CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION |
|
January 2005
Any portion
of this report may be reproduced for any but profit-making purposes.
For information
on purchase of additional copies or of electronic data files, see order form
on Page ii.
This report is also available on DPR's Web site www.cdpr.ca.gov.
If you have questions concerning this report, call (916) 324-4100.
- Table of pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported in each county and rank during 2002 and 2003
- Table of pounds of pesticide active ingredients used from 1994 - 2003 by general use categories
V. TRENDS IN PESTICIDE USE IN CERTAIN COMMODITIES
VI. Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2003 Indexed by Chemical This link downloads the compressed ASCII version. This version does not include figures. See UNZIP HELP)
Questions regarding the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data or information regarding the availability and cost of the computerized database should be directed to: Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pest Management and Licensing Branch, P.O. Box 4015, Sacramento, California 95812-4015.Telephone (916) 324-4100.
To continue to make the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data available, it is necessary to charge for the costs of reproduction and mailing. The reports can also be downloaded free of charge from the Department's web site (www.cdpr.ca.gov).
The 1989 - 2002 Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data indexed by chemical or commodity reports can be found on DPR's web at www.cdpr.ca.gov. The Annual Pesticide Use Report Data (the complete database of reported pesticide applications for 1990-2002) are available on CD ROM. The files are in text (comma delimited format).
The Summary of Pesticide Use
Report Data is available in two formats. One report is indexed by chemical
and lists the amount of each pesticide used, the commodity on which it was
used, the number of agricultural applications, and the acres/units treated.
The second report is indexed by commodity and lists the chemicals used, the
number of agricultural applications, amount of pesticides used, and the acres/units
treated.
I. INTRODUCTION
Development and Implementation of the Pesticide Use Reporting System
This 2003 Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data includes agricultural applications and other selected uses reported in California. The report represents a summary of the data gathered under full use reporting. The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) uses the data to help estimate dietary risk and to ensure compliance with clean air laws and ground water protection regulations. Site specific use report data, combined with geographic data on endangered species habitats, also helps county agricultural commissioners resolve potential pesticide use conflicts. Detailed, individual pesticide use report data may be obtained from DPR for in-depth, analytical purposes.To provide public access to the data as soon as possible, DPR is releasing the 2003 data before the majority of error corrections have been completed. Values have been substituted for some errors (see Outliers), but data correction is ongoing.
Under full use reporting, which began in 1990, California became the first state to require reporting of all agricultural pesticide use, including amounts applied and types of crops or places (e.g., structures, roadsides) treated. Commercial applications-including structural fumigation, pest control, and turf applications-must also be reported. The main exceptions to full use reporting are home and garden applications, and most industrial and institutional uses. Pesticide use reporting is explained in more detail below.
Types of Pesticide Applications Reported
Partial reporting of agricultural pesticide use has been in place in California since at least the 1950s. Beginning in 1970, anyone who used restricted materials was required to file a pesticide use report with the county agricultural commissioner. The criteria established to designate a pesticide as a restricted material include hazard to public health, farm workers, domestic animals, honeybees, the environment, wildlife, or other crops. Restricted materials, with certain exceptions, may be possessed or used only by, or under the supervision of, licensed or certified persons and only in accordance with an annual permit issued by the county agricultural commissioner.
In addition, the State required commercial pest control operators (those in the business of applying pesticides, such as agricultural applicators, structural fumigators, and professional gardeners) to report all pesticides used, whether restricted or nonrestricted. These reports included information about the pesticide applied, when and where the application was made, and the crop involved if the application was in agriculture. The reports were entered into a computerized database and summarized by chemical and crop in annual reports.
With implementation of full use reporting in 1990, the following pesticide uses are required to be reported to the commissioner, who, in turn, reports the data to DPR:
• For the production of any
agricultural commodity, except livestock.
• For the treatment of postharvest agricultural commodities.
• For landscape maintenance in parks, golf courses, and cemeteries.
• For roadside and railroad rights-of-way.
• For poultry and fish production.
• Any application of a restricted material.
• Any application of a pesticide with the potential to pollute ground
water (listed in section 6800 (b) of the California Code of Regulations, Title
3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1) when used outdoors in industrial
and institutional settings.
• Any application by a licensed pest control operator.
The primary exceptions to the use reporting requirements are home and garden use and most industrial and institutional uses.
How Pesticide Data Are Used
DPR undertook the expansion of use reporting primarily in response to concerns of many individuals and groups, including government officials, scientists, farmers, legislators, and public interest groups. It was generally acknowledged that the system for estimating dietary exposure to pesticide residues did not provide sufficient data on which to make realistic assessments; this often resulted in overestimates of risk. Farm worker representatives were also demanding more information to determine exposure and potential risk to those who handle pesticides or who work in treated fields.There are several key areas in which data generated by full use reporting are proving beneficial.
