consume them accidentally, they have the benefit of existing antidotes. Depending on the dose, time since ingestion, and mechanism of the coagulant, a doctor or veterinarian may be able to administer the appropriate antidote before the effects are lethal. Advocates for anticoagulant rodenticides emphasize that this is an important advantage over other rodenticides.
   
   All anticoagulants have a delay between consumption of a lethal dose and death of the exposed organism. As a result, the target organism may continue to consume the bait. In some cases, this allows for super-lethal concentrations of the rodenticide to accumulate in its body. Secondary non-target wildlife exposure may occur, when non-target wildlife feed on the exposed target pest, which still contains the poison.
   
2. Brief history of DPR evaluations. In 1999, DPR placed pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredient brodifacoum into reevaluation based on exposure and adverse impacts to non-target wildlife caused by persistent residue in target pests. In 2014, DPR closed the reevaluation after adopting regulations to designate the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone as California restricted materials and to add use restrictions, in an attempt to change the use patterns of these pesticides.
   
   After implementing these regulatory actions, DPR continued to receive reports claiming that SGARs may have caused or are likely to cause significant adverse impacts to non-target wildlife. Under existing regulations, the Director is required to investigate such reports. The Director then has authority to begin a reevaluation if the investigation finds that the pesticide caused or is likely to cause significant adverse impacts.
   
   On November 16, 2018, DPR issued a notice of its proposed decision to begin the reevaluation of pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone.
   
3. Considerations vary with geography. Given California’s immense geographic and environmental diversity, it makes sense that rodenticides should not be applied identically statewide. Rodenticide registrants must consider the applicable factors for their individual use case. Several such use cases requiring different considerations include:
   
   1. Wildlife in mainland forests. Due to their close proximity to human development, there are a number of predator species that have been found to have varying concentrations of anticoagulant rodenticides in their bodies. In order to reduce indiscriminate wildlife poisoning, rodenticides must (with some specified exceptions) be applied within 50 feet of a building. Given the close proximity of buildings to woodlands, and frequent encroachment of wild animals on cities, many of these predators or their prey are still encountering these rodenticides.
      
   2. Typhus in cities. Typhus is a disease caused by bacteria (Ricksettia spp.) which causes fever, body aches, stomach pain, and a rash. Most people recover on their own, but more severe cases can lead to damage to the heart, brain, and lungs without treatment. The pathogen is carried in fleas, which are frequently carried on rats and other rodents.
      
      According to the LA Times, officials said nine cases were reported in the county from July to September 2018. LA County health officer Dr. Muntu Davis “encourage[d] all cities in the county to ensure maintenance of their trash cleanup and rodent control activities.” More recently, an employee at a downtown LA police station contracted typhus in the station itself. While non-rodenticide control measures are important, they may not be sufficient to control disease outbreaks on their own.
      
   3. Invasive species on fragile islands. California encompasses many unique ecosystems, and some come with unique challenges for wildlife and pest management. The Channel Islands, in particular, house dozens of endangered or threatened species that rely on carefully preserved ecosystems to support them. Some of these species are found exclusively on the Channel Islands. Based on models informed by past experiences, the custodians of these islands may have as little as 72 hours after an invasive rodent is introduced (be it through accidental stowaways or wrecked vessels) to take action while it can still be contained.
      
4. Public health pesticides. FIFRA defines public health pesticides as “any minor use pesticide product registered for use and used predominantly in public health programs for vector control or for other recognized health protection uses…” Rats and other rodents frequently carry fleas, which themselves may carry pathogenic microorganisms, and are an important vector to control from a public health perspective. According to a 2010 study in the Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, an average of 1.75 million pounds of public health pesticides were used annually in California, accounting for less than 1% of total state pesticide use. Of these, the vast majority were used to control mosquitoes. The US EPA formally recognizes rats as a “pest of significant public health importance”. While rodenticides are proportionally a small amount of applied public health pesticides, they are still an important tool in that arsenal.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “Since the 1980’s, and even as most recently as this week the Department of Fish and Wildlife have been warning about the impacts rodenticides are having on all wildlife in the state. As a result of these warnings, in 2014 the California Department of Pesticide Regulation enacted regulations to restrict the use of Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides in hopes of decreasing the non-targeted deaths. But, these regulations have not resulted in a decrease in secondary wildlife poisonings; instead they have stayed constant or increased in some instances.
   
   “In order to protect wildlife AB 1788 will prohibit the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) throughout the state and also prohibits the use of first generation anticoagulant (FGARs) rodenticides on state-owned property, with exemptions for agricultural and food processing uses.”
   
2. Balancing public and wildlife safety. AB 1788 takes an important step to protect California’s fragile and unique wildlife. Although illegal, unregistered applications may still introduce rodenticides to some ecosystems, a statewide prohibition of SGARs would be expected to reduce exposures. However, the importance of appropriate tools for vector control (including rodents) should not be dismissed, especially in urban settings where conditions may support rodent proliferation and associated disease outbreaks.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Unknown, potentially significant costs (special fund) for CDPR to make a scientific determination.
• Unknown costs (special fund) associated with potential appeals of the CDPR director’s decision to approve or deny an emergency application request.
• Unknown, potentially significant costs (General Fund or special fund) to the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that costs to county agricultural commissioners, who will have to conduct more inspections into rodent investigations and enforcement-related activities, are reimbursable state mandates.
• Unknown revenue losses (special fund), likely around $100,000 to $200,000 annually, due to a reduction in registration and renewal feeds related to rodenticides as well as CDPR no longer collecting a mill assessment on SGARs.
• Minor and absorbable costs for the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to review CDPR’s assessment.
• Minor savings (special fund) to DFW for a reduction in the need for testing wildlife for anticoagulant rodenticides exposure.
  

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/21/20)

Animal Legal Defense Fund (co-source)

Center for Biological Diversity (co-source)

Raptors are the Solution (co-source)

California Association of Professional Scientists

California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators

California Environmental Health Initiative

California League of Conservation Voters

California Wilderness Coalition

California Wildlife Center

Californians for Pesticide Reform

CalPIRG

Center for Food Safety

Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife

City of Agoura Hills

City of Los Angeles

City of Malibu

City of Moorpark

City of Thousand Oaks

Clean Water Action

Conejo Valley Audubon Society

Council District 5, City Of Los Angeles

Defenders of Wildlife

Environment California

Environmental Protection Information Center

Environmental Working Group

Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Friends of Griffith Park

Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks

Friends of the Inyo

Friends of the La River

Friends of the Santa Clara River

Golden West Humanitarian Foundation

Griffith Park Advisory Board

Hills for Everyone

Humane Society of the United States

In Defense of Animals

Indivisible Ventura

Injured & Orphaned Wildlife

Los Angeles City Council Member David Ryu, 4^th District

Los Angeles City Council Member Paul Koretz, 5^th District

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

Los Padres Forestwatch

Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth

Malibu Monarch Project

Mayor of Richmond, Tom Butt

Mendocino Coast Audubon Society

Mendocino Wildlife Association

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

Mountain Lion Foundation

Mt. Diablo Audubon Society

National Association for Wildlife Emergency Services

National Parks Conservation Association

Native Animal Rescue

Pacific Forest Trust

Paw Project

Poison Free Agoura

Poison Free Malibu

Project Coyote

Public Land Alliance Network Plan

Sacramento Heron and Egret Rescue

San Diego Audubon Society

San Diego Humane Society and SPCA

San Fernando Valley Audubon Society

San Francisco SPCA

Santa Cruz Bird Club

Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy

Santa Monica Mountains Fund

Santa Susana Mountain Park Association

Save Chatsworth, Inc.

Sierra Club of California

Social Compassion in Legislation

Sonoma County Wildlife Rescue

Sustainable North Bay

The Nature Conservancy

The River Otter Ecology Project

Topanga Creek Watershed Society

Ventura Audubon Society

Wholly H2O

Wildearth Guardians

Wildlife Research Institute

16 Members of the City of Los Angeles Biodiversity Expert Council

Approximately 800 individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/26/20)

American Chemistry Council

Animal Pest Management Services, Inc.

California Apartment Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Food Producers

California Landscape Contractors Association

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

California Retailers Association

California Waterfowl

Household and Commercial Products Association

National Federation of Independent Business

National Pest Management Association

Pest Control Operators of California

Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment

San Andreas Land Conservancy

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

Southwest California Legislative Council

Syngenta

Western Plant Health Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to one of the sponsors, Raptors Are The Solution, “AB 1788 allows for common sense controls on anticoagulant rodenticides by narrowly targeting the most toxic rodenticides throughout the state, while providing exemptions for agricultural activities and true public health emergencies. The scientific evidence is clear that anticoagulant rodenticides have a massive impact on California’s ecosystems and the state must act now to prevent the continued degradation of our wildlife and environment.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Pest Control Operators of California, “Anti-coagulant rodenticides are used by the professional pest management industry, to control rodents that infest and damage our buildings, eat and contaminate our food, and spread diseases. These same tools are used to control burrowing rodents (i.e. gophers) that damage our playing fields resulting in costly repairs to the property and injuries to our children playing on those fields. Recently, in Los Angeles, there has been a noted outbreak of flea-borne typhus that has been attributed to a large rodent population. This is a prime example that we, as citizens of this state, need every tool available to use to keep our citizens and property free of preventable damage and disease. Rodent baits are one of those key tools.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 49-16, 5/6/19

AYES: Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Daly, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gloria, Gonzalez, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Mayes, McCarty, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Bigelow, Brough, Cooley, Cunningham, Dahle, Diep, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Gray, Kiley, Mathis, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Cervantes, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Eggman, Frazier, Gipson, Maienschein, Medina, Ramos, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas

Prepared by: Eric Walters / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108

8/27/20 9:36:55

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 1788 (Bloom) - Pesticides: use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides

Bill Summary:

This bill would prohibit the use of any second generation anticoagulant rodenticide (SGAR) in California until the director of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) certifies to the Secretary of State that CDPR has completed a reevaluation of SGARs.

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

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 20, 2020

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown, potentially significant costs (special fund) for CDPR to make a scientific determination.
• Unknown costs (special fund) associated with potential appeals of the CDPR director’s decision to approve or deny an emergency application request.
• Unknown, potentially significant costs (General Fund or special fund) to the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that costs to county agricultural commissioners, who will have to conduct more inspections into rodent investigations and enforcement-related activities, are reimbursable state mandates.
• Unknown revenue losses (special fund), likely around $100,000 to $200,000 annually, due to a reduction in registration and renewal feeds related to rodenticides as well as CDPR no longer collecting a mill assessment on SGARs.
• Minor and absorbable costs for the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to review CDPR’s assessment.
• Minor savings (special fund) to DFW for a reduction in the need for testing wildlife for anticoagulant rodenticides exposure.

Author Amendments:

Author’s amendments would specify that CDPR shall develop any restrictions in consultation with CDFW, allow data related to the reevaluation to be generated under California conditions, and provide public health officers with broader discretion to allow use to address a public health need associated with an actual or potential rodent infestation.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 1788 (Bloom) - Pesticides: use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides

Bill Summary:

This bill would prohibit the use of any second generation anticoagulant rodenticide (SGAR) in California until the director of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) certifies to the Secretary of State that CDPR has completed a reevaluation of SGARs.

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown, potentially significant costs (special fund) for CDPR to make a scientific determination.
• Unknown costs (special fund) associated with potential appeals of the CDPR director’s decision to approve or deny an emergency application request.
• Unknown, potentially significant costs (General Fund or special fund) to the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that costs to county agricultural commissioners, who will have to conduct more inspections into rodent investigations and enforcement-related activities, are reimbursable state mandates.
• Unknown revenue losses (special fund), likely around $100,000 to $200,000 annually, due to a reduction in registration and renewal feeds related to rodenticides as well as CDPR no longer collecting a mill assessment on SGARs.
• Minor and absorbable costs for the Department of Fish and Wildlife to review CDPR’s assessment.
• Minor savings (special fund) to DFW for a reduction in the need for testing wildlife for anticoagulant rodenticides exposure.

