Ruben Arroyo, CACASA President & Ruthann Anderson, CAPCA CEO/Editor Over the past year, CACASA and CAPCA have been working to address pollinator protection in the field through BeeWhere. Named as a clever play on bee locations, this project goes beyond a new registry to encompass the communication pieces necessary between beekeepers, local Ag Commissioners, Applicators and PCAs regarding location of hives and notification of pesticide applications during bloom. In discussions with stakeholders including Beekeepers and Applicators some obstacles for registration and notification compliance included access issues and ease of reporting. From this feedback the industry developed a registration portal for beekeepers powered by Fieldwatch®. This registration portal will be available through www.beewherecalifornia.com configured uniquely to California to adhere to the privacy standards and regulations for the state. Building on the online registry, CACASA added a GIS mapping layer in CalAg Permits to merge the concept of “BeeWhere” to track hive locations as sensitive sites within the system and provide a more streamlined reporting system for pesticide notification requests. As this technology update launches in 2019, Applicators have a new means to contact beekeepers within 1 mile of an application and within 48 hours before pesticide application. This new BeeWhere layer in CalAg Permits should provide a quick report of all registered beekeepers and their notification preferences. Applicators can utilize crop management programs supported by Agrian, CDMS and Wilbur-Ellis, or contact their Ag Commissioner’s office directly to locate registered hives within a mile radius of the spray site. This advanced warning is mandatory per 3 CCR § 6654(a): Each person intending to apply any pesticide toxic to bees to a blossoming plant shall, prior to the application, inquire of the commissioner, or of a notification service designated by the commissioner, whether any beekeeper with apiaries within one mile of the application site has requested notice of such application. Talk with your employer regarding your company’s policy on notifications which are mandatory for pesticide products with “toxic to bees” label statements and recommended for all other applications, particularly during almond bloom. For additional details on the BeeWhere program, registry portal, and AB 2468, visit www.beewherecalifornia.com. The overall goal of the 2019 pilot is to help ease a path towards compliance by incorporating all stakeholders from growers to applicators in communicating about pesticide use while hives are present.
01 Editorial 03 Spotted Lantern Fly Alert 04 Environmental Justice Workshop 05 PPE for glyphosate application 08 Mobile app for incident reporting 10 Evolution of pesticide use reporting 12 Cannabis regulation update 14 2019 Events Calendar
JANUARY 2019 VOL. IV, NO. 1
IN THIS ISSUE:
APPLICATOR ALERTS
Welcome to BeeWhere
CAPCA EDITORIAL STAFF Ruthann Anderson - Editor Joyce Basan - Deputy Editor Dee Strowbridge - Membership/Conference Sylvia Stark - Advertising Sales Manager Rachel Taft - Executive Assistant Adam Barsanti - Outreach Relations Manager Ixchel Flannery - Office Administrator Graphic Design - Rosemary N. Southward southwardr@comcast.net PURPOSE California Association of Pest Control Advisers (CAPCA) is a non-profit voluntary mutual benefit association. CAPCA’s purpose is to serve as the leader in the evolution of the pest management industry through the communication of reliable information. CAPCA is dedicated to the professional development and enhancement of our members’ education and stewardship which includes legislative, regulatory, continuing education and public outreach activities.
This issue of the Applicator Alerts Newsletter k n was sponsored by the Riverside County a Th u! Agricultural Commissioner’s office. Yo
We wish to extend our sincere appreciation to Agricultural Commissioner Ruben Arroyo and his staff for their support and assistance.
PUBLISHING INFORMATION Applicator Alerts is published by the California Association of Pest Control Advisers (CAPCA), 2300 River Plaza Dr., Suite 120, Sacramento, California 95833. Web: www. capca.com, (916) 928‑1625. POSTMASTER: send address change to CAPCA. CAPCA has endeavored to include appropriate and accurate statements, but disclaims any and all warranties and/or responsibility for the statements or articles submitted to Applicator Alerts that may have additionally been edited for style, content and space prior to publication. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent CAPCA policies, or positions or endorsements. Editorial content of this publication is educational and informational in nature. No part of this publication, including images, may be reproduced without prior written permission from the publisher. Contact CAPCA at (916) 928‑1625 for reprint authorization.
To place an ad, contact our Advertising Sales Manager SYLVIA STARK today! (916) 607-0059
PRINTING: Sundance Press Tucson, Arizona
FIND US ON LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/company/californiaassociation-of-pest-control-advisers-capca-
In Our Next Issue:
✔ PRE-HA
RVEST ISSUE
Look for our next issue on Pre-Harvest coming in August 2019.
