In the labyrinthine nature of pesticide reincarnation, it’s hard to know where to begin. 1,3-D (Telone) originated as a byproduct of oil refining.
In the 1930s, Hawaiian pineapple plantations were being decimated by nematodes in the soil; Shell Oil had on hand some barrels of toxic 1,3-D that they had no use for, so they shipped them to Hawaii. Poured into holes in the soil every few inches, the chemical dissolved & spread, effectively killing the nematodes and God-knows-what-else. 1,3-D had found a niche as a master soil fumigant.
Fast forward to the late 1980s, when it was discovered that the highly effective fumigant, methyl bromide, significantly contributed to ozone depletion. The international community signed the Montreal Protocol to phase out methyl bromide over a period of years. Because of its value as a pre-planting fumigant for strawberries, that phase-out dragged out in California.
As recently as 2017 in Santa Cruz County, strawberry growers could be granted “emergency exemptions” to use it. As recently as last year, at times, California’s four pesticide monitoring stations all detect traces of methyl bromide. Rogue use? Pallet fumigation? Pesticide regulators can’t explain.
As methyl bromide was gradually phased out, the toxic air contaminant and carcinogen 1,3-D, or Telone, was being phased in, often combined with chloropicrin, a toxic air contaminant in the tear gas family, similar to what ICE uses in the streets of America. In 1990, pesticide monitors in California’s Central Valley detected dangerously high concentrations. Particularly alarming was one at a middle school in Merced County. The newly minted California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) was concerned enough about 1,3-D’s potential negative impacts on human health they banned 1,3-D use for five years.
Then 1,3-D’s manufacturer, Dow Chemical, which brought us napalm and Saran Wrap, convinced DPR to bring its fumigant back for use in California as a pre-plant fumigant, killing nematodes, boosting yields, and turning the flourishing microbiology of healthy soils into ruins—the microbial equivalent of present-day Gaza. Healthy, robust living soils share nutrients with plants and reduce greenhouse gases. Fumigated soils no longer effectively feed plants or reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. No wonder 1,3-D is banned in 40 countries.
For years, DPR had no firm yardstick as to what levels of 1,3-D, if any, were considered safe, but they assumed the 30 ppb in Merced County was too high. Californians for Pesticide Reform (representing over 200 grassroots citizens groups) sued DPR, demanding that it conduct robust research to establish limits on 1,3-D applications.
Another group under Cal EPA—Office of Environmental Health Hazard Awareness (OEHHA), convened a scientific panel to assess risks of 1,3-D, and in 2022 set a lifetime No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for humans of 0.04 parts per billion (ppb), a tiny amount. In liquid terms, one drop of water in an Olympic size pool equates to one part per billion. 0.04 ppb would be 4/100 of that drop.
Although DPR is also a Cal EPA agency, it ignored OEHHA’s recommendation. California’s pesticide air monitoring stations in California were picking up 1,3-D levels several times OEHHA’s 0.04 ppb NSRL. The environmental community suspected that DPR was being pressured by the huge Big Ag/Big Chem lobbies to set higher, more lax exposure limits.
In 2023 DPR, struggling to get the numbers from their modeling and monitoring to match their targets, set a “residential bystanders” level of 0.56 ppb, 14 times higher than OEHHA’s recommended 0.04 ppb level, yet congruent with what the 1,3-D manufacturer (now re-named Teleos after global buy-outs and consolidations) recommended.
DPR contended that OEHHA’s 0.04 ppb level was not relevant for residential bystanders, but conceded that it had to be used to calculate a threshold for “occupational bystanders”, I.e., farmworkers. They used faulty math, ignoring the fact that many farmworkers live adjacent to fields, work more than 40 hours a week from 8 to 5 and are, in essence both workers and residents. This year, the occupational bystander level, 0.21 ppb, takes effect, while residents living next to the same fields can be exposed to 0.56 ppb.
A lawsuit last year, which was environmental and social justice groups’ third attempt to reign in 1,3-D use, was shut down by a judge more sympathetic to Big Ag than to ag communities. The environmental community, outraged at DPR’s crazy quilt Twilight Zone smorgasbord of fanciful science, corporate lobbying, hallucinating chatbots, and magical thinking, decided to take DPR back to court, with California Rural Legal Assistance taking a lead role. Salinas schoolteacher Ana Barrera, college student Rocio Ortiz, Californians for Pesticide Reform, and the Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network are plaintiffs. In reality, we are all stakeholders in the health and safety of California ag lands.
The two conflicting levels proposed by DPR violate the state Administrative Procedure Act because they are unclear, contradictory and unenforceable. In addition, DPR’s research considers only one pesticide at a time—not the cumulative impacts of multiple pesticides over time. Stay tuned.
•••
TAKE ACTION: Email DPR at cd*****@*****ca.gov; tell them that 1,3-D needs to be phased out in California.