Background:

SGARs were developed beginning in the 1970s to control FGAR-resistant rodents, and include brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, and difenacoum. Both FGARs and SGARs share a similar mechanism of action, but SGARs are more likely than FGARs to kill after a single night's feeding, and tend to remain in animal tissues much 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. Pets, humans, or wildlife that accidentally ingest ARs may have access to antidotes. Depending on the dose, time elapsed since ingestion, and mechanism of the coagulant, a doctor or veterinarian may be able to administer an appropriate antidote before effects are lethal.

Acute toxicants are a third category of rodenticides. These rodenticides, which include compounds such as bromethalin and strychnine, cause immediate physiological disruption or organ failure, and lead to rapid death. In contrast to ARs, acute toxicants are relatively rapidly metabolized and eliminated so there is little hazard to non-target species that consume poisoned rodents. However, acute toxicants are highly toxic to people, pets, and wildlife, and antidotes do not generally exist. Advocates for ARs emphasize that this is an important advantage over acute toxicants.

Wildlife exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides. According to the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), many species of wildlife in California – including golden eagles, great horned owls, black bears, red foxes, and more – are at risk for accidental AR poisoning. This can happen when a non-target species consumes a bait (primary poisoning) or when the non-target species consumes a dead or dying rodent who has consumed a bait (secondary poisoning). Primary poisoning generally occurs when baits are placed in open, easily accessible areas where non-target species consume them.

Secondary poisoning is more complex. Predatory species, such as raptors, bobcats, and foxes, regularly consume rodents as part of their diet. Poisoned rodents also become more lethargic and exhibit abnormal behavior, such as sitting out in the open, that makes them more vulnerable to predators. Wild animals are also at risk from chronic intoxication, which causes gradually increasing levels of toxicity as low quantities of ARs are ingested over time. There is abundant scientific evidence showing that non-target species face AR exposure. These data are less conclusive in pointing to ARs as the specific cause of death in necropsied animals. However, ARs serve as contributing factors even when they are not the immediate cause of death.

Proposed Law:

This bill would prohibit the use of any SGAR in California until the director of the CDPR certifies to the Secretary of State that CDPR has completed a reevaluation of SGARs. Specifically, this bill would:

1. Prohibit the use of any SGAR, as defined, in this state until the CDPR director certifies to the Secretary of State that, among other things, CDPR has completed a reevaluation of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides and DFW has determined that CDPR has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure that continued use of SGAR will not result in significant adverse effects to nontarget wildlife, as provided. 
2. Expand the exemption for agricultural activities to include activities conducted in certain locations and would also exempt from its provisions the use of SGARs under specified conditions, including use by any governmental agency employee for public health activities, use by a mosquito or vector control district to protect the public health, and use for the eradication of nonnative invasive species inhabiting or found to be present on offshore islands in a manner that is consistent with all otherwise applicable federal and state laws and regulations.
3. 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.

Related Legislation:

AB 2422 (Bloom, 2018) would have prohibited the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains an anticoagulant. The Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee hearing on this bill was canceled at the request of the author and the bill subsequently died on file.

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.

Staff Comments:

CDPR currently registers 69 rodenticide products containing one of the active ingredients this bill would prohibit. With the prohibition of these rodenticides, a reduction in registration and renewal fees is expected. Additionally, this bill would result in a reduction in mill assessment collected. In 2019, mill assessment on sales of SGARs into or within California was $128,000.

The bill would allow the use of SGARs pursuant to an emergency as designated by the director of CDPR, which would require the department to make a scientific determination. Unknown costs are associated with potential appeals of the director’s decision to approve or deny an emergency application request.

The bill would also have a fiscal impact on county agricultural commissioners, who would have to conduct more inspections into rodent investigations and enforcement related activities. Since there is no funding provided for them in this bill, the state could be vulnerable to claims by the counties for reimbursable state mandates through the Commission on State Mandates.

DFW currently spends approximately $10,000 per year testing wildlife for anticoagulant rodenticides exposure. If this bill were to be enacted, eventually the need for testing would decrease.

Workload associated with DFW’s review of the assessment by CDPR would be minor. DFW expects that the existing staff toxicologist would undertake this as part of their existing workload.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Henry Stern, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB Hearing Date: July 9, 2019

Subject: Pesticides: use of anticoagulants

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

Existing federal law:

1. Establishes the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which tasks the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) — in conjunction with state agencies — with regulating pesticides in order to protect applicators, consumers, and the environment. (Title 7, United States Code, §§136-136y)

Existing state 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 products. (FAC §564 and §54004)
   
4. 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, California Code of Regulations (CCR), §6471 (2014))

Background:

Rodents. Rodents in California include squirrels, chipmunks, beavers, gophers, rats, and mice, among other species. Native rodents are important in California ecosystems, but they also become 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.

Rodenticides. Rodenticides are pesticides designed to kill rodents. Other mammals, birds, and fish may also be affected or killed by the ingestion of, or sometimes contact with, rodenticides. 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.

There are many different active ingredients registered as rodenticides in the US. Roughly, they are grouped together according to the mechanism that leads to death. According to the US EPA, most of the rodenticides used today are anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) that prevent the clotting of blood through one of several mechanisms. In doses designed for rodents, ingestion of ARs leads to uncontrolled internal bleeding.

First-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) include ARs that were developed before 1970. These compounds, which include warfarin, diphacinone, and chlorpophacinone, lose their effectiveness over time and only become toxic after the several successive feedings. Over time, the appearance of rats and mice resistant to FGARs necessitated the development of new ARs.

Second-generation anticoagulants (SGARs) were developed beginning in the 1970s to control FGAR-resistant rodents, and include brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, and difenacoum. Both FGARs and SGARs share a similar mechanism of action, but SGARs are more likely than FGARs to kill after a single night's feeding, and tend to remain in animal tissues much 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. Pets, humans, or wildlife that accidentally ingest ARs may have access to antidotes. Depending on the dose, time elapsed since ingestion, and mechanism of the coagulant, a doctor or veterinarian may be able to administer an appropriate antidote before effects are lethal.

Acute toxicants are a third category of rodenticides. These rodenticides, which include compounds such as bromethalin and strychnine, cause immediate physiological disruption or organ failure, and lead to rapid death. In contrast to ARs, acute toxicants are relatively rapidly metabolized and eliminated so there is little hazard to non-target species that consume poisoned rodents. However, acute toxicants are highly toxic to people, pets, and wildlife, and antidotes do not generally exist. Advocates for ARs emphasize that this is an important advantage over acute toxicants.

Wildlife exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides. According to the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), many species of wildlife in California – including golden eagles, great horned owls, black bears, red foxes, and more – are at risk for accidental AR poisoning. This can happen when a non-target species consumes a bait (primary poisoning) or when the non-target species consumes a dead or dying rodent who has consumed a bait (secondary poisoning). Primary poisoning generally occurs when baits are placed in open, easily accessible areas where non-target species consume them.

Secondary poisoning is more complex. Predatory species, such as raptors, bobcats, and foxes, regularly consume rodents as part of their diet. Poisoned rodents also become more lethargic and exhibit abnormal behavior, such as sitting out in the open, that makes them more vulnerable to predators. Wild animals are also at risk from chronic intoxication, which causes gradually increasing levels of toxicity as low quantities of ARs are ingested over time. There is abundant scientific evidence showing that non-target species face AR exposure. These data are less conclusive in pointing to ARs as the specific cause of death in necropsied animals. However, ARs serve as contributing factors even when they are not the immediate cause of death.

P-47. The recent death of the California mountain lion known as “P-47” caused renewed concern about ARs and wildlife. P-47 was one of only two known offspring of P-45, a well-known mountain lion. Researchers with the National Park Service (NPS) first marked P-47 with a tracking device when he was approximately four weeks old in 2017. He was later fitted with a GPS collar. At his last live capture in January 2018, P-47 weighed 150 pounds and tied for the largest among all the mountain lions in the history of the NPS study. On March 21, 2019, P-47’s remains were discovered after his GPS collar sent out a mortality signal. His body was found without any signs of wounds, but tests of his liver revealed exposure to six different anticoagulant compounds. Results of a necropsy indicated that P-47 had experienced hemorrhaging in his head and lungs.

Restriction of rodenticides in California. 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 this request, the DPR conducted a review of 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. Data from multiple sources were considered, including the DFW, private agencies, individuals, and available journal articles. After reviewing all the data obtained from both urban and rural areas, the DPR found that the use of SGARs presents a hazard related to persistent residues in target animals resulting in impacts to non-target wildlife. This resulted in the DPR designating SGARs as California-restricted materials on March 18, 2014. 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). By restricting the use of all SGARs, the DPR aimed to reduce unintended exposures to non-target wildlife.

After 2014, the DPR continued to receive reports claiming that SGARs may have caused, or are likely to have caused, significant adverse impacts to non-target wildlife. The Director of the DPR is required by regulation to investigate such reports (Title 3, CCR, §6220). The Director then has the authority to begin a reevaluation if the investigation finds that the pesticides caused or are likely to cause significant adverse impacts.

In response to the reports on continued impacts of SGARs, the DPR prepared an investigatory report on potential significant adverse impacts reportedly caused by ARs. The report reviewed and analyzed information and data from a variety of sources, including peer-reviewed scientific publications, statewide sales and use reporting data, and unpublished wildlife incident and mortality data. As part of this investigation, DPR scientists analyzed 11 different studies examining the possible impacts of ARs on non-target wildlife, and 152 DFW loss reports submitted to the DPR since 2014.

The investigation found that while the 2014 regulations changed SGAR use patterns by restricting their purchase, sale, and use, reported rates of non-target wildlife exposure to SGARs have not decreased. Additionally, the investigation found evidence of possible population-level impacts among non-target wildlife in California due to statistically significant associations with SGAR exposure and sub-lethal impacts. The investigation also noted that brodifacoum has relatively higher rates of exposure among non-target wildlife as compared to other SGARs. Based on the investigation, the Director of the DPR found that a significant adverse impact has occurred or is likely to occur from the use of SGARs and proposed to begin reevaluation of SGARs.

On November 16, 2018, the DPR issued a notice of its proposed decision to begin the reevaluation of pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone. The DPR accepted public comments on the proposed decision to begin reevaluation of SGARs through January 16, 2019.

After completing its review of the public comments, the Director of the DPR noticed its final decision to begin reevaluation of pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone on March 12, 2019. The reevaluation involves 15 registrants (typically pesticide manufacturers) and 74 pesticide products. This process is ongoing and it is unclear when the reevaluation will be completed.

PROPOSED LAW

This bill would ban SGARs statewide and prohibit the use of FGARs on state-owned lands, subject to certain exemptions. Specifically, this bill would:

1. Make findings and declarations related to the value of Californian wildlife, and the prevalence of anticoagulant rodenticides.
2. Declare that the provisions in the bill shall be known as the California Ecosystems Protection Act of 2019.
3. Extend the SGAR use prohibition statewide, with exceptions for:
   1. Use by a governmental agency employee for public health activities.
   2. Agricultural activities, as defined, and including a warehouse storing foods, an agricultural food production site, or a factory, brewery, or winery.
   3. Eradication of nonnative invasive species inhabiting or found to be present on offshore islands.
4. Prohibit use on state-owned properties of three FGARs, as specified, except for use for agricultural activities.
5. Declares that the above prohibitions do not preempt or supersede federal statute or authority, and for SGAR use, that the prohibitions to not preempt or supersede special local need or emergency exemptions for the use of pesticides under FIFRA.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

According to the author, “[s]ince the 1980’s, and even as most recently as this week the Department of Fish and Wildlife have been warning about the impacts rodenticides are having on all wildlife in the state. As a result of these warnings, in 2014 the California Department of Pesticide Regulation enacted regulations to restrict the use of Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides in hopes of decreasing the non-targeted deaths. But, these regulations have not resulted in a decrease in secondary wildlife poisonings; instead they have stayed constant or increased in some instances.”

“In order to protect wildlife AB 1788 will prohibit the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) throughout the state and also prohibits the use of first generation anticoagulant (FGARs) rodenticides on state-owned property, with exemptions for agricultural and food processing uses.”