PRE-BLOOM ISSUE
Spotted Lantern Fly Alert Joseph DeViney, Santa Clara County Agricultural Commissioner
The spotted lanternfly, native to Asia, first came to America in 2014 when it was found in Pennsylvania. Although both Pennsylvania and New Jersey have established interior quarantines, the pest has continued to spread which is due in part to the egg-laying behavior of the female lanternfly. The lanternfly has the unusual ability to lay eggs on plants and soil as well as almost any smooth surface — such as wheel wells, train cars and shipping containers. Rusty metal such as that found on railroad cars and trailers is a preferred substrate for egg masses. Freshly laid egg masses are about 1� long and are covered in a white putty-like substance, which age over time to look like cracked mud. Old egg masses appear as rows of 30-50 brownish seed-like deposits in 4-7 columns on the trunk, roughly an inch long. Spotted lanternfly is considered an A-rated, state quarantine actionable pest. The lanternflies feed by sucking juices from plants and in turn secrete a sugary substance called honeydew that coats plant surfaces, leading to the growth of sooty mold. In Pennsylvania vineyards, the spotted lanternfly has doubled or tripled the number of insecticide applications required. Reports from growers last year noted a 90 percent loss in grape vines.
It can feed on a variety of plants, but adults prefer to feed on tree of heaven, grapevines, and hops. Attacked trees will develop weeping wounds which will leave a greyish or black trail along the trunk. This sap will attract other insects to feed, notably wasps and ants. In late fall, adults will lay egg masses on host trees and nearby smooth surfaces like stone, outdoor furniture, vehicles, and structures. *The CDFA is requesting that all inspectors look for lanternfly egg masses on articles arriving in California from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware. Viable egg masses are likely to be present from September through June. Nymphs are likely to be present from May through July. Adults are likely to be present from July through December. If you find this pest, please contact the Pest Hotline at https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/reportapest/
3
PRE-BLOOM ISSUE
Environmental Justice Workshop hosted in Riverside County Ron Bray, Assistant Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer, Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office The Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office (CAC), in conjunction with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), recently hosted a two-day Environmental Justice Workshop on November 5 and 6, 2018 in Indio, California. The audience of 35 attendees included community leaders, advocacy groups, state and local officials, local Environmental Justice organizations, and others interested in learning more about DPR and the CAC programs and regulations. Topics discussed pertained specifically to protecting fieldworkers and pesticide handlers, and the enforcement of pesticide use laws and regulations. Developed to give attendees a complete overview of the regulation of pesticides in California, this event is part of a series of Environmental Justice Workshops presented throughout the state. The group was welcomed by DPR Director, Brian Leahy. Director Leahy provided an overview and some of the history behind California’s regulatory system. Throughout the event, attendees heard from local, state and federal partners dedicated to ensuring safe and effective use of pesticides and protecting the employees who handle and apply these materials. Presenters included Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner Ruben Arroyo, Deputy Commissioners Robert Mulherin and Daniel Delgado, and Agricultural and Standards Investigator Celia Sosa. DPR Environmental Program Manager Jahan Motakef and US EPA Project Officer Fabiola Estrada described federal and state pesticide use regulations and local Pest Control Advisers (PCAs) Mike Terry and Matt Bristow demonstrated the steps necessary for the completion of a pest control recommendation. Day one consisted of an eight-hour classroom session covering pesticide registration, efficacy and safety review and pesticide residue sampling. California’s restricted materials permit program and the issuance of operator identification numbers to growers, pest control businesses and other pesticide handlers was also
4
highlighted in the classroom session. Presenters stressed the importance of DPR’s comprehensive Restricted Materials Permit program which, as implemented by the CACs, meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is considered the equivalent of an environmental impact report. The second day of the workshop included a field trip: the growing site of a local Indio vegetable producer. At the site, attendees learned about pest control recommendations from California Licensed PCAs, Mike Terry and Matt Bristow. After determining the need for an insecticide application (water sprayed from a tractor-mounted spray boom), Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office staff performed a mock pesticide mix and load inspection followed by a pesticide application inspection. The applicator employees of the farm were required to wear proper personal protective equipment, review application and use restrictions on the pesticide label and complete the application in compliance with all label and regulatory requirements. Presentations designed for Environmental Justice groups are an effective way to ensure that community organizers, farmworker advocacy groups and the general public understand the allencompassing character of California’s pesticide use regulations. Many attendees of the Indio workshop were unaware of the central role of PCAs in farm and pest management. The concept that carefully chosen and safely handled and applied pesticides are but one tool in a pest manager’s toolbox was new to many in the group. PCAs provide the expertise necessary for growers and pest control businesses to choose the most efficient tool to achieve the desired result. Working together, regulators, growers, pest control businesses and PCAs have the ability to inform interested groups of the value that safe and effective pest management provide our communities. Events such as this are opportunities to demonstrate the collaborative nature of California’s pesticide regulatory program and the vital part that PCAs play in this important system.
