Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data - 2018

Back to 2018 Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) Menu

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION
California Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 4015
Sacramento, California 95812-4015

Gavin Newsom, Governor

Jared Blumenfeld, Secretary
California Environmental Protection Agency

Val Dolcini, Director
Department of Pesticide Regulation

November 2020

Any portion of this report may be reproduced for any but profit-making purposes. For information on obtaining electronic data files, see page ii. This report is available on DPR’s Web site www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm. If you have questions concerning this report, contact PUR.Inquiry@cdpr.ca.gov.

Contents

How To Access the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data

Year in Summary

1. Introduction

• Continuous Evaluation of Pesticides
• CalAgPermits
• Data Collection
• Improving Data Quality
• Improving Access to the Data

2. Comments and Clarifications of Data

• Terminology
• Agricultural and Nonagricultural Pesticide Use
• Site Codes
• Unregistered Use
• Adjuvants
• Cumulative Acres Treated
• Number of Applications
• Over-counting Pesticide Use

3. Data Summary

• Pesticide Use In California

4.  Trends in Pesticide Use For Select Pesticide Categories

5.  Trends in Pesticide Use for select Commodities

• Alfalfa
• Almond
• Carrot
• Cotton
• Orange
• Peach and nectarine
• Pistachio
• Processing tomato
• Rice
• Strawberry
• Table and raisin grape
• Walnut
• Wine grape
• Appendix

How to Access the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data

The Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data issued by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) for recent years can be found by clicking the link of the year of interest under the Pesticide Use Annual Summary Reports section at www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm. Past years (1989-current) can be requested by emailing PUR.Inquiry@cdpr.ca.gov. The tables in the Statewide Report and County Summary Reports list the pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied, the number of applications, and the number of acres or other unit treated. The data is available in two formats:

• Indexed by chemical: The report indexed by chemical shows all the commodities and sites in which a particular AI was applied.
• Indexed by commodity: The report indexed by commodity shows all the AIs that were applied to a particular commodity or site.

The following pesticide use report data can be downloaded from the Department's file transfer website.

• Annual Report Data: The pesticide use report data used in the Pesticide Use Annual Summary Reports for 1989 to 2018. The files are in text (comma-delimited) format and do not include updates that occur after the year’s Pesticide Use Annual Summary Report was released. For updated data, use the online California Information Portal (CalPIP) at calpip.cdpr.ca.gov/main.cfm or contact DPR at PUR.Inquiry@cdpr.ca.gov CalPIP data is usually refreshed once a year, while emailed queries return the most up-to-date data.
• Pesticide Use Data 1974 - 1989: Pesticide use data from 1974 to 1989 vary by year in the type and quality of data colle standardized "full-use" data collected since 1990. They are available as text files.
• Microfiche Pesticide Use Data 1970 - 1973: Files of summarized pesticide use data from 1970 to 1973 are available as PDF scans of microfiche.

Starting in 2016, the data from each figure or table in the annual report can be found at https://files.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Please direct any questions regarding the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data to the Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pest Management and Licensing Branch, P.O. Box 4015, Sacramento, California 95812-4015, or you may request copies of the data by contacting PUR.Inquiry@cdpr.ca.gov.

Year in Summary

Overview: Reported pesticide use for California in 2018 totaled 209 million pounds of applied active ingredients (AIs) and 105 million cumulative acres treated. Since 2017, pounds of AIs increased by just over two and a half million pounds (1.3 percent) while the acres treated increased by around 859 thousand acres (0.8 percent). Pesticide use trends measured in pounds tend to be driven by pesticides with large application rates, such as sulfur, oil, or fumigants, while trends reported in cumulative "acres treated" focus more on widespread use weighted by the number of applications. Both measures taken together give a more nuanced understanding of how pesticide use changes over time.

Biopesticides and petroleum and mineral oils, which have been identified as likely to be low risk to human health and the environment, increased in both the pounds applied and the acres treated in 2018. Most oil pesticides used in California serve as alternatives to more toxic pesticides. Some highly refined petroleum-based oils are used by organic growers.

The cumulative acres treated with pesticides considered to be reproductive toxins, carcinogens, cholinesterase inhibitors, groundwater contaminants, toxic air contaminants, and fumigants all decreased in 2018. The pounds of carcinogens, cholinesterase inhibitors, toxic air contaminants, and fumigants decreased as well.

