Our Work Doesn’t End at Registration: DPR’s Continuous Evaluation and Mitigation Update
What you need to know: The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has released its latest Continuous Evaluation and Mitigation update, highlighting the department’s ongoing work to evaluate pesticides after they are registered, address emerging concerns, and apply mitigation measures when needed. Read below to learn about the current focus areas and two tools that support this work, risk assessment and reevaluation.
Today we updated our Continuous Evaluation and Mitigation (CEM) webpage. It offers a public snapshot of the work underway across DPR right now to review pesticides already in use in California, identify potential risks to people and the environment, and reduce those risks when we find them. The update shows the pesticides we are evaluating and where each effort stands, including progress and timelines for next steps.
What’s in the Midyear 2026 Update
This update covers 19 separate areas of work. We are on track to complete the next milestones or close out work on the majority of actions and have notes explaining where timelines are changing and why. In most cases, our scientists are evaluating data, responding to public comments, or finishing required consultations with partner agencies. One new action stands out this cycle. We are initiating a reevaluation of total release foggers, the products many people know as bug bombs.
Why Our Work Continues After a Pesticide Is Registered
Before any pesticide can be registered for use in California, our scientists evaluate its risks. But registration is the beginning of our evaluations, not the end.
Science evolves. New studies emerge, new monitoring data is collected, and our understanding of how pesticides might affect people and ecosystems keeps growing. Continuous evaluation is our ongoing process for reviewing that new information and identifying whether we need to take additional action to protect human health and the environment.
Continuous evaluation is how we make sure California’s pesticide regulatory program keeps pace with what we know and protects all Californians.
How We Watch for Risks
To find potential risks from pesticides already in use, our scientists collect and analyze several kinds of information.
- How much pesticides are being used through Pesticide Use Reports, which are required for all agricultural and some non-agricultural uses, showing us what is being applied and where.
- Data from environmental monitoring of our air, surface water, and groundwater in the areas of highest pesticide use, supported by modeling that helps fill gaps where direct monitoring isn’t available.
- Reported pesticide illnesses and injuries, gathered from county agricultural commissioners, physicians, local health officers, Poison Control, and others.
- Scientific studies, including contracted research on ecosystems, worker exposure, and other specific areas of concern.
We continually review new data, published research, and public comments, and work closely with partner agencies. Together, this information helps us spot trends, identify potential risks, and determine where action may be needed.
A Closer Look at Tools Used to Identify Risks: Risk Assessments and Reevaluations
We have two main tools for the identification of risks, and choosing the right one helps us move efficiently.
A risk assessment is a scientific study that helps us understand whether a pesticide’s use may pose a risk to people or the environment. We use it when we already have enough information to evaluate the potential risks. A risk assessment pulls together monitoring data, published research, and modeling to inform mitigation actions that may be needed to address identified risks
A reevaluation is a tool that can be used when we need more information than currently exists to fully understand a pesticide’s risks. It gives us the authority to require the companies that make pesticides to develop and submit new scientific studies needed to fill those gaps. That authority lets us look beyond the data already available and answer questions that haven’t been answered yet.
Past reevaluations have driven real scientific progress. When we reevaluated neonicotinoid pesticides, for example, the new studies it required dramatically expanded the global understanding of how these chemicals can affect pollinators like bees, an area where the underlying science simply hadn’t existed before.
Turning Findings into Action
When we identify a significant risk, we choose from a range of tools to address it (also called “mitigating” risks). We match the tool to the nature of the risk and the most effective way to reduce it. Depending on what we find, we may take one or more of these actions:
- Adopting best management practices or additional training for applicators
- Working with the company that makes a product and U.S. EPA to change its label
- Designating a pesticide as a restricted material, which limits who can use it and how
- Restricting use or adding requirements for use such as setbacks, buffer zones, specific application methods or other requirements through formal rulemaking
In the most serious cases, including where a significant impact cannot be reduced any other way, we have the authority to cancel a pesticide product’s registration.
The aim throughout is the same. We identify risks and reduce them to protect people and the environment.
Looking Ahead
We will keep updating the CEM table twice a year, so the public can continue to follow this work as it progresses.
We have also activated a new scientific advisory committee, the Scientific Prioritization and Review Committee (SPARC), to help guide what we take on next. The committee recommends priorities for evaluation and mitigation through an open, public process, and we expect it to shape future updates to the table as our current work wraps up.
DPR will continue to ground every decision in science as part of its mission to protect human health and the environment.