Lisa Blecker and Anna Katrina Hunter, Pesticide Safety Education Program Coordinator and Pesticide Safety Writer, UC Statewide IPM Program Public concern regarding the risk of illness from long-term exposure to glyphosate is on the rise with a jury’s deliberations in the San Francisco Superior Court in August of last year, and another related trial in March. As a result, thousands of related lawsuits across the country are now pending. It is an important reminder that when choosing to apply this common herbicide for weed control, or any pesticide, to ensure that you wear the right personal protective equipment or PPE. That is because on average one in three reports of pesticide illness involving poisoning or skin injury are due to handler failure to wear the appropriate PPE, according to a 2013 review of the previous ten years from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). Eye injury is common, contributing to more than half of all handler illness cases, while skin injury represents one out of three reports. These injuries can occur either alone or in combination with other pesticide illness symptoms or injuries. In 2015, there were eight cases of handler pesticide illness related to glyphosate. Two of these cases were eye injuries from failure to wear the appropriate PPE while applying glyphosate alone or in combination with other products, according to a California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program review.
Recent Assessments of Glyphosate Toxicity After reviewing toxicity studies on glyphosate based on “limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals,” in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a Group 2A agent: “probably carcinogenic to humans,” sparking immediate debate regarding its health risks. Other agencies have not classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Tarazona, 2017). According to a review of existing glyphosate toxicology data, even when given a number of reasonable worst-case assumptions, exposures to glyphosate in the general public are less than the European Food and Safety Authority’s Acceptable Daily Intake and the U.S. EPA’s Reference Dose.
This finding applies to applicators as well including those with the most exposure to glyphosate (Solomon, 2016). Determining the toxicity of pesticides like glyphosate Most commercial glyphosate products have a signal word of “CAUTION” that is found under the precautionary statements section of a pesticide label. In a general sense, caution means that a product is slightly toxic if eaten, absorbed through the skin, inhaled or it causes slight eye and skin irritation. Glyphosate products with the signal word “CAUTION” may warn of moderate eye irritation, harm if inhaled and to avoid contact with eyes and clothing and breathing in the vapor from spray mist (Fig. 1). Some glyphosate products have the signal
Fig 1. An example Precautionary Statements for Glyphosate Products with a Caution or Warning Label.
It is clear, selecting the appropriate PPE and wearing it correctly reduces the risk of pesticide-related illness. If you do not have access to the right PPE, or it is not functioning properly, you must notify your employer of any equipment issue that interferes with following the PPE requirements on the label and the minimum requirements for PPE in California.
PPE is critical not only for personal safety, but also to maintain compliance with applicator licensure. The pesticide label is more than a document, it is binding in a court of law.
The precautionary statement warns of undesired effects from immediate exposure and how to protect themselves with the appropriate protective equipment. Not all California PPE requirements are found on labels. 5
PRE-BLOOM ISSUE
Choosing the right PPE when applying glyphosate
word “WARNING” on the label (Fig. 1). The signal word warning means the pesticide is moderately toxic if eaten, absorbed through the skin, inhaled, or it causes moderate eye or skin irritation. Glyphosate products with the signal word “WARNING” may advise against contact with eyes or clothing because the product causes substantial but temporary eye injury among other warnings. Signal words describe the effects of acute or immediate toxicity from unprotected pesticide handling. Acute toxicity is a measure of the lethal dose or concentration that causes death in fifty percent of experimental animals treated with the product. It does not demonstrate effects from long-term exposure such as cancer, birth defects, or reproductive toxicity that may occur at levels below those that cause death (NPIC, 2008). While pesticide labels do not warn against specific chronic health issues associated with their use, PPE, safe handling procedures, and pesticide label instructions reduce long-term or chronic pesticide handler health risks. PPE for glyphosate handlers For now, there are no changes to PPE requirements for any glyphosate herbicide product label since the active ingredient’s addition to the Proposition 65 list on July 7, 2017. This list contains chemicals known to cause cancer and updated by the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Most glyphosate products with a “CAUTION” label have the PPE requirement for applicators to wear long sleeves, pants, shoes, and socks, but for those glyphosate products with a “WARNING” label, coveralls are required in California when handling pesticides with a “WARNING” or “DANGER” signal word. For those making applications with backpack sprayers that are known to leak during an application, consider wearing coveralls for glyphosate products rated “CAUTION” in following the label’s advisory against product contact with clothing (Fig. 1).