The AIs with the highest total reported pounds were the fungicide/insecticides sulfur and petroleum and mineral oils, the fumigant 1,3-dichloropropene, the herbicide glyphosate, and the fumigant metam-potassium (potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate). (Fungicide/insecticide AIs have both fungicidal and insecticidal activity, although they may be used solely as a fungicide or an insecticide depending on the crop). The AIs with the highest reported cumulative acres treated were sulfur, glyphosate, petroleum and mineral oils, the miticide abamectin, and the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin.

1. Introduction

History of pesticide use reporting in California

In the early 1880s, California passed legislation allowing counties to appoint horticultural commissioners to assist with pest management. These horticultural advisors were the forerunners of present-day County Agricultural Commissioners (CACs). During that early time period, many of these commissioners required agricultural pest control operators to submit some type of monthly report of pesticide use; however the exact requirements varied depending on the county. Most reports included details such as the location, date, crop, acres treated, pest, pesticide, and use rate. Unfortunately, many of these detailed records have been lost over time.

One of the first state-wide pesticide regulations was enacted in 1901. California passed a pesticide regulation law requiring product samples of Paris Green, an arsenic-based insecticide, to be submitted to University of California agricultural experiment stations in an effort to prevent consumer fraud from mislabeled and adulterated products. In 1911, California’s State Insecticide and Fungicide Act furthered these protections by requiring labels identifying the component chemical amounts and information about the manufacturers.

In 1919, the California Department of Agriculture (CDA), now known as the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), was formed and began enforcing statewide pesticide laws. In 1921, the Economic Poisons Act was passed, giving the CDA the ability to regulate the manufacture, sale, and use of pesticides. From 1934 to 1956, the CDA produced a monthly Bulletin Report which included a summary pesticide use table. Starting in the early 1930s, the CDA began collecting statistics on aerial pesticide applications from the counties. In 1954, state regulators began requiring reports on ground application acreage as well, although these reports lacked detailed information about the pesticides used or commodities treated.

The 1960s brought increasing awareness about non-target effects of pesticides on the environment. At the federal level, congress passed numerous environmental statutes touching on pesticide regulation such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In 1970, the U.S. EPA was created, taking over pesticide registration and residue tolerance functions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In addition, in 1972 and 2003, the 1910 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was overhauled with a stronger focus on protecting human health and the environment.

California also expanded many of its regulations during this time period, surpassing the requirements called for by FIFRA and other federal regulations. In 1970, pesticide use reporting requirements broadened to include all pesticide applications by pest control operators (PCOs) as well as all restricted pesticide applications by growers. In 1991, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was founded. As part of CalEPA, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) took over many pesticide regulatory roles, with a few exceptions: pesticide residue laboratory testing remained with CDFA, and local enforcement authority largely remained with the counties, overseen by the DPR Enforcement branch.

The Food Safety Act of 1989 (Chapter 1200, AB 2161) gave DPR statutory authority to require full reporting of agricultural pesticide use, which officially began in 1990. Full-use reporting required more detail than ever before about a wider variety of pesticide applications than previous requirements. CalAgPermits was developed in 2011 to meet demands for online access, and is still in use today. CalAgPermits was developed in 2011 to meet these needs, and is still in use today (See CalAgPermits).

California’s broad definition of "agricultural use" requires reporting pesticide applications in production agriculture, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, rangeland, pastures, and along roadside and railroad rights-of-way. Production agricultural pesticide use is a subset of agricultural use, defined as use of a pesticide for the "production for sale of an agricultural commodity" or "agricultural plant commodity." Each application of pesticide on crops (production agriculture) must include the site name given to a location or field by the CAC as well as the one by one square mile section in which the application occurred. Most other uses are aggregated and reported by month with only the county identified. These other uses include rights-of-way applications, all postharvest pesticide treatments of agricultural commodities, structural applications by licensed applicators, all pesticide treatments in poultry and fish production, and some livestock applications. In addition, all applications made by licensed applicators and outdoor applications of pesticides that have the potential to pollute groundwater must be reported. The primary exceptions to the reporting requirements are residential home and garden uses, veterinary uses, and most industrial and institutional uses.