Writing in support, the Animal Legal Defense Fund notes that in recent studies, “70 to 90% of tested wildlife were found to have SGARs in their systems,” and that “both first and second generation anticoagulants are responsible for wildlife deaths and ‘sublethal’ impacts that affect the ability of wildlife to survive and thrive.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

Several organizations, including the American Chemistry Council and the National Pest Management Association, take similar “oppose” positions on this bill, arguing that the bill fails to adequately protect wildlife and that it may exacerbate public health risks from rodents. In a coalition opposition letter, several of these organizations point to concerns surrounding public health, writing that, “AB 1788 would reduce the availability to control rodent populations, without considering the effectiveness of other available controls.”

These organizations also cite concerns with ongoing study of SGARs by DPR, stating that, “DPR also has the regulatory authority to implement additional mitigation or product restrictions, at the end of the thorough review. This scientific evaluation should be allowed to take place before the legislature bans a product without all the necessary data, leaving California with fewer, and in some cases, less effective methods for controlling rodent populations.”

Several potential amendments are suggested, which request that the bill specify a deadline for DPR’s reevaluation of SGARs, add provisions to improve enforcement efforts against the illegal purchase or use of SGARs, and require additional record keeping by pest control operators regarding locations and frequency of SGAR use.

Other organizations in opposition to this bill, including the California Life Sciences Association, cite concerns in keeping pharmaceutical and biological manufacturing and research facilities free of rodents, and suggest amendments to exempt such facilities.

COMMENTS

The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee is the Committee of 2^nd Referral. AB 1788 was heard before the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on June 19, 2019 where it passed with a vote of 4 – 0. The Senate Environmental Quality Committee has primary jurisdiction over much of this bill. Pesticide regulation, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and environmental contamination are in that Committee’s jurisdiction and were discussed before that Committee. Please see the Senate Environmental Quality Committee’s bill analysis for the analysis of those topics. Elements of areas under the Senate Environmental Quality Committee’s jurisdiction are included here for completeness and to provide context only. This bill analysis focuses on those items under this Committee’s jurisdiction, including wildlife.

Non-target wildlife species affected by the use of ARs. As noted above, observations of numerous species of wildlife, including species subject to the protections of the Endangered Species Act or other laws, have shown exposure to FGARs and SGARs.

Illegal cannabis grows have been associated with unregulated use of various pesticides. However, observations of wildlife exposed to FGARs and SGARs are not attributable solely to these grows. It is possible that statewide prohibitions on SGARs could reduce their use in illegal grows. Federal, state, and local enforcement agencies are coordinating ongoing efforts to address illegal grows.

SGAR use in the Channel Islands to protect native species. There can be instances in certain narrow circumstances, as part of a comprehensive integrated pest management approach, where SGARs may be useful as recognized by the bill. Offshore islands can have particularly fragile and vulnerable ecosystems. Invasive rats can rapidly decimate seabird colonies, for example, with corresponding impacts on the biodiversity of life on the island and the surrounding marine ecosystems.

Anacapa Island, one of the ecologically significant Channel Islands located off the coast of southern California, had a long-standing problem with invasive black rats. The rats ate most of the eggs of the island’s Scripp’s murrelet, a rare seabird that is now listed as threatened under California’s Endangered Species Act. The rats also nearly eradicated the island’s native deer mouse population. In the 1990s, efforts began to rid the island of the non-native rats, but faced numerous challenges related to the island’s geography, and the presence of numerous rare species, among other things. Eventually, SGAR bait pellets in conjunction with other mitigating measures (including holding native deer mice populations in captivity to limit non-target exposure to the rodenticide) were carefully deployed as part of a coordinated integrated pest management effort. Scripp’s murrelet populations subsequently rebounded, and another rare seabird, Cassin’s auklet, returned when the black rats were killed.

Recent related legislation

AB 2422 (Bloom, 2018) would have prohibited the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains an anticoagulant. The Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee hearing on this bill was canceled at the request of the author and the bill subsequently died on file.

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.

SUPPORT

Animal Legal Defense Fund (Sponsor)

American Bird Conservancy

Bel Air Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council

Buena Vista Audubon Society

California Association of Professional Scientists

California Urban Streams Partnership

California Wildlife Center

Center for Biological Diversity

Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife

City of Agoura Hills

City of Los Angeles

City of Malibu

Clean Water Action

Committee for Green Foothills

Conservation of Sea and Sage Audubon Society

County of Los Angeles

Environmental Working Group

Friends of Griffiths Park

Friends of the Los Angeles River

Golden Gate Audubon Society

Human Society Veterinary Medical Association

Humane Society of the United States

Indivisible CA-12, 33, 41, 43

Kind Traveler

Linda Parks,

Board of Supervisors County of Ventura

Los Feliz Improvement Association

Los Padres ForestWatch

Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

Mountain Lion Foundation

National Wildlife Federation

Parents for a Safer Environment

Planning and Conservation League

Poison Free Agoura

Poison Free Malibu

Project Coyote

Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority

Raptors are the Solution

Sacramento Heron and Egret Rescue

San Diego Audubon Society

Santa Monica Mountains Fund

Santa Susana Mountain Park Association

Save Chatsworth, Inc./Sky Valley Volunteers

Sierra Club California

Social Compassion in Legislation

The River Otter Ecology Project

WildEarth Guardians

Approximately 560 Individuals

OPPOSITION

American Chemistry Council

Animal Pest Management Services, Inc.

California Apartment Association

California Association of Health Facilities (unless amended)

California Chamber of Commerce

California Landscape Contractors Association

California Life Sciences Association (unless amended)

California Pharmacists Association (unless amended)

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

California Retailers Association

Household & Commercial Products Association

National Federation of Independent Business

National Pest Management Association

RISE

San Andreas Land Conservancy (unless amended)

Syngenta

Western Plant Health Association

5 Individuals

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Allen, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 1788

SUBJECT: Pesticides: use of anticoagulants

DIGEST: This bill would expand the prohibition on the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides to be in effect statewide, prohibit the use of first generation anticoagulant rodenticides on state-owned lands, and make specified exemptions from the prohibition for specified activities.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), tasks the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)—in conjunction with state agencies—with regulating pesticides in order to protect applicators, consumers, and the environment. (7 U.S.C. 136-136y)

Existing state 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 products. (FAC § 564 and 54004)
   
4. 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 California Code of Regulations § 6471 (2014))

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations related to the value of Californian wildlife, and the prevalence of anticoagulant rodenticides.
2. Declares that the provisions in the bill shall be known as the California Ecosystems Protection Act of 2019.
3. Extends the second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide (SGAR) use prohibition (FAC § 12978.7) to apply statewide, with exceptions for:
   
   1. Use by a governmental agency employee for public health activities.
      
   2. Agricultural activities, as defined, and including a warehouse storing foods, an agricultural food production site, or a factory, brewery, or winery.
      
4. Prohibits use on state-owned properties of three first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs), as specified, except for use for agricultural activities.
   
5. Declares the above prohibitions do not preempt or supersede federal statute or authority.

Background

1. Anticoagulant rodenticides. Anticoagulants are compounds that prevent the clotting of blood through one of several mechanisms. Warfarin, a common blood thinner used clinically, was first discovered and used for its rodenticide properties. At the doses used in rodenticide applications, anticoagulants cause uncontrolled internal bleeding.
   
   Although anticoagulant rodenticides are poisonous to pets or humans that consume them accidentally, they have the benefit of existing antidotes. Depending on the dose, time since ingestion, and mechanism of the coagulant, a doctor or veterinarian may be able to administer the appropriate antidote before the effects are lethal. Advocates for anticoagulant rodenticides emphasize that this is an important advantage over other rodenticides.
   
   All anticoagulants have a delay between consumption of a lethal dose and death of the exposed organism. As a result, the target organism may continue to consume the bait. In some cases, this allows for super-lethal concentrations of the rodenticide to accumulate in its body. Secondary non-target wildlife exposure may occur, when non-target wildlife feed on the exposed target pest, which still contains the poison.
2. First- versus second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. Anticoagulant rodenticides are classified as either first-generation or second-generation. First-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) such as warfarin lose their initial effectiveness over time and require the pest to feed multiple times. The appearance of rats and mice resistant to warfarin necessitated the development of alternatives. This eventually led to the development of the second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs), containing brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, and/or difenacoum. FGARs and SGARs share a similar mechanism of action, but SGARS have increased toxicity, prolonged half-lives, and persistence in fats. A 2018 investigation by DPR indicated that non-target wildlife exposure may be significant due to the chemical characteristics of SGARs, which are known to have properties of high toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation.
   
3. Brief history of DPR evaluations. In 1999, DPR placed pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredient brodifacoum into reevaluation based on exposure and adverse impacts to non-target wildlife caused by persistent residue in target pests. In 2014, DPR closed the reevaluation after adopting regulations to designate the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone as California restricted materials and to add use restrictions, in an attempt to change the use patterns of these pesticides.
   
   After implementing these regulatory actions, DPR continued to receive reports claiming that SGARs may have caused or are likely to cause significant adverse impacts to non-target wildlife. Under existing regulations, the Director is required to investigate such reports. The Director then has authority to begin a reevaluation if the investigation finds that the pesticide caused or is likely to cause significant adverse impacts.
   
   On November 16, 2018, DPR issued a notice of its proposed decision to begin the reevaluation of pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone.
   
4. Food web impacts. An ecosystem is defined as a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment. Primary producers, typically plants, acquire the sun’s energy and turn it into chemical energy through photosynthesis. Primary consumers, or herbivores, consume large amounts of plants to collect enough energy to live. Secondary consumers, which can be either omnivores or carnivores, will consume a large amount of animal matter to survive. The term “biomagnification” refers to a high concentration of a compound in a carnivorous animal caused by consuming other animals and plants which contained the compound. “Bioaccumulation” refers to a compound accumulating in a given organism because its rate of intake of the compound exceeds its rate of passage.
   
   Rodenticides can bioaccumulate when a target (or non-target) animal consumes one or more doses of it, particularly due to the delay between the animal ingesting the poison and succumbing to it. While biomagnification of rodenticides may be possible, it has not been clearly demonstrated. Secondary poisoning is the result of a target animal consuming a rodenticide, the rodenticide bioaccumulating in it, and another animal consuming the first one and becoming poisoned.
   
   There is abundant evidence that anticoagulant rodenticides are present in the bodies of predatory animals. Some of the direct pathways from rodent anticoagulant rodenticide consumption to secondary poisoning of predator are undefined, and clarifying this is an active area of study. Based on the detected poison doses (and the presence of federally un-registered rodenticides) in necropsied predators, it is likely that rodenticide impacts on California wildlife are the result of both legal and illegal rodenticide applications.
   
5. Considerations vary with geography. Given California’s immense geographic and environmental diversity, it makes sense that rodenticides should not be applied identically statewide. Rodenticide registrants must consider the applicable factors for their individual use case. Several such use cases requiring different considerations include:
   
   1. Wildlife in mainland forests. Due to their close proximity to human development, there are a number of predator species that have been found to have varying concentrations of anticoagulant rodenticides in their bodies. In order to reduce indiscriminate wildlife poisoning, rodenticides must (with some specified exceptions) be applied within 50 feet of a building. Given the close proximity of buildings to woodlands, and frequent encroachment of wild animals on cities, many of these predators or their prey are still encountering these rodenticides.
      
   2. Typhus in cities. Typhus is a disease caused by bacteria (Ricksettia spp.) which causes fever, body aches, stomach pain and a rash. Most people recover on their own, but more severe cases can lead to damage to the heart, brain, and lungs without treatment. The pathogen is carried in fleas, which are frequently carried on rats and other rodents.
      
      According to the LA Times, officials said nine cases were reported in the county from July to September 2018. LA County health officer Dr. Muntu Davis “encourage[d] all cities in the county to ensure maintenance of their trash cleanup and rodent control activities.” More recently, an employee at a downtown LA police station contracted typhus in the station itself. While non-rodenticide control measures are important, they may not be sufficient to control disease outbreaks on their own.
      