Risk Assessment
Without information on actual pesticide use, regulatory agencies conducting risk assessment assume all planted crop acreage is treated with many pesticides, though most crops are treated with just a few chemicals. If the assumptions used by regulatory agencies are incorrect, regulators could make judgments on pesticide risks that are too cautious by several orders of magnitude, reducing the credibility of risk management decisions. The use report data, on the other hand, provides actual use data so DPR can better assess risk and make more realistic risk management decisions.
After the passage of the federal Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996, complete pesticide
use data became even more important to commodity groups in California and to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). FQPA
contains a new food safety standard against which all pesticide tolerances must be measured. The increased interest in the state's pesticide use
data, especially for calculating percent crop treated, came at a time when DPR was increasing the efficiency with which it produced its annual report.
DPR was able to provide up-to-date use data and summaries to commodity groups, University of California specialists, U.S. EPA programs, and
other interested parties as they developed the necessary information for the reassessment of existing tolerances.
Worker Health and Safety
Under the reporting regulations, pest control operators must give farmers a written notice after every pesticide application that includes the date and time the application was completed, and the reentry and preharvest intervals (respectively, the intervals between the time a pesticide is applied and when workers may enter the field, and the time of application and when a commodity can be harvested). This notice gives the farmer accurate information to help keep workers from entering fields prematurely, and also lets the farmer know the earliest date a commodity can be harvested.
DPR's Worker Health and Safety
Branch also uses the data for worker exposure assessment as part of developing
an overall risk characterization document. Use data helps scientists estimate
typical applications and how often pesticides are used.
Public Health
The expanded reporting system provides DPR and the State Department of Health Services with complete pesticide use data for evaluating possible human illness clusters in epidemiological studies.Endangered Species
DPR is working with the commissioners to combine site-specific use report data with geographic information system-based data on locations of endangered species. The resulting database helps commissioners resolve potential conflicts over pesticide use when endangered species may occur. DPR and the commissioners can also examine patterns of pesticide use near habitats to determine the potential impact of proposed use limitations. With location-specific data on pesticide use, restrictions on use can be better designed to protect endangered species while still allowing necessary pest control.
Water Quality
In meeting the requirements of the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act of 1985, site-specific records help track pesticide use in areas known to be susceptible to ground water contamination. Determinations can also be made from the records on whether a contaminated well is physically associated with agricultural practices. These records also provide data to help researchers determine why certain soil types are more prone to ground water contamination.Since 1983, DPR has had a program to work with the rice industry and the
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to reduce contamination
of surface water by rice pesticides. Using PUR data to help in pinpointing
specific agricultural practices, more precise alternative use recommendations
can be made to assure protection of surface water.
Air Quality
Many pesticide products contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that contribute to the formation of smog. DPR worked with the state Air Resources Board to put together a State Implementation Plan under the federal Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of all sources of VOCs, including pesticides, in nonattainment areas of the state. DPR's contribution to the plan included accurate data on the amount of VOCs contained in pesticides and the ability to inventory the use of those pesticides through pesticide use reporting.
Pest Management
The Department uses the PUR database to understand patterns and changes in pest management practices. This information can be used to determine possible alternatives to pesticides that are subject to regulatory actions and to help determine possible impacts of different regulatory actions on pest management.The PUR is used to help meet the needs of FQPA, which requires pesticide use information for determining the appropriateness of pesticide residue tolerances. As part of this process many commodity groups have created crop profiles, which include information on the pest management practices and available options, both chemical and nonchemical. Pesticide use data is critical to developing these lists of practices and options.
The PUR data have been used to support and assess grant projects for a grant program conducted by DPR to develop, demonstrate and implement reduced-hazard pest management strategies from 1995 to 2003. Due to the statewide budget shortfall, no funds are available to offer grants. Currently, the PUR data is used in several projects that build on work conducted in our grant program in the almond and stonefruit industries. In these and other projects, the PUR data are used to address regional pesticide use patterns and environmental problems such as water and air quality. The data are used to better understand current changes in pesticide use.
DPR has published general analyses
of statewide pesticide use patterns and trends. The first analysis covered
the years 1991 to 1995, and the second more detailed analysis covered 1991
to 1996. These analyses identified high-use pesticides, the crops to which
those pesticides were applied, trends in use, and the pesticides most responsible
for changes in use. In addition, since 1997, the annual Summary of Pesticide
Use Report Data reports include summary trends of pesticides in several different
categories such as carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and ground water contaminants.