In addition to requiring pesticide use reporting, California law (Food and Agricultural Code [FAC] section 12979) directs DPR to use the reports in setting priorities for monitoring food, enforcing pesticide laws, protecting the safety of farm workers, monitoring the environment for unanticipated residues, researching pest management practices, monitoring and researching public health issues, and similar activities. These activities help DPR with implementing another mandated activity: the continuous evaluation of currently registered pesticides (FAC section 12824). Information gathered during continuous evaluation is used to gauge the performance of DPR's regulatory programs and support additional measures, including development of new regulations or reevaluation or cancellation of pesticide registrations. California Code of Regulations Title 3, sections 6624 et seq. further describe pesticide use record keeping and reporting requirements.

Continuous Evaluation of Pesticides

The Pesticide Use Report (PUR) greatly increases the accuracy and efficiency of continuous evaluation of pesticides by providing details on each application, including date, location, site (e.g., crop), time, acres and units treated, and the identity and quantity of each pesticide product applied. These data allow scientists and others to identify trends in pesticide use, compare use locations with other geographical information and data, and perform quantitative assessments and evaluations of risks that pesticides may pose to human health and the environment. Prior to full reporting, the regulatory program’s estimates of pesticide use frequently relied on maximum rates and applications as listed on the label, potentially overstating risks. Use of the PUR data allowed for much more accurate risk assessments and effective policy decisions. Over the years, these data have been used by a variety of individuals and groups, including government officials, scientists, growers, legislators, and public interest groups.

DPR uses the PUR throughout its pesticide regulatory programs in ways that can be broadly grouped as temporal (time), geospatial (place), and quantitative (amount), often combining elements of each.

Temporal analyses can pinpoint specific applications or span many years. Investigations into suspected worker illnesses, spray drift, fish or wildlife losses, or other enforcement inquiries frequently begin with a review of the PUR to see what applications were made in an area at a particular time. Protection of ground and surface waters, assessments of acute and chronic risks to human health, and allocation of monitoring and enforcement resources often include analyses of PUR data from numerous years to better evaluate pesticide use trends.

Geospatial analyses may be local or expansive. Local analyses are used to help set priorities for surface and groundwater monitoring programs by determining pesticide use and runoff potential in specific watersheds or other defined areas. DPR scientists calculate contributions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere from pesticide products using pesticide use data in combination with emissions potential data of products. DPR further refines the analyses to specific air basins that are particularly vulnerable to air pollution to determine whether pesticide-related VOC emissions are below required targets or whether additional restrictions on use may be warranted to protect air quality. More expansive analyses examine the proximity of pesticide use to endangered species habitat, resulting in the development of best use practices to protect these species. These analyses are invaluable when assessing regulatory responses or evaluating the performance of voluntary stewardship efforts.

Quantitative assessments are broadly used to model risks of pesticide use to humans and the environment. The quality and depth of the information provided in the PUR allows researchers to apply realistic assumptions when modeling pesticide exposure. PUR data have been used to model pesticide exposure of people who live near agricultural lands, workers in the field, handlers preparing and applying pesticides, and aquatic organisms inhabiting waterways that receive agricultural runoff. Analysis of the PUR enables well-informed and realistic assessments for risk management decisions.

Increases in the pounds, acres treated, or number of applications of pesticides do not necessarily correspond to higher risk to human health or the environment. It is important to remember that risk is a function not only of the pesticide amount used, but also the toxicity of the AI to human health or the environment and the potential exposure to the AI. For example, kaolin clay was a large contributor to the total pounds of pesticides used in California in 2018, ranking 11th in the top 100 pesticides used by pounds. Kaolin clay is a fine-grained mineral that is sprayed on plants to form a particle film which acts as a fungicide, insecticide, or sunburn protectant. Although many pounds of kaolin clay were used during the year, kaolin is a biopesticide and considered a minimum risk chemical. Increased use of lower risk chemicals may serve to reduce overall risk if they are used as alternatives to higher risk chemicals.

In contrast, some AIs with high toxicity are only needed in very small amounts to be effective pest control agents, and therefore have low total pounds. However, if the toxicity, mode of action, and broad-spectrum nature of the AI can cause unintended harm to human health or the environment, then a small amount of an AI with high toxicity could pose a greater risk than a large amount of an AI with a lower toxicity.