6
Fig 2. Glove Selection Category Key
Glyphosate product labels may require chemical resistant gloves in the Category A. While the labels provide example glove materials, note that Category A includes all 8 chemical resistant materials.
The minimum required PPE for pesticide handlers in California specifies that chemical-resistant gloves and protective eyewear are required for most tasks even if the label doesn’t . This section is detailed in the California Code of Regulation and is often stricter than the PPE listed on pesticide labels (Section 6738.1 (CCR 2015a)).
Pesticide product labels are required to reference the protective glove materials on labels, and they do so either by specifying by name (e.g., nitrile, butyl, etc.) or by code (A through H). The California Department of Pesticide Regulation developed a walletsized Glove Category Selection Key (Fig.2) to help label readers identify the correct glove material for their situation.
Gloves Chemical-resistant glove materials are limited to barrier laminate, butyl rubber, nitrile rubber, neoprene rubber, natural rubber, polyethelyene, polyvinylchloride (PVC), and viton rubber. Gloves made of most chemical-resistant materials need to be 14 mils (1 mil=0.001 inch) or thicker when handling pesticides. The only exemptions are polyethylene and barrier laminate, which can be any thickness (CCR 2015c).
Eyewear Handlers must wear the type of eyewear that is specified by the pesticide product labeling. If the label does not specify that eyewear is required, handlers can choose to wear either a face shield, goggles, or safety glasses that provide front, side, and brow protection (CCR 2015b). If you wear prescription glasses, your glasses must not interfere with the function of the protective eyewear.
If the label does not specify that gloves are required, or if it only states that chemicalresistant or waterproof gloves are required, handlers can choose to wear gloves of any chemical-resistant material, provided they are the appropriate thickness.
All types of protective eyewear must be labeled “Z87.1” or “Z87+” to indicate that it meets the 2010 American National Standards Institute standard for impact resistance (ANSI Z87.1). This is done using permanent, raised lettering (Fig. 3). This label means that the manufacturer certifies that its eyewear meets the
defined baseline of protection. If eyewear tends to fog up, anti-fog lenses and coatings are available to prevent this issue.
References
In short, the PPE listed under the precautionary statements of the pesticide label, and in California regulation, provide a barrier between your body and the pesticide. Remember to read and follow equipment requirements on all labels including complying with the minimum PPE requirements in California to protect yourself from the unwanted effects of acute and chronic exposure.
Reuters. Environment. 15 Nov. 2018. Web. 29, Nov. 2018.
Fig 3. Z87.1 rated eyewear: Glyphosate product labels may require “protective eyewear” and is required in California even if the label does not. Eyewear must meet impact resistance requirements with a rating of Z87.1 identifiable on the eyewear.
Bellon, Tina. “California judge orders next Monsanto weed killer cancer trial for March.”
CCR. 2015a. Title 3 California Code of Regulations Section 6738.1 Personal Protective Equipment Use. Thomas Reuters Westlaw California Code of Regulations. https://govt. westlaw.com/calregs/ (accessed Dec. 15, 2017). CCR. 2015b. Title 3 California Code of Regulations Section 6738.2 Selection of Protective Eyewear. Thomas Reuters Westlaw California Code of Regulations. https://govt. westlaw.com/calregs/ (accessed Dec. 15, 2017). CCR. 2015c. Title 3 California Code of Regulations Section 6738.3 Selection of Gloves. Thomas Reuters Westlaw California Code of Regulations. https://govt.westlaw.com/ calregs/(accessed Dec. 15, 2017). DPR. 2013. Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/ pisp.htm (accessed Dec. 15, 2017). DPR. 2013. Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/ pisp.htm (accessed Nov. 29, 2018). EPA. 2016. Table 3. EPA Chemical Resistance Category Selection Chart for Gloves found in Label Review Manual, Chapter 10: Worker Protection Label. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/sites/ production/files/2016-02/documents/chap10-feb-2016.pdf (accessed Dec. 15, 2017). Tarazona, Jose V et al. “Glyphosate toxicity and carcinogenicity: a review of the scientific basis of the European Union assessment and its differences with IARC” Archives of toxicology vol. 91,8 (2017): 2723-2743. Keith R. Solomon. (2016) Glyphosate in the general population and in applicators: a critical review of studies on exposures. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 46:sup1, pages 21-27. National Pesticide Information Center. Oregon State University. Signal Words Topic Fact Sheet. July 2008. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/ signalwords.pdf University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. G1955. Understanding the Pesticide Label. Rev. May 2015. http://extensionpublications. unl.edu/assets/pdf/g1955.pdf