   3. Invasive species on fragile islands. California encompasses many unique ecosystems, and some come with unique challenges for wildlife and pest management. The Channel Islands, in particular, house dozens of endangered or threatened species that rely on carefully preserved ecosystems to support them. Some of these species are found exclusively on the Channel Islands. Based on models informed by past experiences, the custodians of these islands may have as little as 72 hours after an invasive rodent is introduced (be it through accidental stowaways or wrecked vessels) to take action while it can still be contained.
      
6. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) exemptions. FIFRA is a comprehensive act that dictates, among other provisions, federal Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) rodenticide policy. FIFRA contains multiple exemptions for registrants from some existing pesticide regulations needed for public health purposes.
   
   Special Local Needs (24(c)) registrations may be granted by the US EPA in response or in advance of an existing or imminent pest problem within a state for which the state lead agency, based upon satisfactory supporting information, has determined that an appropriate federally registered pesticide product is not sufficiently available. According to the US EPA, as part of past streamlining and risk reduction efforts, the Agency developed guidance and process improvements with the goal of enabling states and the US EPA to process 24(c) registrations faster and with fewer resources than possible previously. A 24(c) registration may cover up to 90 days of application, and hundreds of such registrations are granted annually.
   
   Emergency Exemptions (Section 18) are available for registrants who require an urgent use, such as for a public health emergency, of a pesticide to an extent beyond state registration limitations. Granting a Section 18 exemption depends on clear evidence showing the emergency condition lacks other economical or environmentally feasible alternatives, and that the situation will present significant risks to human health, threatened/endangered species, or economic loss. Section 18 exemptions may preempt state regulations and permit use of a pesticide for up to one year (with the potential for reregistration) in the event of an emergency. Only approximately 80 such registrations have been granted in California since 2009.
   
   AB 1788, by not preempting or superseding any federal statutes, permits these important deviations from the standard regulatory process when there is pressing need.
   
7. Public health pesticides. FIFRA defines public health pesticides as “any minor use pesticide product registered for use and used predominantly in public health programs for vector control or for other recognized health protection uses…” Rats and other rodents frequently carry fleas, which themselves may carry pathogenic microorganisms, and are an important vector to control from a public health perspective. According to a 2010 study in the Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, an average of 1.75 million pounds of public health pesticides were used annually in California, accounting for less than 1% of total state pesticide use. Of these, the vast majority were used to control mosquitoes. The US EPA formally recognizes rats as a “pest of significant public health importance”. While rodenticides are proportionally a small amount of applied public health pesticides, they are still an important tool in that arsenal.
   
8. Integrated Pest Management. The US EPA, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and many pest control professionals, believes that prevention is the most effective way to control disease-carrying pests and their associated public health risks. The combination of preventive measures and reduced-risk treatment methods to reduce the reliance on, and therefore the corresponding risk from, the use of chemical pesticides is generally known as Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Best practices of IPM include, but are not limited to, minimizing access to food and water, closing off entryways, and using pesticide products which minimize risk of exposure to non-targets.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “Since the 1980’s, and even as most recently as this week the Department of Fish and Wildlife have been warning about the impacts rodenticides are having on all wildlife in the state. As a result of these warnings, in 2014 the California Department of Pesticide Regulation enacted regulations to restrict the use of Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides in hopes of decreasing the non-targeted deaths. But, these regulations have not resulted in a decrease in secondary wildlife poisonings; instead they have stayed constant or increased in some instances.
   
   “In order to protect wildlife AB 1788 will prohibit the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) throughout the state and also prohibits the use of first generation anticoagulant (FGARs) rodenticides on state-owned property, with exemptions for agricultural and food processing uses.”
   
2. Balancing public and wildlife safety. AB 1788 takes an important step to protect California’s fragile and unique wildlife. Although illegal, unregistered applications may still introduce rodenticides to some ecosystems, a statewide prohibition of SGARs would be expected to reduce exposures. However, the importance of appropriate tools for vector control (including rodents) should not be dismissed, especially in urban settings where conditions may support rodent proliferation and associated disease outbreaks.
   
   The FIFRA exemptions described in the background are expected to still permit SGAR and FGAR use in instances where there is a demonstrable public health risk by not using them. It remains unclear how often those exemptions would need to be used under the prohibitions in AB 1788, and if the bureaucratic channels and associated resources for processing those exemptions are sufficient.
   
3. Given the importance of clearly defining the conditions and locations in which SGARs may still be necessary to protect the health of the public and endangered wildlife, the Committee may wish to consider amending AB 1788 to (1) clarify the applicability of FIFRA exemptions, and (2) exempt offshore islands which are in a unique position of needing extremely rapid applications of rodenticides in rare circumstances in order to protect endangered wildlife.
   

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 2422 (Bloom, 2018) would have prohibited the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains an anticoagulant. The Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee hearing on this bill was canceled at the request of the author and the bill subsequently died on file.

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:

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 Natural Resources and Water Committee.

SOURCE:

Animal Legal Defense Fund

Center for Biological Diversity

Raptors Are The Solution (RATS)

SUPPORT:

A Wildlife Exclusion Service, Sonoma County, CA

Alley Cat, Oakland, Alameda County, CA

Animal Legal Defense Fund

Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council

California Watershed Network

California Wildlife Center

Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife

City of Thousand Oaks

Clean Water Action

Environmental Working Group

Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks

Friends of the LA River

Glendale Rancho Neighborhood Association

Golden Gate Audubon Society

Humane Choice Wildlife Services, Oak View, CA

Humane Pest Control and Consulting, Los Angeles, CA

Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association

Humane Wildlife Control Association, CA

Los Feliz Improvement Association

Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth

Malibu Monarch Project

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

Mountain Lion Foundation

Mr Raccoon, Marin County, CA

Nichols Canyon Neighborhood Association

Poison Free Malibu

Project Coyote

Protect our Wildlands, Environment and Resources (POWER)

Public Land Alliance Network

Raptors Are The Solution

Rodent Stop, Los Angeles, CA

Santa Monica Mountains Fund

Senestech

Sky Valley Volunteers

The Humane Society of the United States

Ventura Audubon Society

WildFutures Wildlife Conservation Strategies

Wildlife Care of Southern California

Wildlife Out, San Francisco ,CA

Approximately 800 Individuals

OPPOSITION:

American Chemistry Council

Animal Pest Management Services, Inc.

California Apartment Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Life Sciences Association

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

California Retailers Association

Household & Commercial Products Association

National Federation of Independent Business

Pest Control Operators of California

RISE

Syngenta

Western Plant Health Association

1 Individual

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to one of the sponsors, Raptors Are The Solution, “AB 1788 allows for common sense controls on anticoagulant rodenticides by narrowly targeting the most toxic rodenticides throughout the state, while providing exemptions for agricultural activities and true public health emergencies. The scientific evidence is clear that anticoagulant rodenticides have a massive impact on California’s ecosystems and the state must act now to prevent the continued degradation of our wildlife and environment.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

According to the Pest Control Operators of California, “Anti-coagulant rodenticides are used by the professional pest management industry, to control rodents that infest and damage our buildings, eat and contaminate our food, and spread diseases. These same tools are used to control burrowing rodents (i.e. gophers) that damage our playing fields resulting in costly repairs to the property and injuries to our children playing on those fields. Recently, in Los Angeles, there has been a noted outbreak of flea-borne typhus that has been attributed to a large rodent population. This is a prime example that we, as citizens of this state, need every tool available to use to keep our citizens and property free of preventable damage and disease. Rodent baits are one of those key tools.”

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Allen, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 1788

SUBJECT: Pesticides: use of anticoagulants

DIGEST: This bill would expand the prohibition on the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides to be in effect statewide, prohibit the use of first generation anticoagulant rodenticides on state-owned lands, and make specified exemptions from the prohibition for specified activities.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), tasks the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)—in conjunction with state agencies—with regulating pesticides in order to protect applicators, consumers, and the environment. (7 U.S.C. 136-136y)

Existing state 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 products. (FAC § 564 and 54004)
   
4. 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 California Code of Regulations § 6471 (2014))

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations related to the value of Californian wildlife, and the prevalence of anticoagulant rodenticides.
2. Declares that the provisions in the bill shall be known as the California Ecosystems Protection Act of 2019.
3. Extends the second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide (SGAR) use prohibition (FAC § 12978.7) to apply statewide, with exceptions for:
   
   1. Use by a governmental agency employee for public health activities.
      
   2. Agricultural activities, as defined, and including a warehouse storing foods, an agricultural food production site, or a factory, brewery, or winery.
      
4. Prohibits use on state-owned properties of three first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs), as specified, except for use for agricultural activities.
   
5. Declares the above prohibitions do not preempt or supersede federal statute or authority.

Background

1. Anticoagulant rodenticides. Anticoagulants are compounds that prevent the clotting of blood through one of several mechanisms. Warfarin, a common blood thinner used clinically, was first discovered and used for its rodenticide properties. At the doses used in rodenticide applications, anticoagulants cause uncontrolled internal bleeding.
   
   Although anticoagulant rodenticides are poisonous to pets or humans that consume them accidentally, they have the benefit of existing antidotes. Depending on the dose, time since ingestion, and mechanism of the coagulant, a doctor or veterinarian may be able to administer the appropriate antidote before the effects are lethal. Advocates for anticoagulant rodenticides emphasize that this is an important advantage over other rodenticides.
   
   All anticoagulants have a delay between consumption of a lethal dose and death of the exposed organism. As a result, the target organism may continue to consume the bait. In some cases, this allows for super-lethal concentrations of the rodenticide to accumulate in its body. Secondary non-target wildlife exposure may occur, when non-target wildlife feed on the exposed target pest, which still contains the poison.
2. First- versus second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. Anticoagulant rodenticides are classified as either first-generation or second-generation. First-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) such as warfarin lose their initial effectiveness over time and require the pest to feed multiple times. The appearance of rats and mice resistant to warfarin necessitated the development of alternatives. This eventually led to the development of the second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs), containing brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, and/or difenacoum. FGARs and SGARs share a similar mechanism of action, but SGARS have increased toxicity, prolonged half-lives, and persistence in fats. A 2018 investigation by DPR indicated that non-target wildlife exposure may be significant due to the chemical characteristics of SGARs, which are known to have properties of high toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation.
   
3. Brief history of DPR evaluations. In 1999, DPR placed pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredient brodifacoum into reevaluation based on exposure and adverse impacts to non-target wildlife caused by persistent residue in target pests. In 2014, DPR closed the reevaluation after adopting regulations to designate the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone as California restricted materials and to add use restrictions, in an attempt to change the use patterns of these pesticides.
   
   After implementing these regulatory actions, DPR continued to receive reports claiming that SGARs may have caused or are likely to cause significant adverse impacts to non-target wildlife. Under existing regulations, the Director is required to investigate such reports. The Director then has authority to begin a reevaluation if the investigation finds that the pesticide caused or is likely to cause significant adverse impacts.
   
   On November 16, 2018, DPR issued a notice of its proposed decision to begin the reevaluation of pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone.
   
4. Food web impacts. An ecosystem is defined as a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment. Primary producers, typically plants, acquire the sun’s energy and turn it into chemical energy through photosynthesis. Primary consumers, or herbivores, consume large amounts of plants to collect enough energy to live. Secondary consumers, which can be either omnivores or carnivores, will consume a large amount of animal matter to survive. The term “biomagnification” refers to a high concentration of a compound in a carnivorous animal caused by consuming other animals and plants which contained the compound. “Bioaccumulation” refers to a compound accumulating in a given organism because its rate of intake of the compound exceeds its rate of passage.
   
   Rodenticides can bioaccumulate when a target (or non-target) animal consumes one or more doses of it, particularly due to the delay between the animal ingesting the poison and succumbing to it. While biomagnification of rodenticides may be possible, it has not been clearly demonstrated. Secondary poisoning is the result of a target animal consuming a rodenticide, the rodenticide bioaccumulating in it, and another animal consuming the first one and becoming poisoned.
   