In addition to toxicity, exposure plays a large role in determining potential human health or environmental risks. Minimizing exposure to an AI is generally thought to reduce risk of harm from the AI. Risk can therefore be mitigated through a number of tools and practices that minimize exposure, such as personal protective equipment (PPE), buffer zones, drift reduction practices and equipment, application timing with favorable environmental conditions to prevent off-site pesticide movement, vegetative filter strips, tailwater ponds, and many other innovative techniques. In summary, when using PUR data to assess risk from an AI, its toxicity and exposure potential should be considered in relation to the amounts of pesticide used.

The passage of the federal Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 launched the PUR into a more integral role as a tool for monitoring and achieving compliance with updated food safety regulations. The FQPA contained a new food safety standard against which all pesticide tolerances – amounts of pesticide residue allowed by federal law to remain on a harvested crop – must be measured. PUR data became increasingly important to commodity groups, University of California (UC) specialists, the U.S. EPA, and other interested parties as they reassessed tolerances and calculated dietary risks from pesticides based on actual reported uses.

PUR information such as pesticide types, use rates, geographical locations, crops, and timing of applications help researchers understand how various pest management options are implemented in the field. Analyses of these data are the basis for grant projects that DPR funds to promote the development and adoption of integrated pest management practices in both agricultural and urban settings.

The PUR data are used by state, regional, and local agencies, scientists, and public interest groups. The data are an invaluable tool for understanding pesticide use in order to protect human health and the environment while balancing the population’s need for quality food, fiber, shelter, and surroundings.

CalAgPermits

In 2011, the counties implemented CalAgPermits, a standardized, web-based system that greatly enhanced the efficiency of data entry and transfer, and thus the accuracy and integrity of the PUR database. In addition to helping CACs issue restricted-materials permits and operator IDs, it allowed individuals and businesses the option of reporting pesticide use electronically. The use of CalAgPermits also greatly enhanced data quality assurance by adding another level of automated data validation and error checking of submitted pesticide use reports in addition to what occurs after transmission to DPR. The many improvements in the ability to share data electronically between DPR and CACs have greatly improved the efficiency and effectiveness of quality control for the PUR.

Data Collection

Most pesticide use data required to be reported must be sent to the CAC in the county where the application took place. PURs can be submitted to the counties through individual CalAgPermit accounts, paper forms, or through third party software programs. After being sent to the CAC, the PUR is entered into the county CalAgPermit database and checked for a number of errors. The CAC then electronically sends required data to DPR, where additional validation and error checks take place. On average, DPR collects around three million pesticide use records a year. Currently the PUR database contains over 80 million pesticide use records, going back to 1990 (Earlier PUR records from 1974 to 1989 are kept in a separate database since these early records vary in the type and quality of data collected. PDF documents of scanned microfiche of pesticide records from 1970 to 1973 are also available).

Improving Data Quality

DPR checks the quality of PUR data many times between the initial data entry and before it is made available to the public. CalAgPermits checks for data entry errors, such as whether the pesticide applicator has the correct permits for any restricted materials reported or whether the pesticide product is allowed on the reported application site. Once the data have been received by DPR they undergo more than 50 different validity checks such as identifying missing data, invalid entries, and confirming that the reported pesticide unit of measurement corresponds to the pesticide’s dry or wet formulation. The PUR database may include products that do not have an active registration since end-users are allowed to continue using stocks purchased prior to a product’s registration becoming inactive. Records flagged for suspected errors are returned electronically to the county for resolution. If an error cannot be resolved, the record is transmitted to the database, but is logged as an error or outlier in a separate table, which is publicly available.

Additional data checks are performed to identify errors and outliers in pesticide use amounts. These checks are conducted via a complex, automated, statistical procedure that was originally developed by DPR in the late 1990s, and has continually been improved over time. If a reported use rate (amount of pesticide per acres treated) greatly exceeds typical use rates of that AI, it is flagged as an error and sent back to the CAC to confirm. If the county is unable to identify the correct rate, an estimated rate equal to the median rate of all other applications of the pesticide product on the same crop or site is used instead. Although less than one percent of the reports are flagged with this type of error, some errors are so large that if included, they would significantly affect the total cumulative amount of applied pesticides.