7
PRE-BLOOM ISSUE
A new mobile app to augment:
California’s pesticide incident reporting system Eric Lauritzen, Policy Advisor, California Department of Pesticide Regulation The California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (DPR) mission is to protect human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use and by fostering reduced-risk pest management strategies. Various methods, including email and telephone, are currently available for the public to report a pesticide incident or concern. DPR is aware of public concern that some pesticide incidents, including injuries and illnesses may not be reported for a variety of reasons. To address these concerns and to provide another method to report issues, DPR has created a mobile app to report a pesticide illness, incident or concern, quickly and easily. DPR, in collaboration with county agricultural commissioners (CAC’s), provides education and outreach to farmworkers and others to increase awareness of employer’s responsibilities required by the Worker Protection Standards (WPS). We also conduct outreach to workers and others in nonagricultural settings and urban environments. The WPS are designed to reduce the risk of pesticide exposure to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. Through education and outreach, DPR and CACs provide broad training, including encouragement to farmworkers and others to report potential pesticide exposure incidents and concerns. To take advantage of the expanding use of mobile technology in the urban and agricultural sectors, DPR contracted with CaliCo Solutions to develop a mobile app for reporting pesticide incidents and concerns. Through this app, DPR hopes to make it easier for anyone, including farmworkers, growers and others to make timely reports of pesticide issues to the appropriate pesticide regulatory authority. We also expect the app to be another important tool in enhancing the processing, tracking, and timeliness of initiating responses to pesticide incidents as appropriate, as well as evaluating our regulatory programs.
8
Once the mobile app is in use, incoming reports of pesticide incidents will be routed instantly to DPR’s Enforcement Branch and the appropriate county agricultural commissioner. Features of the mobile app include the ability to attach photographs and videos, capture GPS coordinates, allow incident status tracking, and provides the ability to report anonymously, 24 hours a day. The app will be available for download from the DPR web page and through app stores; it is compatible with both Android and iOS operating systems. The mobile app template development by CaliCo, included input from agricultural commissioners and DPR Enforcement staff. Once the first draft was completed, DPR reached out to various interest and stakeholder groups for review and input. DPR and CaliCo continued to solicit input in December and will release a revised app in January. We expect to launch the app in Spring 2019 with careful and continuous evaluation and, as necessary, appropriate modification. The app will be available on our website: www.cdpr.ca.gov If there are any questions or suggestions, please contact Eric Lauritzen at DPR: eric.lauritzen@cdpr.ca.gov or (916) 215-2134.
LET’S PUT
ABILITY IN
SUSTAINABILITY.
™
We’re all working to create a sustainable future for our nation’s food supply. Let us
help get your growers’ operations there faster. We’re Valent Sustainable Solutions. We stand for the science-based, modern grower with proven products and methods
to help them achieve a more sustainable, viable, and profitable operation that is both resilient and enduring.
valentsustainablesolutions.com Always read and follow label instructions.
LET’S BREAK NEW GROUND.™
The Valent Sustainable Solutions Logo, Let’s Put Ability in Sustainability, and Let’s Break New Ground are trademarks of Valent U.S.A. LLC.