   There is abundant evidence that anticoagulant rodenticides are present in the bodies of predatory animals. Some of the direct pathways from rodent anticoagulant rodenticide consumption to secondary poisoning of predator are undefined, and clarifying this is an active area of study. Based on the detected poison doses (and the presence of federally un-registered rodenticides) in necropsied predators, it is likely that rodenticide impacts on California wildlife are the result of both legal and illegal rodenticide applications.
   
5. Considerations vary with geography. Given California’s immense geographic and environmental diversity, it makes sense that rodenticides should not be applied identically statewide. Rodenticide registrants must consider the applicable factors for their individual use case. Several such use cases requiring different considerations include:
   
   1. Wildlife in mainland forests. Due to their close proximity to human development, there are a number of predator species that have been found to have varying concentrations of anticoagulant rodenticides in their bodies. In order to reduce indiscriminate wildlife poisoning, rodenticides must (with some specified exceptions) be applied within 50 feet of a building. Given the close proximity of buildings to woodlands, and frequent encroachment of wild animals on cities, many of these predators or their prey are still encountering these rodenticides.
      
   2. Typhus in cities. Typhus is a disease caused by bacteria (Ricksettia spp.) which causes fever, body aches, stomach pain and a rash. Most people recover on their own, but more severe cases can lead to damage to the heart, brain, and lungs without treatment. The pathogen is carried in fleas, which are frequently carried on rats and other rodents.
      
      According to the LA Times, officials said nine cases were reported in the county from July to September 2018. LA County health officer Dr. Muntu Davis “encourage[d] all cities in the county to ensure maintenance of their trash cleanup and rodent control activities.” More recently, an employee at a downtown LA police station contracted typhus in the station itself. While non-rodenticide control measures are important, they may not be sufficient to control disease outbreaks on their own.
      
   3. Invasive species on fragile islands. California encompasses many unique ecosystems, and some come with unique challenges for wildlife and pest management. The Channel Islands, in particular, house dozens of endangered or threatened species that rely on carefully preserved ecosystems to support them. Some of these species are found exclusively on the Channel Islands. Based on models informed by past experiences, the custodians of these islands may have as little as 72 hours after an invasive rodent is introduced (be it through accidental stowaways or wrecked vessels) to take action while it can still be contained.
      
6. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) exemptions. FIFRA is a comprehensive act that dictates, among other provisions, federal Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) rodenticide policy. FIFRA contains multiple exemptions for registrants from some existing pesticide regulations needed for public health purposes.
   
   Special Local Needs (24(c)) registrations may be granted by the US EPA in response or in advance of an existing or imminent pest problem within a state for which the state lead agency, based upon satisfactory supporting information, has determined that an appropriate federally registered pesticide product is not sufficiently available. According to the US EPA, as part of past streamlining and risk reduction efforts, the Agency developed guidance and process improvements with the goal of enabling states and the US EPA to process 24(c) registrations faster and with fewer resources than possible previously. A 24(c) registration may cover up to 90 days of application, and hundreds of such registrations are granted annually.
   
   Emergency Exemptions (Section 18) are available for registrants who require an urgent use, such as for a public health emergency, of a pesticide to an extent beyond state registration limitations. Granting a Section 18 exemption depends on clear evidence showing the emergency condition lacks other economical or environmentally feasible alternatives, and that the situation will present significant risks to human health, threatened/endangered species, or economic loss. Section 18 exemptions may preempt state regulations and permit use of a pesticide for up to one year (with the potential for reregistration) in the event of an emergency. Only approximately 80 such registrations have been granted in California since 2009.
   
   AB 1788, by not preempting or superseding any federal statutes, permits these important deviations from the standard regulatory process when there is pressing need.
   
7. Public health pesticides. FIFRA defines public health pesticides as “any minor use pesticide product registered for use and used predominantly in public health programs for vector control or for other recognized health protection uses…” Rats and other rodents frequently carry fleas, which themselves may carry pathogenic microorganisms, and are an important vector to control from a public health perspective. According to a 2010 study in the Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, an average of 1.75 million pounds of public health pesticides were used annually in California, accounting for less than 1% of total state pesticide use. Of these, the vast majority were used to control mosquitoes. The US EPA formally recognizes rats as a “pest of significant public health importance”. While rodenticides are proportionally a small amount of applied public health pesticides, they are still an important tool in that arsenal.
   
8. Integrated Pest Management. The US EPA, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and many pest control professionals, believes that prevention is the most effective way to control disease-carrying pests and their associated public health risks. The combination of preventive measures and reduced-risk treatment methods to reduce the reliance on, and therefore the corresponding risk from, the use of chemical pesticides is generally known as Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Best practices of IPM include, but are not limited to, minimizing access to food and water, closing off entryways, and using pesticide products which minimize risk of exposure to non-targets.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “Since the 1980’s, and even as most recently as this week the Department of Fish and Wildlife have been warning about the impacts rodenticides are having on all wildlife in the state. As a result of these warnings, in 2014 the California Department of Pesticide Regulation enacted regulations to restrict the use of Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides in hopes of decreasing the non-targeted deaths. But, these regulations have not resulted in a decrease in secondary wildlife poisonings; instead they have stayed constant or increased in some instances.
   
   “In order to protect wildlife AB 1788 will prohibit the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) throughout the state and also prohibits the use of first generation anticoagulant (FGARs) rodenticides on state-owned property, with exemptions for agricultural and food processing uses.”
   
2. Balancing public and wildlife safety. AB 1788 takes an important step to protect California’s fragile and unique wildlife. Although illegal, unregistered applications may still introduce rodenticides to some ecosystems, a statewide prohibition of SGARs would be expected to reduce exposures. However, the importance of appropriate tools for vector control (including rodents) should not be dismissed, especially in urban settings where conditions may support rodent proliferation and associated disease outbreaks.
   
   The FIFRA exemptions described in the background are expected to still permit SGAR and FGAR use in instances where there is a demonstrable public health risk by not using them. It remains unclear how often those exemptions would need to be used under the prohibitions in AB 1788, and if the bureaucratic channels and associated resources for processing those exemptions are sufficient.
   
3. Given the importance of clearly defining the conditions and locations in which SGARs may still be necessary to protect the health of the public and endangered wildlife, the Committee may wish to consider amending AB 1788 to (1) clarify the applicability of FIFRA exemptions, and (2) exempt offshore islands which are in a unique position of needing extremely rapid applications of rodenticides in rare circumstances in order to protect endangered wildlife.
   

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 2422 (Bloom, 2018) would have prohibited the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains an anticoagulant. The Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee hearing on this bill was canceled at the request of the author and the bill subsequently died on file.

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:

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 Natural Resources and Water Committee.

SOURCE:

Animal Legal Defense Fund

Center for Biological Diversity

Raptors Are The Solution (RATS)

SUPPORT:

A Wildlife Exclusion Service, Sonoma County, CA

Alley Cat, Oakland, Alameda County, CA

Animal Legal Defense Fund

Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council

California Watershed Network

California Wildlife Center

Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife

City of Thousand Oaks

Clean Water Action

Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks

Friends of the LA River

Glendale Rancho Neighborhood Association

Golden Gate Audubon Society

Humane Choice Wildlife Services, Oak View, CA

Humane Pest Control and Consulting, Los Angeles, CA

Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association

Humane Wildlife Control Association, CA

Los Feliz Improvement Association

Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth

Malibu Monarch Project

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

Mountain Lion Foundation

Mr Raccoon, Marin County, CA

Nichols Canyon Neighborhood Association

Poison Free Malibu

Project Coyote

Protect our Wildlands, Environment and Resources (POWER)

Public Land Alliance Network

Raptors Are The Solution

Rodent Stop, Los Angeles, CA

Santa Monica Mountains Fund

Senestech

Sky Valley Volunteers

The Humane Society of the United States

Ventura Audubon Society

WildFutures Wildlife Conservation Strategies

Wildlife Care of Southern California

Wildlife Out, San Francisco ,CA

Approximately 800 Individuals

OPPOSITION:

American Chemistry Council

Animal Pest Management Services, Inc.

California Apartment Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Life Sciences Association

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

California Retailers Association

Household & Commercial Products Association

National Federation of Independent Business

Pest Control Operators of California

RISE

Syngenta

Western Plant Health Association

1 Individual

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to one of the sponsors, Raptors Are The Solution, “AB 1788 allows for common sense controls on anticoagulant rodenticides by narrowly targeting the most toxic rodenticides throughout the state, while providing exemptions for agricultural activities and true public health emergencies. The scientific evidence is clear that anticoagulant rodenticides have a massive impact on California’s ecosystems and the state must act now to prevent the continued degradation of our wildlife and environment.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

According to the Pest Control Operators of California, “Anti-coagulant rodenticides are used by the professional pest management industry, to control rodents that infest and damage our buildings, eat and contaminate our food, and spread diseases. These same tools are used to control burrowing rodents (i.e. gophers) that damage our playing fields resulting in costly repairs to the property and injuries to our children playing on those fields. Recently, in Los Angeles, there has been a noted outbreak of flea-borne typhus that has been attributed to a large rodent population. This is a prime example that we, as citizens of this state, need every tool available to use to keep our citizens and property free of preventable damage and disease. Rodent baits are one of those key tools.”

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1788

Author:(Bloom)

As Amended Ver:April 2, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Prohibits the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) throughout the state and also prohibits the use of first generation anticoagulant (FGARs) rodenticides on state-owned property.

Major Provisions

Prohibits the use, except as specified below, of any pesticide that contains one or more of the following anticoagulants: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone SGARs. Exempts from the prohibition on the use of SGARs a situation in which the local health authority determines that an emergency pest infestation poses an immediate threat to public health; use for vector control; and use for agricultural activities. Prohibits the use, except for agricultural activities, of any pesticide that contains one or more of the following anticoagulants on any state-owned property in California: chlorophacinone, diphacinone, or warfarin FGARs.

COMMENTS:

Rodent control: Rodents native to California play an important ecological role, and are a major food source for predators and scavengers; however, rodents are pests when they infest houses, threaten public health, and destroy property. Rodent infestations can also damage or destroy critical habitat, native plants and animals, crops, and food supplies.

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).

While rodenticides are pesticides designed to kill rodents, 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. Predatory and scavenging birds and mammals that eat dead or dying rodents that have consumed these baits will also be poisoned. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) contends that the use of poison baits to control rodents has injured and killed hundreds or thousands of pets and wild animals throughout California, including the golden eagle, great-horned owl, black bear, fisher, San Joaquin kit fox (federally endangered), coyote, mountain lion, bobcat, and badger.

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.

State regulatory action on SGARs: While certain mitigation efforts had previously been in effect for some SGARS, due to the impacts of SGARs on wildlife throughout the state, on March 18, 2014, the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) designated all SGAR products as restricted materials, thus restricting their purchase and use by, or under the supervision of, a certified commercial or private applicator under a permit issued by the County Agricultural Commissioner.

Have the regulations been effective? In November 2018, DPR released an investigation that found that while the 2014 regulations changed SGAR use patterns by restricting their purchase, sale, and use, reported rates of non-target wildlife exposure to SGARs have not decreased. Additionally, the investigation found evidence of possible population-level impacts among non-target wildlife in California due to statistically significant associations with SGAR exposure and sublethal impacts. On March 12, 2019, the Director of DPR noticed its final decision to begin reevaluation of SGARs. DPR says that once the reevaluation process begins, there is no set time frame for completion because DPR has not determined which data it will require pursuant to the reevaluation.

According to the Author:

"Regulations enacted in 2014 by [DPR] to minimize harm from one subset of rodenticides—SGARs—by prohibiting their use by consumers, have proven ineffective. Necropsy data performed by [DFW] and other scientists have demonstrated that these toxins have been poisoning California ecosystems, and continue to pose a rampant threat to children, pets, and wildlife. First generation anticoagulant rodenticides are also harmful, though non-target lethal poisoning is more widespread with SGARs."