Non-production-agricultural PUR records (for example, applications to structures, golf courses, landscapes, and rights-of-way) are difficult to statistically evaluate for errors due to the lack of information on the acres or area treated (See Agricultural and Nonagricultural Pesticide Use). Current regulations do not require reporting this information. While statistical algorithms can analyze whether the amount of pesticide used over a given number of acres seems to be a reasonable application rate for production-agricultural PUR records, the lack of an acres treated value creates problems for catching errors in non-production-agricultural PURs. For many of these non-production-agricultural PURs, a rate is calculated as the amount of pesticide per application rather than per acre. These rates are statistically evaluated against similar applications for validity, alongside algorithms that check the total amounts against high threshold values.

While the statistical algorithm currently in place detects many outliers in production agricultural pesticide use reports, its use for most structural pesticide applications is limited. In 2015, structural pesticide applicators were no longer required to report the number of applications. In addition, prior to 2015, there was a lot of variability in how the number of applications was interpreted, and reported, by the applicator. As a result, algorithms triggering errors when pesticide amounts are above high threshold values are used in conjunction with the statistical algorithms in an effort to catch very large errors. In addition, there has been a concerted effort by many DPR staff to manually identify exceptionally high structural PUR amounts and contact the applicators for verification - in many cases, these high amounts were mistakenly entered due to a misunderstanding that DPR wanted the diluted amount of pesticide rather than the undiluted amount. Many of these incorrect PURs have since been replaced by the correct, undiluted amounts. Future plans to further reduce errors in structural PURs include electronic warning flags that will notify CalAgPermit account holders if they enter an extremely high value, and remind them that undiluted amounts should always be reported.

Improving Access to the Data

There are several ways to access the PUR data. Annual reports serve as an accessible snapshot summary of the much larger PUR database. Before the late 1990s, summaries were available by request and were only hard copy. As use of online resources increased, DPR improved public access to the data by posting summary annually on its website www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm (Contact PUR.Inquiry@cdpr.ca.gov to request summaries from years not available online). In addition, the PUR data used in each annual report from 1984 on can be downloaded on DPR's file transfer website ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur_archives/. Data obtained from the FTP site does not include updates that may have occurred after the release of the annual report. Scans of the hard copy summaries from 1974 to 1989 are also available on the FTP site and are primarily a tabular summary of pesticide use data by county. Current annual reports are more detailed and analyze various pesticide use trends. In 2016, PDF files of scanned summary pesticide use reports on microfiche from 1970 to 1973 were added to the FTP site for download.

Starting in 1996, DPR scientists began analyzing critical crops and their pest problems as well as trends in the pounds of pesticides used, and the number of applications and acres treated. Each year, the annual report charts pesticide use over several years in specific categories:

• Reproductive toxins
• Carcinogens
• Organophosphorus and carbamate cholinesterase inhibitors
• Chemicals classified by DPR as groundwater contaminants
• Chemicals listed by DPR as toxic air contaminants
• Fumigants
• Oil pesticides derived from petroleum distillation (many of which serve as alternatives to high-toxicity pesticides)
• Biopesticides (including biochemical pesticides that control pests by non-toxic mechanisms (for example, pheromones and bait attractants) and microbial pesticides. Biopesticides are considered to be less toxic and more selective than conventional pesticides)
• Crops (DPR analyzes pesticide use trends for around a dozen crops with the highest amount of pesticide used or acreage treated)

Pesticide use trend analyses can help regulatory agencies evaluate the success of their efforts to promote reduced-risk pest management strategies. Information on long-term trends also helps researchers better identify emerging challenges and direct research to finding solutions.

In 2003, DPR launched the web-based California Pesticide Information Portal (CalPIP) to increase public access to the PUR database. CalPIP provides pesticide use information including date, site or crop treated, pounds used, acres treated, pesticide product name, AI name, application pattern (ground, air, or other), county, ZIP code, and location where the application was made to within a one-square-mile area. DPR annually updates the previous few years of CalPIP data to account for any changes due to errors identified after the annual report has been released, so it is the most up-to-date source of pesticide information available via the main PUR website http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm.