PRE-BLOOM ISSUE
The Evolution of Pesticide Use Reporting Juan Hidalgo, Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commissioner
California has the most comprehensive and effective pesticide use laws in the country. Pesticide use reporting plays an important role in monitoring pesticide use and ensuring public and environmental safety. Pesticide use reporting in California has evolved over the years not only expanding the data that must be submitted to County Agricultural Commissioners (CACs) and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) but also on reporting requirements. Limited pesticide use reporting has been in effect in California since at least 1934 (CDPR, 2017, P. 74). In the beginning, only agricultural pest control operators were required to submit monthly reports to CACs. CACs were only required to submit aerial pesticide use data to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), who was at that time responsible for the state’s pesticide regulatory program. Much of the information reported to CACs during this time included location, date, commodity, acres treated, pest, pesticides used and quantity. In 1955, reporting was expanded to include ground applications but did not require reporting the commodity and type of pesticide used. New regulations in 1970
further expanded pesticide use reporting requirements to include all commercial pest control operations, e.g., structural operators and professional gardeners. Growers were also required to report the use of restricted use pesticides. Demands for more complete and accurate pesticide use data to understand dietary risks and potential exposure to fieldworkers in the late 1980s led CDPR to implement full pesticide use reporting in 1990. Growers were now required to report all agricultural pesticide use to CACs who then reported the data to CDPR. Data required to be reported by growers and agricultural pest control operators was more specific than in the past and now included the site location identified by section, township, and range, a site identification number (issued by CACs), name of the operator, and planted acres and treated acres. Full pesticide use reporting significantly increased the amount of data CACs had to manage. In 1991, DPR developed the California Electronic Data Transfer System (CEDTS) in an effort to increase data entry efficiency and accuracy (CDPR, 2001, P. 70). The program was developed
Figure 1. Pesticide use reporting trends show a dramatic increase in electronic submissions from 2012 to 2018. Source: CalAgPermits
in collaboration with the University of California and the Kern County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. Using a modem, CEDTS allowed growers and operators to submit data electronically to CACs regardless of the software program used so long as it met the CEDTS specified transmission format. While this option was well received its adoption was slow. The majority of pesticide use reports submitted by operators were hand written in approved triplicate copy forms. These forms allowed the operator submitting the report to keep a copy for their records, and submit copies to both the CAC and CDPR. To increase the accuracy of data received from operators, CACs entered into contracts with CDPR to have dedicated staff enter the pesticide use data into DOS (Disk Operating System) based computer programs that were used by counties to issue Operator Identification Numbers or California Restricted Material Permits to growers. These programs included the Restricted Materials Management System (RMMS) and the Restricted Materials Permit Program (RMMP). Data entered into these programs could then be submitted electronically to CDPR by copying it on a data disk and mailing it or by downloading the information into zip files that could be emailed. This made it easier for CDPR to process and compile all the data received from individual counties. In the late 90s use of the internet grew and new interface options were explored by software companies interested in helping operators submit pesticide use reports electronically. In the early to mid-2000s, there were several third-party software companies providing electronic pesticide use reporting options to operators. The number of electronic submissions received by CACs began to slowly increase thereby reducing the amount of time spent by staff to manually enter the data. Unfortunately, programs used by CACs to manage the information were becoming outdated and a solution
10
was needed to increase the efficiency of data management and make it easier for operators to submit data electronically. In 2010, a collaboration between CDPR and the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association (CACASA) saw the development of CalAgPermits to replace the aging RMMS and RMMP programs. The new program was launched in mid-2011 and was in full use by all 58 counties by 2012. CalAgPermits uses a comprehensive windows-based approach to manage the issuance of California Restricted Materials Permits, Operator Identification Numbers and pesticide use reporting data with integrated mapping of agricultural sites. CAC staff are also able to create user accounts for growers allowing them to view their permit online and to submit electronic pesticide use reports through easy to use drop down menu options. CalAgPermits dramatically increased the ability of third-party software companies to submit electronic pesticide use report on behalf of agricultural operators.
Prior to 2012, it is estimated that electronic agricultural pesticide use data reporting accounted for about 40% of total submissions. Since 2012, when CalAgPermits came online, submission of electronic agricultural pesticide use reports has steadily increased each year and the statewide percentage of electronic submissions is now at 84%! While there were some challenges early on regarding data rejections by the system and duplication of data during the transition from manual entries by CAC staff to electronic entries by operators, CalAgPermits has been instrumental in expanding options for electronic data submission. The program has given operators the option to easily report pesticide use through its user-friendly interface while also being flexible in accepting electronic submissions from third-party sources. Thanks to new technologies it has never been easier to submit pesticide use reports.
References
California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). A Guide to Pesticide Regulation in California: 2017 Update. https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pressrls/ dprguide.htm California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). Regulating Pesticides: The California Story. 2001. https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/ pressrls/dprguide/dprguide2001.pdf
Kocide® 3000-O for Apples and Nuts:
Trusted, Proven and Reliable Kocide® products have been grower approved for over 50 years. Now Kocide® 3000-O is organic and OMRI listed. Trust Kocide 3000-O to deliver reliable performance from the most technologically advanced organic copper fungicide on the market today. Its enhanced BioActive™ technology helps to 800.250.5024 www.certisusa.com
provide control with lower metallic copper use rates. Tested and proven by Universities around the world, Kocide 3000-O effectively controls many tree fruit and grape diseases and is available in convenient 4- and 10-lb. bags. Kocide® and BioActive™ are trademarks of Kocide LLC. Certis is a registered trademark of Certis USA, L.L.C. © 2019 Kocide LLC.