Processor and Retailer Requirements
Food processors, produce packers, and retailers often require farmers to submit a complete history of pesticide use on crops. DPR's use report form often satisfies this requirement.II. COMMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS OF DATA
The following comments and points should be taken into consideration when analyzing data contained in this report:
Terminology
The following terminology is used in this report:
Number of agricultural applications - Number of applications of
pesticide product made to production agriculture. More detailed information
is given below under "Number of Applications."
Pounds applied - Number of pounds of an active ingredient.
Unit type - The amount listed in this column is one of the following:
A = Acreage
C = Cubic feet (of commodity treated)
K = Thousand cubic feet (of commodity treated)
P = Pounds (of commodity treated)
S = Square feet
T = Tons (of commodity treated)
U = Miscellaneous units (e.g., number of tractors, trees, bins, etc.)
Plants and commodities grown in greenhouse and nursery operations represented a challenge in use reporting because of their diversity. Six commodity groupings were suggested by industry in 1990 and incorporate terminology that are generally known and accepted. The six use reporting categories are: greenhouse-grown cut flowers or greens; outdoor-grown cut flowers or greens; greenhouse-grown plants in containers; outdoor container/field-grown plants; greenhouse-grown transplants/propagative material; and outdoor-grown transplants/propagative material.
Tomatoes and grapes were also separated
into two categories because of public and processor interest in differentiating
pesticide use. Tomatoes are assigned two codes to differentiate between fresh
market and processing categories. One code was assigned to table grapes, which
includes grapes grown for fresh market, raisins, canning, or juicing. A second
code was assigned to wine grapes.
Unregistered Use
The report contains entries that reflect the use of a pesticide on a commodity for which the pesticide is not currently registered. This sometimes occurs because the original use report was in error, that is, either the pesticide or the commodity was inaccurately reported. DPR's computer program checks that the commodity is listed on the label, but nonetheless such errors appear in the PUR, possibly because of errors in the label database. Also, the computer program does not check whether the pesticide product was registered at the time of application. For example, parathion (ethyl parathion) is shown reported on crops after most uses were suspended in 1992. (These records continue to be researched and corrected.) DPR is continuing to implement methods to identify and reduce these types of reporting errors in future reports. Other instances may occur because by law, growers are sometimes allowed to use stock they have on hand of a pesticide product that has been withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer or suspended or canceled by regulatory authorities.Other reporting "errors"
may occur when a pesticide is applied directly to a site to control a particular
pest, but is not applied directly to the crop in the field. A grower may use
an herbicide to treat weeds on the edge of a field, a fumigant on bare soil
prior to planting, or a rodenticide to treat rodent burrows. For example, reporting
the use of the herbicide glyphosate on tomatoes - when it was actually applied
to bare soil prior to planting the tomatoes - could be perceived to be an error.
Although technically incorrect, recording the data as if the application were
made directly to the commodity provides valuable crop usage information for
DPR's regulatory program.
Adjuvants
Data on spray adjuvants (including emulsifiers, wetting agents, foam suppressants, and other efficacy enhancers), not reported prior to full use reporting, are now included. Examples of these types of chemicals include the "alkyls" and some petroleum distillates. (Adjuvants are exempt from federal registration requirements, but must be registered as pesticides in California.)Zero Pounds Applied
There are a few entries in this report in which the total pounds applied for certain active ingredients are displayed as zero. This is because the chemical (active ingredient) made up a very small percentage of the formulated product that was used. When these products are applied in extremely low quantities, the resulting value of the active ingredient is too low to register an amount.Acres Treated
The summary information in this annual report cannot be used to determine the total number of acres of a crop to which pesticides were applied during the year. Sometimes the product used contains more than one active ingredient. (In any pesticide product, the active ingredient is the component which kills, or otherwise controls, target pests. A pesticide product is made up of one or more active ingredients, as well as one or more inert ingredients.) For example, if a 20-acre field is treated with a product that contains three different pesticide active ingredients, a use report is filed by the farmer correctly recording the application of a single pesticide product to 20 acres. However, in the summary tables, the three different active ingredients will each have recorded 20 acres treated. Adding these values results in a total of 60 acres as being treated instead of the 20 acres actually treated. A similar problem occurs when the same field is treated more than once in the year with the same active ingredient.
