Caroline Griffiths, NEC Executive Director
On August 6, in a very rare move for the agency, the EPA issued an emergency order banning the use of a pesticide with links to severe health impacts in unborn babies. The weedkiller and herbicide dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA), also marketed under the trade name Dacthal, can cause “thyroid hormone perturbations (disturbance or disruption)” in the fetuses of those exposed to the compound, whether they are workers applying the pesticide or simply bystanders. According to the emergency order, “The downstream effects of such hormone perturbations in the fetus may include low birth weight and irreversible and life-long impacts to children exposed in-utero, such as impaired brain development and motor skills.”
DCPA is used on crops like alliums (onion and garlic family), brassicas (broccoli and brussels sprouts), cucurbits (cucumbers, melons, and squash), root and fruiting vegetables, and strawberries, and on golf courses and athletic fields to kill annual grasses and broadleaf “weeds”. While farmworker advocates and anti-pesticide activists are cheering the emergency order, many still wonder why it took the EPA so long to regulate this toxicant that has been banned in the European Union since 2009.
As the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) points out, the EPA knew about the potential carcinogenic nature of DCPA as early as 1995, but didn’t make the manufacturer submit further studies until 2013, and didn’t issue a Notice of Intent to Suspend until 2022. In the meantime, DCPA continued to be sprayed on crops and fields. “That’s nearly three decades worth of exposure to a dangerous herbicide,” PAN said in a statement about the emergency order.
According to the USGS, about 1 billion pounds of pesticides are applied to US croplands and urban areas every year. Pesticide is a blanket term to describe numerous -cides, the compounds used to kill various targets; herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, and insecticides all fall under the category of “pesticide”. The EPA defines it as “any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest”. Although the State of California had been regulating pesticides since 1901, the main goal of the Economic Poisons Act of 1921 and subsequent amendments to it was to discourage fraud and the sale of ineffective pesticides; protecting people and the environment from harm was secondary. Then, as today, the companies manufacturing pesticides claimed that they were perfectly harmless, as long as “used as directed,” and many agricultural producers have been happy to accept that logic because applying chemicals to fields to kill weeds is cheaper than hiring workers to do it.
Anti-pesticide activists are familiar with the challenges of getting agencies to regulate the chemicals used in agriculture. As reported in the December 2022 issue of EcoNews, in response to citizen efforts to ban pesticide use in the early 80s—in Trinity County through the Board of Supervisors in the form of an ordinance and in Mendocino County through the citizen initiative process—the California state legislature held an emergency session. Under pressure from agribusiness it amended the California Food and Agricultural Code to state, “no ordinance or regulation of local government, including, but not limited to, an action by a local governmental agency or department, a county board of supervisors or a city council, or a local regulation adopted by the use of an initiative measure, may prohibit or in any way attempt to regulate any matter relating to the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides, and any of these ordinances, laws, or regulations are void and of no force or effect.”
So, if cities and counties are prohibited from regulating pesticides, and federal agencies are extremely slow to do it (this is the first such order that the EPA has issued in 40 years), what can be done to regulate these “economic poisons”? And are government agencies doing enough to stop the use of toxicants that are known to harm humans and wildlife?
Locally, one effort to stop pesticides from contaminating waterways has been playing out over the last 40 years in the Smith River estuary. The estuary, where the ultra-clean waters of the last undammed river in California (known as Nii~-li~ to the Tolowa Dee-ni’ people) and “crown jewel” of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System meet the Pacific Ocean, is home to the largest concentration of Easter lily bulb farmers in the world. Signs proudly proclaim it to be “The Easter Lily Capital of the World.”
Easter lily bulbs generally spend multiple seasons growing in the ground before they are dug up and sold to nurseries who then grow them out in greenhouses, forcing flower production in time for Easter. The majority of Easter lilies are sold in the two weeks leading up to Easter. They became a symbol of the resurrection of Jesus Christ because Christians believe that as Jesus was crucified, his drops of blood blossomed into lilies when they hit the ground. Churches are major consumers of Easter lilies.
