The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has a stated goal of eliminating the use of “priority pesticides” by 2050. Part of that effort includes the implementation of the Sustainable Pest Management Roadmap for California that was released earlier in the year. President and CEO of the California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, Roger Isom said the move towards more sustainable approaches has value. However, there are questions as to how that process will unfold.
“I’m very concerned that when we look at what might be the priority pesticides that DPR’s going to look at going forward; what are those?” Isom noted. “Certainly fumigants and certainly several of the other defoliants are going to be targeted. And, okay, what’s the alternative?”
The Roadmap outlines the need for improving California’s pesticide registration process to replace existing products with more sustainable alternatives. One of the goals in the Roadmap is stated as having an expedited process by 2025 for bringing alternative products to market. Isom said the concerns for how California will be implementing the plan come from the action taken on chlorpyrifos.
“While there were a lot of promises made towards alternatives, chlorpyrifos simply got eliminated and we were left with no alternative. So, for us in the cotton industry, we have nothing to fight aphid and whitefly like chlorpyrifos did. We just don’t have an equivalent,” Isom explained. “So, we’re going to have to spray more of something else because it’s not as effective.”
“Priority pesticides” will be determined through a multistakeholder advisory body comprised of both public and state-agency representatives. The body will advise DPR on the prioritization of active ingredients, pesticides, and groups of related products. These materials will have been “deemed to be of greatest concern and warrant heightened attention, planning, and support to expedite their replacement and eventual elimination.” Isom said farmers are in favor of adopting more sustainable pest management approaches. However, the implementation needs to be considerate and supportive of the realistic needs of agriculture.
“It’s like the mandates that the state’s putting on us for reducing emissions; you’ve got to help us. You’ve got to get us the tools. We’re not saying no necessarily. But we’re saying you’ve got to help us,” Isom noted. “So, it’s the same thing here. If your goal is to eliminate all these pesticides, you’ve got to give us alternatives.”
About the Author