Number of Applications
The values for number of applications include only production agricultural applications. Applicators are required to submit one of two basic types of use reports, a production agricultural report or a monthly summary report. The production agricultural report must include information for each application. The monthly summary report, for all uses other than production agriculture, includes only monthly totals for all applications of pesticide product, site or commodity, and applicator. The total number of applications in the monthly summary reports are not consistently given so they are no longer included in the totals. In the annual PUR reports before 1997, each monthly summary report was counted as one application.In the annual summary report by commodity, the total number of applications
given for each commodity may not equal the sum of all applications of each active
ingredient on that commodity. As explained above, some pesticide products contain
more than one active ingredient. If the number of applications were summed for
each active ingredient in such a product, the total number of applications would
be more than one, even though only one application of the product was made.
The totals given in the annual summary report take into account such multiple
active ingredient products and counts each as only one application.
Outliers
In calculating the total pounds of pesticides used in these tables, DPR excluded values for rates of use which were so large they were probably in error. Errors occur, for example, when those reporting pesticide use shift decimal points during data entry. DPR specialists spent more than a year developing, testing, and implementing software to detect probable errors (outliers). Pesticide rates were considered outliers if (1) they were higher than 200 pounds of active ingredient per acre (or greater than 1,000 pounds per acre for fumigants); (2) they were 50 times larger than the median rate for all uses with the same pesticide product, crop treated, unit treated, and record type (that is, production agricultural or all other use); or (3) they were higher than a value determined by a neural network procedure that approximates what a group of 12 scientists believed were obvious outliers. Although these criteria removed less than one percent of the rate values in the PUR, some rates were so large that if included in the sums, they would have significantly affected total pounds applied of some pesticides. (The outliers are excluded from the total pounds in the summary reports but remain in the database.)For the years 1991 to 1998, we determined whether or not a use rate was an outlier based on the distribution of rates for all applications on each crop and pesticide during the year of its application. For the 1999 PUR we determined outliers in two stages. In the first stage, outliers were identified as data that came to DPR from the counties during the year but based on the distribution of rates from the previous year. This procedure allowed us to include outliers in the error reports sent back to the counties. In the second stage, the outlier program was run after all 1999 data were received using the distribution of rates for 1999. This procedure found additional outliers for new products and new uses. For the 2002 PUR, the data was processed in the same manner.
Beginning with the 1999 PUR data, values have been substituted where outliers
were identified in the first phase. Nulls were substituted in numeric fields
identified as outliers, and "???" were substituted in character fields identified
as outliers. A median rate value for use on a commodity/product combination
was substituted where a high rate per acre was the error. In addition, "Unknown"
was substituted where the reported site code was invalid.
III. DATA SUMMARY
This report is a summary of data submitted to DPR. Total pounds may change slightly due to ongoing error correction. The revised numbers will more accurately reflect the total pounds applied.Pesticide Use In California
In 2003, there were175,627,323 pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported used in California. Annual use has varied from year to year since full use reporting was implemented in 1990. Reported pesticide use was 172 million pounds in 2002, 151 million pounds in 2001 (not all of Kern County PUR data was available), 188 million pounds in 2000, 203 million pounds in 1999, 214 million pounds in 1998, and 205 million pounds in 1997.Such variances are, and will continue to be, a normal occurrence. These fluctuations can be attributed to a variety of factors, including changes in planted acreage, crop plantings, pest pressures, and weather conditions. For example, extremely heavy rains result in excessive weeds, thus more pesticides may be used; drought conditions may result in fewer planted acres, thus less pesticide may be used.
As in previous years, the greatest pesticide use occurred in California's San Joaquin Valley
(Table 1). Four counties in this region had the highest use: Fresno, Kern, Tulare, and San Joaquin.
Table 2 breaks down the pounds of pesticide use by general use categories: production agriculture, post-harvest commodity fumigation, structural pest control, landscape maintenance, and all others.
Pesticide
Sales In California
Reported pesticide applications are only a portion of the pesticides sold each year. Typically, about two-thirds of the pesticide active ingredients sold in a given year are not subject to use reporting. Examples of non-reported active ingredients are chlorine (used primarily for municipal water treatment) and home-use pesticide products.
The preliminary figure for 2003 is approximately 570 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients sold in California, 598 million pounds in 2002, 563 million pounds in 2001, 601 million pounds in 2000, 707 million pounds in 1999, 617 million pounds in 1998, and 645 million pounds in 1997. Prior years data are posted on DPR's web site at www.cdpr.ca.gov under programs & services/mill assessment/report of pesticides sold in CA.
In addition, it should be noted
that the pounds of pesticides used and the number of applications are not
necessarily accurate indicators of the extent of pesticide use or, conversely,
the extent of use of reduced-risk pest management methods. For example, farmers
may make a number of small-scale "spot" applications targeted at
problem areas rather than one treatment of a large area. They may replace
a more toxic pesticide used at one pound per acre with a less hazardous compound
that must be applied at several pounds per acre. Either of these scenarios
could increase the number of applications and amount of pounds used without
indicating an increased reliance on pesticides.