Unfortunately, Easter lily bulb farmers use prodigious amounts of pesticides to keep the bulbs pest-free for the numerous seasons that they are in the ground before they reach commercial size. The Siskiyou Land Conservancy (SLC) released a report in April 2024, The Forty-year History of State Complicity in the Pesticide Poisoning of California’s Wildest River, detailing decades of complaints, water testing, and community health assessments that have had no impact on the amount of pesticides that lily bulb farmers use.
According to that report, in 2021 (the most recent year that data was available) farmers
applied 219,822 pounds of pesticides on approximately 300 acres of Easter lily fields (that is 733 pounds per acre). Many of these chemicals are harmful to humans and deadly to aquatic species who are affected when pesticides are washed into waterways, something that happens often in an estuary in a rainy climate. Pesticides used include the fumigant 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), which is banned in 34 countries including the European Union because it is a known carcinogen and reproductive toxin; metam sodium, a human reproductive and immune system toxicant that is also highly toxic to fish and which is banned in the European Union; phorate, a probable groundwater contaminant that is banned in the EU, China, India, Switzerland, Brazil, the United Kingdom and Turkey, among other nations. According to the EPA phorate “is very highly toxic to fish and wildlife” and warns that “runoff may be hazardous to aquatic organisms in neighboring areas.”
Easter lily bulb farms also use high levels of copper-based fungicides, such as copper hydroxide and copper sulfate. The EPA label for copper hydroxide notes, “This copper product is toxic to fish and aquatic organisms. Unlike most organic pesticides, copper is an element and will not break down in the environment and will therefore accumulate in sediment with repeated applications.” For a more extensive list of the chemicals used on Smith River estuary lily bulb farms, visit siskiyouland.org.
Because these pesticides are technically legal to use in the State of California and municipalities were preemptively prohibited from enacting their own regulations by the state legislature, environmental and health advocates have to pursue other routes to stop the use of toxic chemicals. With the Easter lily bulb farms, groups like the Siskiyou Land Conservancy have pursued solutions through the State Regional Water Quality Control Board since pesticide application in a seasonal wetland impacts water quality. But, as the title of the aforementioned report implies, this agency has done nothing to change the status quo and advocate for human and environmental health in the estuary.
According to SLC, surface water testing by the Water Board in 2010 (which took place in August when runoff would be unlikely) found levels of dissolved copper at 13.7 parts per billion, nearly 28 times higher than the California Toxics Rule allows for freshwater habitat, however this finding resulted in no action from the agency. The Smith River Estuary is home to tidewater goby (endangered) and coho salmon (threatened), and both populations could be severely impacted by accumulated copper contamination. Under pressure, the Water Board tested again in 2013, “revealing that state scientists had uncovered ‘chronic reproductive toxicity’ in three out of four streams that feed the Smith River estuary.”
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in its Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon Recovery Plan of 2014 cited pesticides from lily bulb farms as a major threat to the species. Testing in the estuary in subsequent years turned up levels of pesticides exceeding the EPA’s Aquatic Life Benchmarks, which are used to estimate risk to freshwater organisms from exposure to pesticides and their degradates. As the SLC report states, “The findings demonstrated to most educated observers, including scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service, that Easter lily farmers are, at a minimum, in clear violation of the Clean Water Act, and likely also in violation of the ‘take’ provision of the Endangered Species Act by threatening to eradicate the Smith River’s endangered aquatic species.” In 2018 NMFS sent a letter to the four remaining lily bulb farms in the Smith River estuary to inform them they were likely in violation of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act as their pesticide use, particularly the use of copper-based fungicides, could be resulting in illegal “take” of endangered species.
In response to these test results and public pressure, the Water Board released The Smith River Water Quality Management Plan, which includes a list of voluntary measures that lily bulb farmers could use, as well as best management practices, a move that seems to favor industry over the health of the community and the environment. Under this management plan, farmers self-report once a year on their pesticide use. Additionally, the Water Board has convened a Technical Advisory Group to review a draft Lily Bulb Order, which will regulate discharge from farms. The Order is expected to be adopted in 2026, demonstrating the frustratingly slow speed at which regulation often works.
As Patty Clary, Executive Director of Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (CATs) sees it, the problem is that state agencies have had their power stripped over the years. “A series of Republican governors gutted our natural resource agencies, so now they are disempowered,” says Clary. “And we’re in a budget crisis.” This leaves it up to individuals and organizations to push for enforcement, something that many are reluctant to do, especially in small communities where they may fear backlash for speaking out.