Arguments in Support:

The Center for Biological Diversity argues, "AB 1788 is narrowly targeted to the most dangerous rodenticide uses and specifically exempts agricultural activities and emergency pest infestations… Regulations enacted by [DPR] to minimize harm from one subset of rodenticides – [SGARs] – have proven ineffective. Recent data analyzed by DPR reveal anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning is an ongoing problem in over 85% of tested mountain lions, bobcats, and the state threatened Pacific fishers…Anticoagulant rodenticides pose an unreasonable risk to children…There is a wide array of cost-effective alternatives available on the market today to better address rodent infestations."

Arguments in Opposition:

A coalition of opponents, including the American Chemistry Council and the California Chamber of Commerce, argues, "[DPR] announced in March 2019, they will enter a formal reevaluation of SGARs. This scientific evaluation should be allowed to take place before the legislature bans a product without all the necessary data, leaving California with fewer and, in some cases, less effective methods for controlling rodent populations… Rodenticides have been a critical tool for controlling rodent populations to protect Californians from the spread of disease and illness… We believe all rodenticides, when used according to the labeled instructions, serve an important function protecting Californians from disease and property damage."

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, enactment of this bill would result in minor, if any, state costs and minor, if any, reimbursable local costs.

VOTES:

ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 6-2-1

YES: Quirk, Bloom, Bauer-Kahan, Cristina Garcia, Holden, Muratsuchi

NO: Melendez, Mathis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Dahle

ASM WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE: 8-5-1

YES: Chu, Friedman, Cristina Garcia, Robert Rivas, Gloria, Kalra, Luz Rivas, Wood

NO: Gallagher, Bigelow, Choi, Dahle, Salas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Blanca Rubio

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-5-1

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Gabriel, Jones-Sawyer, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow, Brough, Diep, Fong, Obernolte

ABS, ABST OR NV: Eggman

UPDATED:

VERSION: April 2, 2019

CONSULTANT: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0000288

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1788

Author:(Bloom) – As Amended Ver:April 2, 2019

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) throughout the state and also prohibits the use of first generation anticoagulant (FGARs) rodenticides on state-owned property. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains one or more of the following SGARs: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum and difethialone.
2. Exempts from the SGAR prohibition the use by any government employee certified as a vector control technician for public health activities and by a mosquito or vector control district that uses pesticides to protect the public health.
3. Exempts agricultural activities from the prohibition on the use of SGARs, including activities conducted in a warehouse used to store foods for human or animal consumption and an agricultural food production site, as specified.
4. Prohibits the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains one or more of the following FGARs on any state-owned property in California: chlorophacinone, diphacinone and warfarin.
5. Directs state agencies to encourage federal agencies to comply with the prohibition on FGARs on state-owned property in California.
6. Exempts agricultural activities from the prohibition on the use of FGARs.
7. Provides the prohibition on FGARs does not preempt or supersede any federal statute or the authority of any federal agency.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Minor, if any state costs.
2. Minor, if any reimbursable local costs.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill prohibits the use of SGARs throughout the state and additionally prohibits the use of FGARs on state-owned property. According to the author:

Regulations enacted in 2014 by [DPR] to minimize harm from one subset of rodenticides – second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) – by prohibiting their use by consumers, have proven ineffective. Necropsy data performed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and other scientists have demonstrated that these toxins have been poisoning California ecosystems, and continue to pose a rampant threat to children, pets, and wildlife. First generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) are also harmful, though non-target lethal poisoning is more widespread with SGARs. To reduce the impacts of SGARs and FGARs, this legislation will ban SGARs throughout the state and ban use of FGARs on all state-owned properties.

1. Background. Anticoagulant rodenticides work by inhibiting a rodent’s ability to produce several key blood clotting factors, thus causing the poisoned rodent to die from internal bleeding. SGARs were developed in response to resistance issues reported with FGARs. In general, SGARs are more toxic than FGARs because they are designed to be lethal after a single feeding instead of after multiple doses. Anticoagulant rodenticide baits may take several days following ingestion of a lethal dose to kill the rodent, so rodents may feed on the SGAR bait multiple times before dying.

As a result, rodent carcasses may contain residues of SGARs many times over the lethal dose. If a nontarget predator feeds on a rodent containing lethal concentrations of a SGAR, the nontarget predator can also be harmed by the rodenticide. Brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum and difethialone are active ingredients in SGARs.

The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has the authority to regulate pesticides through labeling requirements and the designation of pesticides as restricted materials. DPR is currently reevaluating the use of SGARS in California and will use the best available science to determine if there are steps that could limit non-target wildlife exposures to SGARs.

1. Support and Opposition. Those in support argue the bill allows for common sense controls on anticoagulant rodenticides by banning only the most toxic rodenticides throughout the state, while providing some exemptions. Supporters maintain previous regulatory changes have not lessened non-target poisonings of wildlife.

Those in opposition argue that anticoagulant rodenticides are among the most effective tools available for the control of rodents. In addition, the opposition argues the DPR’s formal reevaluation of SGARs should be allowed to take place before the Legislature bans a product without all the necessary data, leaving California with fewer and, in some cases, less- effective methods for controlling rodent populations.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 9, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Eduardo Garcia, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1788 (

Author:Bloom) – As Amended Ver:April 2, 2019

SUBJECT: Pesticides: use of anticoagulants

SUMMARY: Prohibits the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) throughout the state and also prohibits the use of first generation anticoagulant (FGARs) rodenticides on state-owned property. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains one or more of the following SGARs: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone.
2. Exempts from the prohibition on the use of SGARs any governmental agency employee certified as a vector control technician who uses pesticides for public health activities, and a mosquito or vector control district that uses pesticides to protect the public health.
3. Exempts agricultural activities from the prohibition on the use of SGARs, including activities conducted in a warehouse used to store foods for human or animal consumption; an agricultural food production site, including, but not limited to, a slaughterhouse and cannery; and, a factory, brewery, or winery.
4. Prohibits the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains one or more of the following FGARs on any state-owned property in California: chlorophacinone, diphacinone, and warfarin.
5. Directs state agencies to encourage federal agencies to comply with the prohibition on FGARs on state-owned property in California.
6. Exempts agricultural activities from the prohibition on the use of FGARs.
7. Provides that the prohibition on FGARs does not preempt or supersede any federal statute or the authority of any federal agency.
8. Makes legislative findings about the utility of wild predators in maintaining ecosystem health and about the deleterious impact of rodenticides on predatory species.
9. Declares that the provisions in the bill shall be known as the California Ecosystems Protection Act of 2019.

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) §11501 et seq.]
2. 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. (Fish and Game Code §1802)
3. Requires the Director of the DPR to control and otherwise regulate the use of restricted materials. (FAC §14001)
4. Authorizes the Director of the DPR to apply to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for an exemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, when they determines that a specific public health quarantine or crisis emergency exists that requires the use of an unregistered pesticide and there is no feasible alternative to the exemption. [California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 3 §6206]
5. Designates as restricted materials SGARs containing brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone. (CCR Title 3 §6400)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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 SGARs: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone. (FAC §12978.7)
9. 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)
10. 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. (CCR Title 3 §6471)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: This bill prohibits the use of SGARs throughout the state and additionally prohibits the use of FGARs on state-owned property.

Author’s Statement:

Regulations enacted in 2014 by [DPR] to minimize harm from one subset of rodenticides – second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) – by prohibiting their use by consumers, have proven ineffective. Necropsy data performed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and other scientists have demonstrated that these toxins have been poisoning California ecosystems, and continue to pose a rampant threat to children, pets, and wildlife. First generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) are also harmful, though non-target lethal poisoning is more widespread with SGARs. To reduce the impacts of SGARs and FGARs, this legislation will ban SGARs throughout the state and ban use of FGARs on all state-owned properties.

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, diseases that spread from rats and mice to humans include typhus, 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.
• 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 of specific areas.
• 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. In IPM, 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. Rodenticides can also affect birds and fish.

According to the U.S. EPA, most rodenticides used today are anticoagulant compounds, either FGARs or SGARs, that interfere with blood clotting and cause death from excessive bleeding. 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.

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.

A third category of rodenticides are classified as acute toxicants. It is possible the use of acute toxicants to control rodents may increase if the prohibition on SGARs in this bill is enacted. 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.

Wildlife Impacts Due to Rodenticides. 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, coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats, and badgers, are at risk for accidental anticoagulant poisoning.

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. Predatory and scavenging birds and mammals that eat dead or dying rodents that have consumed these baits will also be poisoned (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.

SGARs Classified as Restricted Materials in California in 2014. 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. After reviewing wildlife incident and mortality data, the DPR found that SGAR exposure and toxicity to non-target wildlife is a statewide problem in both urban and rural areas. The DPR concluded that the use of SGARs presents a hazard due to persistent residues in target animals resulting in impacts to non-target wildlife. This resulted in the DPR designating the active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone as California-restricted materials on March 18, 2014, making all SGAR products restricted materials. By restricting the use of all SGARs to only certified applicators and limiting their use to near structures, the DPR aimed to reduce unintended exposures by non-target wildlife.

Illegal or Improper Use. While the use of all SGARs in California is restricted to only certified applicators and limited to use near structures, it is important to note that the illegal or improper use of SGARs may be a large factor in non-target wildlife exposure. Illegal cannabis grows often utilize rodenticides in an unregulated manner to prevent rodents from destroying crops. Researchers are concerned that the number and size of unpermitted cultivation sites with no regulatory oversight will increase, which could expose wildlife to more rodenticide poisoning. In addition, individuals without training or certification may be able to purchase restricted SGARs online from sites like eBay and Walmart and have them shipped into California, leading to improper use.

Have SGAR Restrictions Been Effective? After 2014, the DPR continued to receive reports claiming that SGARs may have caused, or are likely to have caused, significant adverse impacts to non-target wildlife. Under CCR Title 3 §6220, the Director of the DPR is required to investigate such reports. The Director then has the authority to begin a reevaluation if the investigation finds that the pesticides caused or are likely to cause significant adverse impacts.

In response to the reports on continued impacts of SGARs, the DPR prepared an investigatory report on potential significant adverse impacts reportedly caused by anticoagulant rodenticides. The report reviewed and analyzed information and data from a variety of sources, including peer-reviewed scientific publications, statewide sales and use reporting data, and unpublished wildlife incident and mortality data. As part of this investigation, DPR scientists analyzed 11 different studies examining the possible impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides on non-target wildlife, and 152 DFW loss reports submitted to the DPR since 2014.

The investigation found that while the 2014 regulations changed SGAR use patterns by restricting their purchase, sale, and use, reported rates of non-target wildlife exposure to SGARs have not decreased. Additionally, the investigation found evidence of possible population-level impacts among non-target wildlife in California due to statistically significant associations with SGAR exposure and sub-lethal impacts. The investigation also noted that brodifacoum has relatively higher rates of exposure among non-target wildlife as compared to other SGARs. Based on the investigation, the Director of the DPR found that a significant adverse impact has occurred or is likely to occur from the use of SGARs and proposed to begin reevaluation of SGARs.

DPR’s Reevaluation of SGARs is Ongoing. On November 16, 2018, the DPR issued a notice of its proposed decision to begin the reevaluation of pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone. The DPR accepted public comments on the proposed decision to begin reevaluation of SGARs through January 16, 2019.

After completing its review of the public comments, the Director of the DPR noticed its final decision to begin reevaluation of pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone on March 12, 2019. The reevaluation involves 15 registrants (typically pesticide manufacturers) and 74 pesticide products. The DPR says that once the reevaluation process begins, there is no set time frame for completion because the DPR has not yet made a final decision as to the data it will require pursuant to the reevaluation. However, in general, the DPR intends to obtain data related to SGAR exposure rates as well as any resulting risk of adverse impacts to non-target wildlife. The DPR notes that how quickly that data can be generated will be one of the primary drivers of how long it takes to complete the reevaluation process.

Considerations: The DPR has the authority to regulate pesticides through labeling requirements and the designation of pesticides as restricted materials. The DPR is currently reevaluating the use of SGARS in California, which will use the best available science to determine if there are steps that could limit non-target wildlife exposures to SGARs. Legislation could again be considered if the outcome of that process, likely to take several years, is unsatisfactory. However, there are also examples in statute of specific pesticide use restrictions and requirements enacted by the Legislature. The Legislature may wish to consider if it should delay action now and allow the DPR to exercise its regulatory authority.