Table 1. Total pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported in each county during 2002 and 2003 and its rank among all 58 counties.
County |
2002 total pounds |
Rank |
2003 total pounds |
Rank |
Alameda |
318,304 |
38 |
444,866 |
37 |
Alpine |
254 |
58 |
184 |
58 |
Amador |
100,665 |
44 |
101,889 |
45 |
Butte |
2,856,927 |
18 |
3,062,292 |
17 |
Calaveras |
66,050 |
48 |
57,827 |
49 |
Colusa |
1,805,698 |
23 |
2,088,248 |
22 |
Contra Costa |
580,309 |
35 |
991,118 |
30 |
Del Norte |
373,144 |
37 |
371,176 |
38 |
El Dorado |
96,844 |
45 |
103,487 |
44 |
Fresno |
27,902,384 |
1 |
27,256,367 |
1 |
Glenn |
2,202,642 |
20 |
2,284,461 |
21 |
Humboldt |
38,364 |
50 |
106,514 |
43 |
Imperial |
6,208,528 |
9 |
6,809,038 |
8 |
Inyo |
9,700 |
53 |
51,129 |
50 |
Kern |
22,029,291 |
2 |
23,405,233 |
2 |
Kings |
5,435,060 |
10 |
5,233,435 |
11 |
Lake |
842,738 |
31 |
786,874 |
32 |
Lassen |
172,400 |
43 |
61,347 |
47 |
Los Angeles |
3,534,197 |
13 |
4,071,049 |
12 |
Madera |
9,028,459 |
5 |
8,614,993 |
6 |
Marin |
73,442 |
47 |
59,156 |
48 |
Mariposa |
5,510 |
56 |
16,185 |
53 |
Mendocino |
1,424,069 |
28 |
1,475,689 |
27 |
Merced |
6,832,514 |
7 |
6,839,552 |
7 |
Modoc |
190,727 |
42 |
232,839 |
42 |
Mono |
1,830 |
57 |
24,729 |
52 |
Monterey |
7,816,905 |
6 |
9,329,417 |
5 |
Napa |
2,092,926 |
21 |
1,934,856 |
24 |
Nevada |
59,289 |
49 |
42,098 |
51 |
Orange |
1,699,933 |
24 |
1,669,177 |
25 |
Placer |
308,121 |
39 |
267,931 |
41 |
Plumas |
31,582 |
51 |
14,447 |
54 |
Riverside |
3,247,719 |
16 |
3,340,606 |
14 |
Sacramento |
3,975,151 |
12 |
3,583,177 |
13 |
San Benito |
672,432 |
33 |
743,723 |
34 |
San Bernardino |
466,296 |
36 |
517,707 |
36 |
San Diego |
1,999,610 |
22 |
2,491,141 |
20 |
San Francisco |
20,870 |
52 |
12,085 |
55 |
San Joaquin |
9,402,936 |
4 |
10,203,204 |
4 |
San Luis Obispo |
1,669,364 |
25 |
2,032,708 |
23 |
San Mateo |
223,193 |
41 |
273,279 |
40 |
Santa Barbara |
3,307,718 |
15 |
3,331,883 |
15 |
Santa Clara |
659,457 |
34 |
978,027 |
31 |
Santa Cruz |
1,526,084 |
26 |
1,643,653 |
26 |
Shasta |
299,529 |
40 |
293,445 |
39 |
Sierra |
7,442 |
55 |
4,812 |
57 |
Siskiyou |
879,410 |
30 |
750,180 |
33 |
Solano |
1,234,447 |
29 |
1,089,607 |
29 |
Sonoma |
2,965,045 |
17 |
2,892,958 |
18 |
Stanislaus |
4,594,347 |
11 |
5,573,755 |
10 |
Sutter |
3,519,255 |
14 |
3,305,776 |
16 |
Tehama |
795,587 |
32 |
659,978 |
35 |
Trinity |
7,505 |
54 |
6,917 |
56 |
Tulare |
12,264,042 |
3 |
13,303,523 |
3 |
Tuolumne |
73,549 |
46 |
72,189 |
46 |
Ventura |
6,329,662 |
8 |
6,644,423 |
9 |
Yolo |
2,228,001 |
19 |
2,644,303 |
19 |
Yuba |
1,432,641 |
27 |
1,427,355 |
28 |
Total |
172,086,290 |
175,627,323 |
Table 2. Pounds
of pesticide active ingredients, 1994 - 2003, by general use categories.