11
PRE-BLOOM ISSUE
Cannabis Regulation Update Josh Huntsinger, Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer of Weights and Measures, Placer County In October of 2015, Governor Brown signed a package of three bills into law that were collectively known as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. Those signatures kicked off a frenzy of activity by local government officials, state regulators, business owners, industry associations, and others as everyone tried to understand the new laws and position themselves to further their individual interests. Local county agricultural commissioners, who are responsible for regulating agricultural production and pesticide use in each county, have been frequently tasked by their boards of supervisors to provide input and guidance on how to proceed with the newlylegalized plant. So began a journey for me, similar to many others, to try and understand the complexities surrounding the cultivation, distribution and sales of a plant that, while legal in certain circumstances according to state law, represents a potential felony at the federal level. Coupled with wildlydivergent public opinion, marijuana, also called cannabis, has all the necessary ingredients to be one of the most complex and controversial issues of modern times. One of the first things that is important to do is to try to separate the historical problems associated with cannabis cultivation from the way it could look in a well-regulated system. Many of the stereotypical problems associated with illicit cannabis cultivation - such as trespassing, pesticide misuse, clearcutting and water theft - can be greatly reduced or eliminated when growers operate in a regulated environment. As one California Fish and Wildlife warden recently said, “we would put broccoli farmers in jail if they grew their plants this way.” For cannabis farmers entering the regulated market, pesticide use is one of the areas where the conflict between 12
state and federal law is most apparent. All pesticides are first registered for use by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and also registered for use in California by the state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). In order for a pesticide to legally be used on a particular crop, that crop must specifically be listed on the registered pesticide label. Because cannabis is illegal according to federal law, EPA has refused to register any pesticides for use on cannabis. At the state level, DPR is doing its best to provide state-licensed cannabis growers with guidance and options to protect their crops, while also ensuring that pesticides are only used according to the requirements of their registered labels. To date, DPR has published two documents to provide guidance to cannabis growers regarding what pesticides may be allowed or prohibited. The first document, titled “Cannabis Pesticides That Are Legal to Use,” establishes criteria that can be used by growers and PCAs to determine what pesticides are legal to use. The document establishes that the use of pesticides with active ingredients that are exempt from residue tolerance requirements and the product is either exempt from registration requirements or registered for a use that is broad enough to include use on cannabis should not be considered “use in conflict” with the registered label. Although no products are explicitly allowed or authorized for use, the use of materials meeting these criteria would not create a violation based on use in conflict with the pesticide label. Aside from the list of crops, all other requirements found on each individual label would apply similar to any other application. The second document, titled “Cannabis Pesticides That CANNOT Be Used,”
provides guidance on categories of pesticides that are explicitly prohibited for use on cannabis based on their potential hazard to human health and safety or the environment. The categories of pesticides on the “CANNOT Be Used” list include pesticides not registered for a food use in California, California Restricted Material including Federal Restricted Use Pesticides (3CCR section 6400), and pesticides listed on the groundwater protection list (3CCR section 6800). While many pesticides may clearly belong on one list or the other, there are many products that fall somewhere in between. The determination of what pesticides are “registered for a use that is broad enough to include use on cannabis” is especially difficult to determine. For those pesticides that do not clearly fall into one of the lists, DPR is advising cannabis growers to refer specific label interpretation questions to the local county agricultural commissioner, who can assist in making a determination on whether or not use on cannabis would be in conflict with the particular label. California’s efforts to regulate cannabis cultivation are still very new. Everyone in the system including growers, government regulators, and certainly pest control advisers and applicators, are doing their best to learn how to work together and create a system that works in spite of the many challenges that exist. It will take time for a standardized or “normal” system to emerge as all parties figure out what works and share that information with others. In the meantime, everyone involved should do their best to communicate and ask questions when the boundaries are not clear. While not every agricultural commissioner is involved in licensed cannabis activities, those who are, are eager to work with the industry and pest control advisers/applicators to identify pesticide products that are legal to use and effective in protecting the state’s newest crop.
Organic Solutions that work as smart as you do.
Valent U.S.A., the leader in solutions for organic production, offers a wide range of products to improve and protect crops— insecticides, fungicides, PGRs and soil and seed applied solutions. Our products can be used in conventional farming as part of a rotational program for integrated pest management. From root tip to leaf tip, we help you maximize your crop. Visit ValentOrganics.com to learn more.
Always read and follow label instructions. Products That Work, From People Who Care is a registered trademark of Valent U.S.A. LLC. DiPel is a registered trademark of Valent BioSciences LLC. PyGanic is a registered trademark of McLaughlin Gormley King Company. MycoApply is a trademark, and the MycoApply logo is a registered trademark of Mycorrhizal Applications, LLC. ©2018 Valent U.S.A. LLC. All rights reserved. DiPel DF, PyGanic and MycoApply EndoMaxx are NOP compliant and OMRI listed for organic production.
