SACRAMENTO – California lawmakers have rejected legislation that would have banned pesticides and so-called “permanent” chemicals from being used on California farms, a restriction strongly opposed by the state’s billion-dollar agricultural community.
Assembly Bill 1603 by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) would have stopped the use of pesticides containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS chemicals, a family of compounds that can be persistent and harmful to humans.
Representatives of agricultural groups argued in committee meetings last month that banning chemicals is an overreach that will lead to higher prices for food imports from other states and prevent innovation in developing new pesticides.
The latest version of the bill, which will be considered when the state legislature resumes its session next month, would require the state to list pesticides and PFAS on its public database.
“I’m disappointed,” Schultz said in an interview with the Times, adding that he intends to continue to phase out PFAS chemicals.
The bill marks a back-and-forth with PFAS, chemicals found in many different consumer, commercial and industrial products and known as persistent chemicals because some of their components do not break down easily.
Federal regulators and environmental groups disagree on the definition of chemicals, making it difficult to find consensus on regulations or health risks.
Gov. Gavin Newsom last year opposed a bill that would have banned the sale and distribution of popular consumer products, including cookware, dental floss and cleaning products, that contain PFAS chemicals.
The governor, in his veto message, cited insolvency concerns. At the same time, the state passed various laws aimed at protecting people from PFAS, including bans on food additives and firefighting foam.
Studies show that exposure to certain levels of PFAS can lead to decreased fertility and developmental delays in children and increase the risk of cancer, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, and most PFAS chemicals have not been tested for human health effects.
The Environmental Working Group, or EWG, an advocacy group based in Washington, DC, released a study in March that found that nearly 40 percent of commonly grown fruits and vegetables in California tested contained PFAS residues, including 90 percent of peaches and nectarines.
EWG, one of the bill’s sponsors, uses a broader approach to defining PFAS than state and federal authorities.
Spokesperson for the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation in California, which oversees pesticide use, said the EWG report looked at PFAS detection, but the state is “looking at how detection compares to state tolerance levels.”
At a June Senate committee briefing on Schultz’s bill, EWG chief science officer David Andrews said PFAS pesticides “fall into a blind spot.” He also said that regulators, including the state, “have not been doing enough in terms of evaluating the immune system damage or the cumulative effects of this very small amount of PFAS.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Pesticide Regulation declined to comment on Schultz’s bill.
Taylor Triffo, who represents a coalition of California agricultural organizations, said in a separate Senate hearing in June that the bill’s initial language to ban new PFAS chemicals “will deny California farmers access [the] the next generation of plant protection tools that are safe, highly targeted, require low application rates and help tackle emerging pests and diseases.”
Representatives of agricultural groups said at a hearing last month that they do not object to the state flagging PFAS chemicals on the state’s website.
About half of the country’s vegetables and a third of its fruits and nuts come from California, according to the state.
Senni Anna Caballero (D-Merced), chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, called pesticide use “a balance” at a June hearing before voting on the amended version.
“Part of the challenge agriculture is currently facing is the invasion of pests in other countries where the invaders travel through the crops and the soil and come into the state,” he said. “We have to do everything, I think, to be able to maintain our agricultural production, because we produce products that are produced almost anywhere else in the country.”
Isabella Quinonez, assistant director of Public Affairs at the California Farm Bureau, said her group opposes the original bill because it would have limited products based on their chemical category instead of assessing the pesticide’s risks.
“We are confident in the Department of Pesticides’ rigorous, science-based regulatory process, which includes residue studies, groundwater monitoring, and ongoing retesting,” Quinonez said.
Schultz told The Times that he hopes to work with the Department of Pesticide Regulation on guidance in the coming years. He rejects any idea that “there is nothing to worry about, nothing has changed [with PFAS]because that is not in line with science.”
Times staff writer Susanne Rust contributed to this report.