Year |
Production Agriculture |
Postharvest Fumigation |
Structural Pest Control |
Landscape Maintenance |
All Others* |
Total Pounds |
1994 |
175,408,663 |
2,004,123 |
5,186,253 |
1,325,560 |
7,430,770 |
191,355,369 |
1995 |
187,577,922 |
3,770,169 |
4,839,368 |
1,382,563 |
7,563,928 |
205,133,950 |
1996 |
182,375,369 |
1,847,859 |
4,738,168 |
1,259,332 |
7,607,752 |
197,828,481 |
1997 |
189,796,122 |
1,608,996 |
5,184,905 |
1,231,788 |
6,957,905 |
204,779,717 |
1998 |
198,568,999 |
1,655,875 |
5,930,988 |
1,405,312 |
6,783,731 |
214,344,905 |
1999 |
185,457,062 |
2,019,542 |
5,673,321 |
1,403,635 |
7,858,041 |
202,411,602 |
2000 |
172,730,676 |
2,143,396 |
5,165,189 |
1,395,598 |
6,728,174 |
188,163,033 |
2001 |
138,842,868 |
1,446,359 |
4,923,647 |
1,290,542 |
6,214,977 |
152,718,393 |
2002 |
152,506,562 |
1,847,353 |
5,467,116 |
1,439,532 |
6,679,534 |
167,940,097 |
2003 |
159,229,155 |
1,821,455 |
5,143,281 |
1,946,478 |
7,487,954 |
175,627,323 |
* This category includes pesticide applications reported in the following general categories: pest control on rights-of-way; public health which includes mosquito abatement work; vertebrate pest control; fumigation of nonfood and nonfeed materials such as lumber, furniture, etc.; pesticide used in research; and regulatory pest control used in ongoing control and/eradication of pest infestations.
IV. TRENDS IN USE IN CERTAIN PESTICIDE CATEGORIES
Reported pesticide use in California in 2003 totaled 175 million pounds, an increase of 7.2 million pounds from 2002. Production agriculture, the major category of use subject to reporting requirements, accounted for most of the overall increase in use. Applications for production agriculture increased by 6.2 million pounds.
The active ingredients with the largest uses by pounds were sulfur, petroleum oils, metam-sodium, and methyl bromide. Sulfur use decreased by 46,000 pounds (-0.1 percent) but was still the most highly used pesticide in 2003, both in pounds applied and acres treated. By pounds, sulfur accounted for 30 percent of all reported pesticide use. Sulfur is a natural fungicide favored by both conventional and organic farmers. Petroleum oil use decreased by 209,000 pounds (-1 percent), metam sodium use decreased by 322,000 pounds (-2 percent), and methyl bromide use increased by 834,000 pounds (13 percent).
Major crops or sites that showed an overall increase in pesticide pounds applied from 2002 to 2003 included almonds (1.4 million pounds increase), strawberries (1.0 million pounds), carrots (0.8 million pounds), rights of way (0.6 million pounds), and rice (0.5 million pounds). Major crops or sites with decreased pounds applied included wine grapes (0.6 million pounds), table and raisin grapes (0.6 million pounds), structural pest control (0.3 million pounds), potatoes (0.3 million pounds), and lemons (0.2 million pounds).
DPR data analyses have shown that pesticide use varies from year to year depending upon pest problems, weather, acreage and types of crops planted, economics, and other factors. For most of the 12 crops investigated, pest problems, especially diseases, were higher in 2003 than in 2002 in several areas due to the wet and cool spring in 2003. Prices for most of the 12 crops improved in 2003, which may have also been an incentive to use more pesticides to protect valuable crops. However, acreage of most of the 12 crops decreased
Pesticide use is reported as the number of pounds of active ingredient and the total number of acres treated. The data for pounds include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications; the data for acres treated are primarily agricultural applications. The number of acres treated means the cumulative number of acres treated; the acres treated in each application are summed even when the same field is sprayed more than once in a year. (For example, if one acre is treated three times in a season with an individual active ingredient, it is counted as three acres treated in the tables and graphs in Sections IV and V of this report.)
Use increased in most pesticide categories. Most of the increase in pounds applied was due to increases in mineral oil and the fumigants methyl bromide and 1,3-dichloropropene. (Fumigants are applied at high rates, in part, because they treat a volume of space rather than a surface area such as the leaves and stems of plants. Thus, the pounds applied are large even though the number of applications or number of acres treated may be relatively small.) Some of the major statistical changes from 2002 to 2003 include:
• Chemicals classified as reproductive toxins increased in pounds applied from 2002 to 2003 (up 480,000 pounds or 2.0 percent) and increased slightly in cumulative acres treated (up 22,000 acres or 0.9 percent). The increase in pounds was due mostly to the fumigant methyl bromide.