®
2019 CAPCA Ed & Chapter Events DATE
LOCATION
EVENT TITLE
SPONSOR
02/07/19
Visalia
Tulare-Kings Chapter Label Update
Tulare-Kings Chapter
02/13/19
Santa Paula
Ventura Chapter CE Meeting
Ventura Chapter
02/21/19
Stockton
Central Valley Chapter CE Meeting
Central Valley Chapter
03/ 12-13 /19
Fresno
CDFA/UC Nitrogen Certification
CAPCA State Office
03/14/19
Fresno
Fresno-Madera Chapter Spring Update
Fresno-Madera Chapter
03/20/19
Ontario
CAPCA Ed CE Meeting
CAPCA Ed & UC ANR
03/26/19
Pleasant Hill
San Francisco Chapter CE Meeting
SF Bay Chapter
03/28/19
Atascadero
Central Coast Chapter CE Meeting
Central Coast Chapter
04/11/19
Brawley
Desert Valleys Golf Event & CE Mtg
Desert Valleys Chapter
04/ 16-17 /19
Temecula
CAPCA Spring Summit
CAPCA State Office
04/30/19
San Jose
CAPCA Ed CE Meeting
CAPCA Ed
05/02/19
Pomona
SoCal Chapter CE Meeting
SoCal Chapter
05/16/19
Imperial
Desert Valleys CE Meeting
Desert Valleys Chapter
06/05/19
Escondido
Nursery Greenhouse Seminar
San Diego Chapter
06/11/19
Palm Desert
CAPCA Ed & UC ANR
CAPCA Ed
06/12/19
Santa Paula
Ventura Chapter CE Meeting
Ventura Chapter
06/13/19
Blythe
Desert Valleys CE Meeting
Desert Valleys Chapter
08/01/19
La Quinta
Desert Valleys CE Meeting
Desert Valleys Chapter
08/15/19
Simi Valley
CAPCA Ed CE Meeting
CAPCA Ed
08/22/19
Atascadero
Central Coast Chapter CE Meeting
Central Coast Chapter
09/05/19
Sacramento
CAPCA Ed CE Meeting
CAPCA Ed
09/10/19
San Jose
SF Bay Chapter CE Meeting
SF Bay Chapter
09/11/19
Santa Paula
Ventura Chapter CE Meeting
Ventura Chapter
09/11/19
Escondido
Urban Pest Control Seminar
San Diego Chapter
09/12/19
Fresno
Fresno-Madera CE Meeting
Fresno-Madera Chapter
09/26/19
Bakersfield
Kern County Chapter CE Meeting
Kern County Chapter
10/09/19
Arcadia
CAPCA Ed CE Meeting
CAPCA Ed & UC ANR
11/ 3-5 /19
Reno, NV
CAPCA 45th Annual Conference
CAPCA State Office
11/07/19
Tulare
Tulare-Kings Chapter CE Meeting
Tulare-Kings Chapter
11/14/19
Imperial
Desert Valleys CE Meeting
Desert Valleys Chapter
11/14/19
Fresno
Fresno-Madera Label Update
Fresno-Madera Chapter
12/04/19
Escondido
San Diego Chapter CE Meeting
San Diego Chapter
https://capca.com/events/
14
FERTIGATION Education for the 21st Century ITRC and the California Department of Agriculture’s (CDFA) Fer�lizer Research and Educa�on Program (FREP) are proud to announce updates to our educa�onal offerings for fer�ga�on! Second edi�on of popular FerƟgaƟon book Updated short courses and classes
Learn more at www.itrc.org/fer�ga�on
CAPCA
IRRIGATION TRAINING & RESEARCH CENTER California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo
pring ummit
April 16-17, 2019 Register through CAPCA Website
Registration Open Cost $160.00 Begins April 16, 2019 at 1:00 pm Ends April 17, 2019 at 5:00 pm
www.capca.com/events
Pechanga Resort Temecula, California Reservations can be made at the Pechanga Resort by calling 888-732-4264. Identify yourself with the CAPCA Spring Summit booking code # 3488895 Group rate for rooms expires March 15, 2019
We are still building this program. Details will be available in January.
APPLICATOR ALERTS
PRSRT STD US Postage PAID Tucson, AZ Permit No. 271
CAPCA 2300 River Plaza Dr., Ste 120 Sacramento, CA 95833
PR E-BLOOM ISSUE JANUARY 2019 / VOL . IV, NO. 1
APPLICATOR ALERTS