Greg King, director of the Siskiyou Land Conservancy, points out that throughout the years of monitoring pesticide use in the Smith River estuary and talking to residents about health impacts, he has had numerous contacts gradually shy away from going public with their concerns because of fear of the powerful local agriculture industry. Pesticide exposure is most likely to impact farm workers, but often farmworkers are reluctant to speak out due to concerns about reprisal, including loss of income or endangering their citizenship status.
SLC conducted a Community Health Assessment in 2016 in which 14 percent of Smith River residents responded by answering questions about their general health. Responses showed elevated levels of health issues including skin rashes, chronic coughs, headaches, infections, ear problems, heart disease, neurological disorders, and cancer. As one respondent said, “I have watched families with bad wells have high cancer in the family. But then they can have both children with cancer and not want to complain because they live in the place that employs them.”
Chvski Jones-Scott lives in Tolowa Dee-ni’ housing in the town of Smith River. “We’re surrounded by lily bulbs”, she says. She tells of multiple babies born recently with skin growths, “I notice my son coughing. I never wanted to live in Smith River because of the farms. I see my neighbors suffer with health issues. If you’re living in Smith River, you are literally living in poison.”
Jones-Scott’s family has traditionally held a fish camp at the mouth of the river. She says that for several years there were no fish. Last year there were some, but again this year they caught no fish. “As a cultural person, a traditional person, I’m sad that my son didn’t get to eat fish this year. But the biggest concern for me is seeing babies growing up in Tribal Housing who are drinking the water, bathing in the water. I’m at the point where I don’t take a shower in my own house. You can smell the difference, feel the difference, taste the difference in the water.”
Historically, farmworkers are often the first to raise the alarm about pesticide use and many of the regulations that we have resulted from grassroots organizing efforts and public outrage over the impacts of pesticide exposure. Also, laws like the Clean Water Act and California’s Proposition 65 have provisions in them that allow citizens to bring complaints. But, as Clary points out, “Something has to be done at a legislative level to reinvigorate California’s environmental quality laws. State agencies don’t have the resources, so they rely on groups to sue. This is why AB 99 is happening, to reign in herbicide spraying along highways.” Assembly Bill 99 would require Caltrans, a state agency that is estimated to use 400-500 thousand pounds per year of pesticides along state highways, to shift practices to Integrated Pest Management, a model that focuses on pest management through non-chemical means. This legislation came about because of public outcry over a state agency spraying pesticides. As of this writing, AB 99 has moved out of committee and may be headed to the governor’s desk soon.
Another problem that many see is government bending to the whims of industry. In the case of DCPA, the manufacturers themselves had recently voluntarily withdrawn the registration for turf applications of the pesticide. It seems as if their willingness to do that emboldened the EPA to issue the emergency ban for all uses. But we can’t wait around for industry to decide to change its ways. As Clary said, “Waters, whether they have fish in them or not, should not be poisoned by industry trying to lower their costs.” She went on to add, “Unless you are in for the long haul, you won’t be successful.”
Maybe as a sidebar:
Pesticides are made using petrochemicals, meaning they are made from oil and gas. Petrochemicals are the building blocks of plastics, industrial chemicals and agricultural pesticides. As the push to move away from fossil fuels continues, we can expect the oil and gas industry to push for more plastic and chemical production to keep the industry alive.
Local organizations fighting against pesticide use in our forests, fields and communities include:
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (CATs): CATs was founded in 1982 by community groups from throughout northern California who wanted a regional resource center for information and action about hazardous chemicals, especially pesticides, and for promotion of organically produced products. Its mission is to enable its members and the public to gain control over pesticides and other toxic chemicals within the environment of California in ways that will benefit people around the world. Find more at alt2tox.org.
Safe Alternatives for Our Forest Environments (SAFE): SAFE was formed in 1979 in response to massive helicopter spraying of herbicides on public and private timberlands in Trinity County. Find more at safealt.wordpress.com.
Siskiyou Land Conservancy: Founded as a land trust, SLC is the only organization dedicated to eliminating excessive pesticide use on bottom lands that surround the vital Smith River estuary, in Del Norte County. Find more at siskiyouland.org.