If the prohibition on SGARs in this bill is enacted, without corresponding requirements or support of an IPM approach to rodent management, it is likely that the use of FGARs and acute toxicants to control rodents would increase, which may have negative impacts on non-target wildlife as well. Should the bill pass this committee, the author may wish to require stronger state support of, or requirements for, integrated pesticide management approaches to rodent control that would likely reduce the use of rodenticides overall.

Committee Amendments: None at this time.

Double Referral: This bill was referred to the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials and passed the committee 6-2.

Prior and Related Legislation:

AB 2422 (Bloom, 2018) would have prohibited the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains an anticoagulant. The Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee hearing on this bill was canceled at the request of the author and the bill subsequently died on file.

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.

Arguments in Support: Those in support argue that the bill allows for common sense controls on anticoagulant rodenticides by only banning the most toxic rodenticides throughout the state, while providing some exemptions. Supporters maintain that previous regulatory changes have not lessened non-target poisonings of wildlife.

Arguments in Opposition: Those in opposition argue that anticoagulant rodenticides are among the most effective tools available for the control of rodents. In addition, the opposition argues that the DPR’s formal reevaluation of SGARs should be allowed to take place before the Legislature bans a product without all the necessary data, leaving California with fewer and, in some cases, less effective methods for controlling rodent populations.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Animal Legal Defense Fund (sponsor)
California Wildlife Center
Californians for Pesticide Reform
Center for Biological Diversity
Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife (CLAW)
City of Agoura Hills
City of Malibu
Conejo Valley Audubon Society
Environmental Protection Information Center
Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations
Friends of Griffith Park
Friends of the Inyo
Friends of the LA River
Friends of the Santa Clara River
Golden West Humanitarian Foundation
Griffith Park Advisory Board
Honorable Paul Koretz, Council District 5, City of Los Angeles
Honorable Tom Butt, Mayor, City of Richmond
Humane Society of the United States, The
In Defense of Animals
Indivisible Ventura
Injured & Orphaned Wildlife
Law Offices of Rosemary Ward
Los Padres ForestWatch
Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth
Malibu Monarch Project
Mendocino Coast Audubon Society
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Mt. Diablo Audubon Society
National Association for Wildlife Emergency Services
National Parks Conservation Association
Native Animal Rescue
Paw Project, The
Poison Free Agoura
Poison Free Malibu
Public Land Alliance Network Plan
Raptors Are The Solution
River Otter Ecology Project, The
San Fernando Valley Audubon Society
Santa Cruz Bird Club
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Santa Monica Mountains Fund
Santa Susana Mountain Park Association
Save Chatsworth, Inc.
Social Compassion in Legislation
Sonoma County Wildlife Rescue
Sustainable North Bay
Ventura Audubon Society
WildEarth Guardians
Wildlife Research Institute, Inc.

Individuals (270)

Oppose

American Chemistry Council
Animal Pest Management Services, Inc.
California Chamber of Commerce
California Food Producers
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Retailers Association
Household and Commercial Products Association
Pest Control Operators of California
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment - RISE
Syngenta
Western Plant Health Association

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

Date of Hearing: March 26, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS

Bill Quirk, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1788 (

Author:Bloom) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2019

SUBJECT: Pesticides: use of anticoagulants

SUMMARY: Prohibits the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) throughout the state and also prohibits the use of first generation anticoagulant (FGARs) rodenticides on state-owned property. 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 Ecosystems Protection Act of 2019.
3. Prohibits the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains one or more of the following anticoagulants: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone (SGARs).
4. Exempts from the prohibition on the use of SGARs a situation in which the local health authority determines that an emergency pest infestation poses an immediate threat to public health.
5. Requires the county agricultural commissioner, in the event that the local health authority determines that there is a public health emergency, to grant permission for licensed pest control operators, upon application, to use an SGAR. Requires that permission be granted for the limited time frame of the public health emergency.
6. Authorizes the county agricultural commissioner to impose additional conditions for public health emergency applications of a SGAR.
7. Exempts from the prohibition on the use of SGARs any governmental agency employee certified as a vector control technician who uses pesticides for public health activities, and a mosquito or vector control district that uses pesticides to protect the public health.
8. Exempts from the prohibition on the use of SGARs agricultural activities, including activities conducted in a warehouse used to store foods for human or animal consumption; an agricultural food production site, including, but not limited to, a slaughterhouse and cannery; and, a factory, brewery, or winery.
9. Prohibits the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains one or more of the following anticoagulants on any state-owned property in California: chlorophacinone, diphacinoneor warfarin (FGARs).
10. Directs state agencies to encourage federal agencies to comply with the prohibition on FGARs on state-owned property in California.
11. Exempts agricultural activities from the prohibition on the use of FGARs.
12. Provides that the prohibition on FGARs does not preempt or supersede any federal statute or the authority of any federal agency.

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, "Regulations enacted in 2014 by [DPR] to minimize harm from one subset of rodenticides—Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides (SGARs)—by prohibiting their use by consumers, have proven ineffective. Necropsy data performed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and other scientists have demonstrated that these toxins have been poisoning California ecosystems, and continue to pose a rampant threat to children, pets, and wildlife. First generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) are also harmful, though non-target lethal poisoning is more widespread with SGARs. To reduce the impacts of SGARs and FGARs, this legislation will ban SGARs throughout the state and ban use of FGARs on all state-owned properties."

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 were resistant to FGARs. SGARs are more likely than FGARs 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.

This bill prohibits the use of SGARS throughout the state and additionally prohibits the use of FGARs on state-owned property.

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 reported 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 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.

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.

Have the regulations and legislation been effective? According to DPR, after implementing regulatory action on SGARs in 2014, and after AB 2657 went into effect, DPR continued to receive reports claiming that SGARs may have caused, or are likely to have caused, significant adverse impacts to non-target wildlife. Under 3 CCR section 6220, the Director is required to investigate such reports. The Director then has the authority to begin a reevaluation if the investigation finds that the pesticide caused or is likely to cause significant adverse impacts.

In response to the reports on continued impacts of SGARs, DPR prepared an investigatory report on potential significant adverse impacts reportedly caused by anticoagulant rodenticides. The investigation reviews and analyzes information and data from a variety of sources, including peer-reviewed scientific publications, statewide sales and use reporting data, and unpublished wildlife incident and mortality data. As part of this investigation, DPR scientists analyzed 11 different studies examining the possible impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides on non-target wildlife, and 152 DFW loss reports submitted to DPR since 2014.

The investigation found that while the 2014 regulations changed SGAR use patterns by restricting their purchase, sale, and use, reported rates of non-target wildlife exposure to SGARs have not decreased. Additionally, the investigation found evidence of possible population-level impacts among non-target wildlife in California due to statistically significant associations with SGAR exposure and sublethal impacts. The investigation indicates that non-target wildlife exposure may be significant due to the chemical characteristics of SGARs, which are known to have properties of high toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation. The investigation also notes that brodifacoum has relatively higher rates of exposure among non-target wildlife as compared to other SGARs. Based on the investigation, the Director found that a significant adverse impact has occurred or is likely to occur from the use of SGARs and proposed to begin reevaluation of SGARs.

DPR’s current reevaluation of SGARs: On November 16, 2018, DPR issued a notice of its proposed decision to begin the reevaluation of pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone. DPR accepted comments on the proposed decision to begin reevaluation of SGARs up to and including on January 16, 2019.

After completing its review of the public comments, the Director of DPR noticed, on March 12, 2019, its final decision to begin reevaluation of pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone. The reevaluation involves 15 registrants and 74 pesticide products. DPR says that once the reevaluation process begins, there is no set time frame for completion because DPR has not yet made a final decision as to the data it will require pursuant to the reevaluation. However, in general, DPR intends to obtain data related to SGAR exposure rates as well as any resulting risk of adverse impacts to non-target wildlife. DPR notes that how quickly that data can be generated will be one of the primary drivers of how long it takes to complete the reevaluation process.

Next steps: While the author of AB 1788 believes that the regulations put forth by DPR and enacted 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 1788 is to augment existing regulatory and legislative action by prohibiting the use of SGARs throughout the state, and by additionally prohibiting the use of FGARs on state-owned property.

Alternatives to rodenticides: 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 SGARS be enacted though this bill, FGARs and acute toxicant rodenticides would still be allowed (except on state-owned property, on which the use of FGARs would be prohibited). Consumers could still purchase and use the FGARs warfarin, chlorophacinone, and diphacinone and the acute toxicants bromethalin, zinc phosphide, and strychnine. Professional applicators could additionally use cholecalciferol.

While FGARs, which require several doses to cause intoxication, appear to be less toxic to nontarget wildlife that SGARs, residues of FGARs continue to be found in nontarget wildlife. Under the provisions of this bill, consumers would still be able to use, on non-state owned property, warfarin (moles); chlorophacinone (house mice, Norway rats, roof rats, gophers); and, diphacinone (house mice, Norway rats, roof rats, ground squirrels, gophers). Certified pesticide applicators could additionally use, on non-state owner property, warfarin (house mice, rats voles, deer mice); chlorophacinone (voles, deer mice, ground squirrels); and, diphacinone (deer mice).

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 SGARs in this bill be enacted, without corresponding requirements or support of an integrated pest management approach to rodent management, it is likely that the use of FGARs and 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. DPR is currently proposing reevaluating SGARS for use in California. 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 be examined through the regulatory process?

Clarification needed: Should this bill pass this Committee, the author may wish to continue to consult with local entities to determine how best to structure an exemption for the use of SGARs in the case of a public health threat, if such an exemption is necessary.

Arguments in support: The Center for Biological Diversity argues,

"AB 1788 is narrowly targeted to the most dangerous rodenticide uses and specifically exempts agricultural activities and emergency pest infestations… Regulations enacted by [DPR] to minimize harm from one subset of rodenticides—[SGARs]—have proven ineffective. Recent data analyzed by DPR reveal anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning is an ongoing problem in over 85% of tested mountain lions, bobcats, and the state threatened Pacific fishers. The use of rodenticides by licensed pest control applicators still allows rodents to consume rodenticides and then poison upper-level predators who consume the rodents themselves, which will result in continued deaths of wildlife and pets. Stronger safeguards are needed…

Anticoagulant rodenticides pose an unreasonable risk to children. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), just one 5-gram bite of rodenticide bait greatly exceeds safety thresholds. The most recent summary from the National Poison Data System documented almost 5,000 cases of anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning of children under the age of 6 years old in 2017 alone. More protections for children are needed…

There is a wide array of cost-effective alternatives available on the market today to better address rodent infestations. Sealing buildings and eliminating food and water sources 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."

Arguments in opposition: A coalition of opponents, including the American Chemistry Council, the Animal Pest Management Services, Inc., the California Chamber of Commerce, the California League of Food Producers, and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association argues,

"The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced in March 2019, they will enter a formal reevaluation of SGARs. This scientific evaluation should be allowed to take place before the legislature bans a product without all the necessary data, leaving California with fewer and, in some cases, less effective methods for controlling rodent populations…

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DPR regulate these products for efficacy, human health impacts and impacts to the environment. In 2014, DPR classified all SGARs as restricted use; meaning only certified applicators can legally use these rodenticides. In 2019, DPR made the decision to formally reevaluate all SGARs. Through this process, DPR reviews existing data and may require registrants to provide more data. DPR also has the regulatory authority to implement additional mitigation or product restrictions, at the end of the thorough review.

Rodenticides have been a critical tool for controlling rodent populations to protect Californians from the spread of disease and illness. Rodents can transmit more than 35 diseases to humans, including Hantavirus, which killed three people and infected seven others in Yosemite National Park in 2012. Last year, a man in Placer County died from the virus….

We believe all rodenticides, when used according to the labeled instructions, serve an important function protecting Californians from disease and property damage. These products are widely used in a variety of settings to protect public health including food service establishments, hospitals, by retailers and in homes. While we appreciate the exemption from this ban for certain facility types, a threat to public health exists beyond these locations."