• A similar pattern appeared for chemicals classified as carcinogens. Use of these chemicals increased in overall pounds applied (up 1.9 million pounds or 7.4 percent) and in cumulative acres treated (up 390,000 acres or 11 percent). The increase in pounds was mainly due to increase in uses of the fumigant 1,3-dichloropropene but the increase in acres treated was due mainly to the fungicides maneb, iprodione, mancozeb, and captan.
• Use of insecticide organophosphate and carbamate chemicals, which includes compounds of high regulatory concern, continued to decline by pounds, decreasing by 680,000 pounds (7.9 percent) although acres treated was nearly the same, down only 3,000 acres (0.05 percent). Use of chlorpyrifos increased; the largest decreases in use were molinate, thiobencarb, and diazinon.
• Use of chemicals categorized as ground water contaminants was nearly the same in 2003 as in 2002. Use by pounds increased 38,000 pounds applied (1.7 percent), but cumulative acres treated decreased by about 5,000 acres (0.3 percent). Most of the increase in pounds was due to diuron and simazine.
• Chemicals categorized as toxic air contaminants, another regulatory concern, increased by 2.6 million pounds applied (7.9 percent). Cumulative acres treated increased by about 367,000 acres (12 percent). Most of the increase in pounds was due to increases in methyl bromide and 1,3-dichloropropene; most of the increase in acres was due to maneb and 2,4-D.
• Use of reduced-risk pesticides increased considerably, by 311,000 pounds applied (41 percent) and by 1.8 million acres treated (47 percent). The biggest increase was in use of the insecticide indoxacarb.
• Biopesticide use decreased by 81,000 pounds (7.2 percent) but increased by 174,000 acres treated (8.1 percent). Use of the biopesticides potassium bicarbonate, GABA, and Bacillus thuringiensis increased; the decrease in pounds was due mostly to a decrease in use of liquefied nitrogen.
Since 1994, the reported pounds of pesticides applied has fluctuated from year to year with no general increasing or decreasing trend. An increase or decrease in use from one year to the next or in the span of a few years does not necessarily indicate a general trend in use; it simply may reflect normal variations. Short periods of time (three to five years) may suggest trends, such as the increased pesticide use from 1994 to 1998 or the decreased use from 1998 to 2001. However, statistical analysis from 1994 to 2003 does not indicate a significant trend of either increase or decrease in pesticide use.
To improve data quality when calculating the total pounds of pesticides, DPR excluded values that were so large they were probably in error. The procedure to exclude probable errors involved the development of complex error-checking algorithms, a data improvement process that is ongoing.
Over-reporting errors have a much greater impact on the numerical accuracy of the database than under-reporting errors. For example, if a field is treated with 100 pounds of a pesticide active ingredient and the application is erroneously recorded as 100,000 pounds (a decimal point shift of three places to the right), an error of 99,900 pounds is introduced into the database. If the same degree of error is made in shifting the decimal point to the left, the application is recorded as 0.1 pound, and an error of 99.9 pounds is entered into the database
To provide an overview, pesticide use is summarized for eight different categories from 1993 to 2003 (Tables 3-10 and Figures 1-8). These categories classify pesticides according to certain characteristics such as reproductive toxins, carcinogens, or reduced-risk characteristics.
The statistical summaries detailed in these categories are not intended to serve as indicators of pesticide risks to the public or the environment. Rather, the data supports DPR regulatory functions to enhance public safety and environmental protection. (See "How Pesticide Data are Used" on page iv.) The different pesticide categories, described more fully, are:
1. Pesticides listed on the State's
Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause reproductive toxicity."
2. Pesticides listed by U.S. EPA as B2 carcinogens or on the State's Proposition
65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer."
3. Pesticides that are cholinesterase inhibitors, that is, organophosphate and
carbamate chemicals.
4. Pesticides on DPR's groundwater protection list (section 6800 (a) of the
California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1,
Article 1) and norflurazon, which DPR is recommending be listed as a restricted
material.
5. Pesticides from DPR's toxic air contaminants list (California Code of Regulations,
Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, section 6860).
6. Oil pesticides, which may include some chemicals on the State's Proposition
65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer" but which also serve as alternatives
to high-toxicity pesticides.
7. Active ingredients contained in pesticide products that have been given reduced-risk
status by U.S. EPA.
8. Biopesticides, which include microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds,
or compounds essentially identical to naturally occurring compounds that are
not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones).
USE
TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON THE STATE'S PROPOSITION 65 LIST OF CHEMICALS THAT
ARE "KNOWN TO CAUSE REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY"
Table
3A. The reported pounds of pesticides used which are on the State's
Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are "known to cause reproductive toxicity."