Double referral: Should the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials approve this bill, it will be referred to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee.

Recent related legislation:

1. AB 2422 (Bloom, 2018). Would have prohibited the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains an anticoagulant. The Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee hearing on this bill was cancelled at the request of the author and the bill subsequently died on file.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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

Animal Legal Defense Fund
California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators
California Environmental Health Initiative
California Wildlife Center
Center for Biological Diversity
Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife (CLAW)

City of Los Angeles, Council District 5
Clean Water Action
Conejo Valley Audubon Society
Environmental Protection Information Center
Environmental Working Group (EWG)
Friends of Griffith Park
Friends of The Inyo
Friends of The Santa Clara River
Humane Society of The United States; The
In Defense of Animals
Los Padres Forestwatch
Malibu Monarch Project
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Mt. Diablo Audubon Society
National Association for Wildlife Emergency Services
National Parks Conservation Association
Poison Free Agoura
Poison Free Malibu
Project Coyote
Raptors Are The Solution
San Fernando Valley Audubon Society
Santa Susana Mountain Park Association
Save Chatsworth, Inc.
Social Compassion in Legislation
Sonoma County Wildlife Rescue

The Paw Project
The River Otter Ecology Project
Ventura Audubon Society
WildEarth Guardians
Wildlife Research Institute, Inc.

71 Individuals

Opposition

American Chemistry Council
Animal Pest Management Services, Inc.
California Chamber of Commerce
California Food Producers
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Retailers Association
Household and Commercial Products Association
Pest Control Operators of California
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE)
Syngenta
Western Plant Health Association

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

Date of Hearing: March 26, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS

Bill Quirk, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1788 (

Author:Bloom) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2019

SUBJECT: Pesticides: use of anticoagulants

SUMMARY: Prohibits the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) throughout the state and also prohibits the use of first generation anticoagulant (FGARs) rodenticides on state-owned property. 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 Ecosystems Protection Act of 2019.
3. Prohibits the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains one or more of the following anticoagulants: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone (SGARs).
4. Exempts from the prohibition on the use of SGARs a situation in which the local health authority determines that an emergency pest infestation poses an immediate threat to public health.
5. Requires the county agricultural commissioner, in the event that the local health authority determines that there is a public health emergency, to grant permission for licensed pest control operators, upon application, to use an SGAR. Requires that permission be granted for the limited time frame of the public health emergency.
6. Authorizes the county agricultural commissioner to impose additional conditions for public health emergency applications of a SGAR.
7. Exempts from the prohibition on the use of SGARs any governmental agency employee certified as a vector control technician who uses pesticides for public health activities, and a mosquito or vector control district that uses pesticides to protect the public health.
8. Exempts from the prohibition on the use of SGARs agricultural activities, including activities conducted in a warehouse used to store foods for human or animal consumption; an agricultural food production site, including, but not limited to, a slaughterhouse and cannery; and, a factory, brewery, or winery.
9. Prohibits the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains one or more of the following anticoagulants on any state-owned property in California: chlorophacinone, diphacinoneor warfarin (FGARs).
10. Directs state agencies to encourage federal agencies to comply with the prohibition on FGARs on state-owned property in California.
11. Exempts agricultural activities from the prohibition on the use of FGARs.
12. Provides that the prohibition on FGARs does not preempt or supersede any federal statute or the authority of any federal agency.

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, "Regulations enacted in 2014 by [DPR] to minimize harm from one subset of rodenticides—Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides (SGARs)—by prohibiting their use by consumers, have proven ineffective. Necropsy data performed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and other scientists have demonstrated that these toxins have been poisoning California ecosystems, and continue to pose a rampant threat to children, pets, and wildlife. First generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) are also harmful, though non-target lethal poisoning is more widespread with SGARs. To reduce the impacts of SGARs and FGARs, this legislation will ban SGARs throughout the state and ban use of FGARs on all state-owned properties."

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 were resistant to FGARs. SGARs are more likely than FGARs 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.

This bill prohibits the use of SGARS throughout the state and additionally prohibits the use of FGARs on state-owned property.

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 reported 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 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.

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.

Have the regulations and legislation been effective? According to DPR, after implementing regulatory action on SGARs in 2014, and after AB 2657 went into effect, DPR continued to receive reports claiming that SGARs may have caused, or are likely to have caused, significant adverse impacts to non-target wildlife. Under 3 CCR section 6220, the Director is required to investigate such reports. The Director then has the authority to begin a reevaluation if the investigation finds that the pesticide caused or is likely to cause significant adverse impacts.

In response to the reports on continued impacts of SGARs, DPR prepared an investigatory report on potential significant adverse impacts reportedly caused by anticoagulant rodenticides. The investigation reviews and analyzes information and data from a variety of sources, including peer-reviewed scientific publications, statewide sales and use reporting data, and unpublished wildlife incident and mortality data. As part of this investigation, DPR scientists analyzed 11 different studies examining the possible impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides on non-target wildlife, and 152 DFW loss reports submitted to DPR since 2014.

The investigation found that while the 2014 regulations changed SGAR use patterns by restricting their purchase, sale, and use, reported rates of non-target wildlife exposure to SGARs have not decreased. Additionally, the investigation found evidence of possible population-level impacts among non-target wildlife in California due to statistically significant associations with SGAR exposure and sublethal impacts. The investigation indicates that non-target wildlife exposure may be significant due to the chemical characteristics of SGARs, which are known to have properties of high toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation. The investigation also notes that brodifacoum has relatively higher rates of exposure among non-target wildlife as compared to other SGARs. Based on the investigation, the Director found that a significant adverse impact has occurred or is likely to occur from the use of SGARs and proposed to begin reevaluation of SGARs.

DPR’s current reevaluation of SGARs: On November 16, 2018, DPR issued a notice of its proposed decision to begin the reevaluation of pesticide products containing the SGAR active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone. DPR accepted comments on the proposed decision to begin reevaluation of SGARs up to and including January 16, 2019. DPR notes that they are currently reviewing and responding to the public comments they received on the proposed reevaluation. DPR says that once the reevaluation process begins, there is no set time frame for completion because DPR has not yet made a final decision as to the data it will require pursuant to this reevaluation. However, in general, DPR intends to obtain data related to SGAR exposure rates as well as any resulting risk of adverse impacts to non-target wildlife. DPR notes that how quickly that data can be generated will be one of the primary drivers of how long it takes to complete the reevaluation process.

Next steps: While the author of AB 1788 believes that the regulations put forth by DPR and enacted 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 1788 is to augment existing regulatory and legislative action by prohibiting the use of SGARs throughout the state, and by additionally prohibiting the use of FGARs on state-owned property.

Alternatives to rodenticides: 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 SGARS be enacted though this bill, FGARs and acute toxicant rodenticides would still be allowed (except on state-owned property, on which the use of FGARs would be prohibited). Consumers could still purchase and use the FGARs warfarin, chlorophacinone, and diphacinone and the acute toxicants bromethalin, zinc phosphide, and strychnine. Professional applicators could additionally use cholecalciferol.

While FGARs, which require several doses to cause intoxication, appear to be less toxic to nontarget wildlife that SGARs, residues of FGARs continue to be found in nontarget wildlife. Under the provisions of this bill, consumers would still be able to use, on non-state owned property, warfarin (moles); chlorophacinone (house mice, Norway rats, roof rats, gophers); and, diphacinone (house mice, Norway rats, roof rats, ground squirrels, gophers). Certified pesticide applicators could additionally use, on non-state owner property, warfarin (house mice, rats voles, deer mice); chlorophacinone (voles, deer mice, ground squirrels); and, diphacinone (deer mice).

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 SGARs in this bill be enacted, without corresponding requirements or support of an integrated pest management approach to rodent management, it is likely that the use of FGARs and 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. DPR is currently proposing reevaluating SGARS for use in California. 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 be examined through the regulatory process?

Clarification needed: Should this bill pass this Committee, the author may wish to continue to consult with local entities to determine how best to structure an exemption for the use of SGARs in the case of a public health threat, if such an exemption is necessary.

Arguments in support: The Center for Biological Diversity argues,

"AB 1788 is narrowly targeted to the most dangerous rodenticide uses and specifically exempts agricultural activities and emergency pest infestations… Regulations enacted by [DPR] to minimize harm from one subset of rodenticides—[SGARs]—have proven ineffective. Recent data analyzed by DPR reveal anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning is an ongoing problem in over 85% of tested mountain lions, bobcats, and the state threatened Pacific fishers. The use of rodenticides by licensed pest control applicators still allows rodents to consume rodenticides and then poison upper-level predators who consume the rodents themselves, which will result in continued deaths of wildlife and pets. Stronger safeguards are needed…

Anticoagulant rodenticides pose an unreasonable risk to children. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), just one 5-gram bite of rodenticide bait greatly exceeds safety thresholds. The most recent summary from the National Poison Data System documented almost 5,000 cases of anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning of children under the age of 6 years old in 2017 alone. More protections for children are needed…

There is a wide array of cost-effective alternatives available on the market today to better address rodent infestations. Sealing buildings and eliminating food and water sources 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."

Arguments in opposition: A coalition of opponents, including the American Chemistry Council, the Animal Pest Management Services, Inc., the California Chamber of Commerce, the California League of Food Producers, and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association argues,

"The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced in March 2019, they will enter a formal reevaluation of SGARs. This scientific evaluation should be allowed to take place before the legislature bans a product without all the necessary data, leaving California with fewer and, in some cases, less effective methods for controlling rodent populations…

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DPR regulate these products for efficacy, human health impacts and impacts to the environment. In 2014, DPR classified all SGARs as restricted use; meaning only certified applicators can legally use these rodenticides. In 2019, DPR made the decision to formally reevaluate all SGARs. Through this process, DPR reviews existing data and may require registrants to provide more data. DPR also has the regulatory authority to implement additional mitigation or product restrictions, at the end of the thorough review.

Rodenticides have been a critical tool for controlling rodent populations to protect Californians from the spread of disease and illness. Rodents can transmit more than 35 diseases to humans, including Hantavirus, which killed three people and infected seven others in Yosemite National Park in 2012. Last year, a man in Placer County died from the virus….

We believe all rodenticides, when used according to the labeled instructions, serve an important function protecting Californians from disease and property damage. These products are widely used in a variety of settings to protect public health including food service establishments, hospitals, by retailers and in homes. While we appreciate the exemption from this ban for certain facility types, a threat to public health exists beyond these locations."

Double referral: Should the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials approve this bill, it will be referred to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee.

Recent related legislation:

1. AB 2422 (Bloom, 2018). Would have prohibited the use, except as specified, of any pesticide that contains an anticoagulant. The Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee hearing on this bill was cancelled at the request of the author and the bill subsequently died on file.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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

Animal Legal Defense Fund
California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators
California Environmental Health Initiative
California Wildlife Center
Center for Biological Diversity
Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife (CLAW)

City of Los Angeles, Council District 5
Clean Water Action
Conejo Valley Audubon Society
Environmental Protection Information Center
Environmental Working Group (EWG)
Friends of Griffith Park
Friends of The Inyo
Friends of The Santa Clara River
Humane Society of The United States; The
In Defense of Animals
Los Padres Forestwatch
Malibu Monarch Project
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Mt. Diablo Audubon Society
National Association for Wildlife Emergency Services
National Parks Conservation Association
Poison Free Agoura
Poison Free Malibu
Project Coyote
Raptors Are The Solution
San Fernando Valley Audubon Society
Santa Susana Mountain Park Association
Save Chatsworth, Inc.
Social Compassion in Legislation
Sonoma County Wildlife Rescue

The Paw Project
The River Otter Ecology Project
Ventura Audubon Society
WildEarth Guardians
Wildlife Research Institute, Inc.

71 Individuals

Opposition

American Chemistry Council
Animal Pest Management Services, Inc.
California Chamber of Commerce
California Food Producers
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Retailers Association
Household and Commercial Products Association
Pest Control Operators of California
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE)
Syngenta
Western Plant Health Association

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