Use includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications.
Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.
Table
3B. The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that
are on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause reproductive
toxicity." Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total
for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active
ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient.
Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.
Figure
1. Use trends of pesticides that are on the State's Proposition
65 list of chemicals that are "known to cause reproductive toxicity." Reported
pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied includes both agricultural and nonagricultural
applications. The reported cumulative acres treated includes primarily agricultural
applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide
Use Reports.
USE
TRENDS OF PESTICIDES LISTED BY U.S. EPA AS CARCINOGENS OR BY THE STATE AS
"KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER"
Table
4A. Table 4A. The reported pounds of pesticides used that are
listed by U.S. EPA as B2 carcinogens or that are on the State's Proposition
65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." Use includes both agricultural
and reportable nonagricultural applications. Data are from the Department of
Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports. Table 4B. The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides listed by U.S. EPA as B2 carcinogens or on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated is less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use. Figure 2. Use trends of pesticides that are listed by U.S. EPA as B2 carcinogens or that are on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated includes primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.
USE
TRENDS OF CHOLINESTERASE-INHIBITING PESTICIDES
Table
5A. The reported pounds of cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides
used. These pesticides are the currently registered organophosphate and carbamate
active ingredients. Use includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural
applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide
Use Reports.Table 5B. The reported cumulative acres treated with cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. These pesticides are the currently registered organophosphate and carbamate active ingredients. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated is less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.
Figure 3. Use trends of cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides, which includes pesticides with organophosphate and carbamate active ingredients. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated includes primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.
USE
TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON DPR'S GROUNDWATER PROTECTION LIST
Table
6A. The reported pounds of pesticides on DPR's ground water protection
list. These pesticides are the currently registered active ingredients listed
in section 6800(a) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division
6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1. Use includes both agricultural and reportable
nonagricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's
Pesticide Use Reports.
Table 6B. The reported cumulative acres treated in California with pesticides on DPR's ground water protection list. These pesticides are the currently registered active ingredients listed in section 6800(a) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated is less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.
Figure 4. Use trends of pesticides on DPR's ground water protection list. These pesticides are the currently registered active ingredients listed in section 6800(a) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated includes primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.
USE
TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON DPR'S TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS LIST
Table
7A. The reported pounds of pesticides on DPR's toxic air contaminants
list applied in California. These pesticides are the currently registered active
ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division
6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, section 6860. Use includes both agricultural
and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of
Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports. Table 7B. The reported cumulative acres treated in California with pesticides on DPR's toxic air contaminants list. These pesticides are the currently registered active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, section 6860. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated is less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.
Figure 5. Use trends of pesticides on DPR's toxic air contaminants list. These pesticides are the currently registered active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, section 6860. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated includes primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.
USE
TRENDS OF OIL PESTICIDES
Table
8A. The reported pounds of oil pesticides. As a broad group,
oil pesticides and other petroleum distillates are on U.S. EPA's list of B2
carcinogens or the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause
cancer." However, these classifications do not distinguish among oil pesticides
that may not qualify as carcinogenic due to their degree of refinement. Many
such oil pesticides also serve as alternatives to high-toxicity chemicals. For
this reason, oil pesticide data was classified separately in this report. Use
includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. Data
are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.
Table
8B. The reported cumulative acres treated in California with oil pesticides. (See qualifying
comments on U.S. EPA B2 carcinogen and Proposition 65 listing with Table 8A.)
Uses include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department
of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.
Figure 6. Use trends
of oil pesticides. As a broad group, oil pesticides and other petroleum distillates
are on U.S. EPA's list of B2 carcinogens or the State's Proposition 65 list
of chemicals "known to cause cancer." However, these classifications do not
distinguish among oil pesticides that may not qualify as carcinogenic due
to their degree of refinement. Many such oil pesticides also serve as alternatives
to high-toxicity chemicals. For this reason, oil pesticide data was classified
separately in this report. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied
includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. The
reported cumulative acres treated includes primarily agricultural applications.
Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.
USE
TRENDS OF REDUCED-RISK PESTICIDES
Table 9A. The reported pounds of reduced-risk pesticides applied in California. These active ingredients are contained in pesticide products that have been given reduced-risk status by U.S. EPA. Use includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. Zero values in early years likely indicate the pesticide was not yet registered for use. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.
Table 9B. . The reported cumulative acres treated of reduced-risk pesticides in California. These active ingredients are contained in pesticide products that have been given reduced-risk status by U.S. EPA. Use includes primarily agricultural applicat