Starting in 2016, text files of the data from all tables and figures in the annual reports can be accessed at https://files.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

2. Comments and Clarifications of Data

When analyzing the data contained in this report, it is important to consider the following:

Terminology

• Product versus active ingredient (AI): A pesticide product contains both active and inert ingredients. An AI is a component of a pesticide product that controls target pests. There can be more than one AI in a product. Inert ingredients are all the other ingredients of the product which do not target the pest but may enhance product performance and application. Specific products are reported in the pesticide use reports submitted to DPR. DPR identifies the AIs of these products for trend analysis.
• Number of agricultural applications: Number of applications of pesticide products used in production agriculture. More detailed information is given below under "Number of Applications."
• Pounds applied: Total pounds of AI summed over a given time period, geographic area, crop, or other category of interest. The pounds of AI in a single application is calculated by converting the product amount to pounds, then multiplying the pounds of product by the percent of the AI in the product.
• Unit type: The type of area treated with the pesticide:
  • A = Acreage
  • C = Cubic feet (usually of postharvest commodity treated)
  • K = Thousand cubic feet (usually of postharvest commodity treated)
  • P = Pounds (usually of postharvest commodity treated)
  • S = Square feet
  • T = Tons (usually of postharvest commodity treated)
  • U = Miscellaneous units (e.g., number of nursery container plants, trees, tree holes, bins)
• Acres treated: Cumulative number of acres treated. More detailed information is given below under "Acres Treated."
• Risk Analysis: When using PUR data to analyze potential human health or environmental risks, the toxicity of the AI and the potential for exposure, in addition to the amount of pesticide used, should always be considered.

Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Pesticide Use

Many pesticide licensing, sales, and use requirements are tied to California’s definition of agricultural use. Pesticide labels differentiate between agricultural, industrial, or institutional uses. Some pesticide products are labeled for both agricultural and nonagricultural uses.

California law (FAC section 11408) identifies agricultural use as all use except the following categories specifically identified as nonagricultural use:

• Home: Use in or around the immediate environment of a household. Licensed, professional pesticide applications are reported as nonagricultural use (usually "structural pest control" or "landscape maintenance"). Unlicensed, non-professional, residential pesticide applications around a home or garden are not required to be reported.
• Industrial: Use in or on property necessary to operate factories, processing plants, packing houses, or similar buildings or use for a manufacturing, mining, or chemical process. Postharvest commodity fumigations in buildings or on trucks, vans, or rail cars are normally considered industrial use. Industrial pesticide uses are not required to be reported unless the pesticide is a restricted material, has the potential to pollute groundwater, or was applied by a licensed pest control operator. In California, industrial use does not include use on rights-of-way.
• Institutional: Use in or on property necessary to operate buildings such as hospitals, office buildings, libraries, auditoriums, or schools. Includes pesticide use on landscaping and around walkways, parking lots, and other areas bordering the institutional buildings. Institutional pesticide uses are not required to be reported unless the pesticide is a restricted material, has the potential to pollute groundwater, or was applied by a licensed pest control operator. Note that the Healthy Schools Act of 2000 imposes additional pesticide use reporting requirements if the pesticide application takes place at a school or childcare center, regardless of whether or not the application was made by a licensed professional.
• Structural: Use by licensed structural pest control operators within the scope of their licenses
• Vector control: Use by certain vector control (e.g., mosquito abatement) districts
• Veterinary: Use according to a written prescription of a licensed veterinarian. Veterinary prescription pesticide use is not reported to the State.

Agricultural use of pesticides includes:

• Production agricultural use: Any pesticide used to produce a plant or animal agricultural product (food, feed, fiber, ornamental, or forest) that will be distributed in the channels of trade (Some requirements—most notably those that address worker safety and use reporting—apply only to plant product production.)
• Non-production agricultural use: Any pesticide used on watersheds, rights-of-way, and landscaped areas (e.g., golf courses, parks, recreation areas, and cemeteries) not covered by the definitions of home and institutional uses

The following specific pesticide uses are required to be reported to the CAC who, in turn, reports the data to DPR:

• Production of any agricultural commodity except livestock (where livestock is defined in FAC section 18663 as "any cattle, sheep, swine, goat, or any horse, mule or other equine, whether live or dead")
• Treatment of postharvest agricultural commodities
• Landscape maintenance in parks, golf courses, cemeteries, and similar sites defined in the FAC as agricultural use
• Roadside and railroad rights-of-way
• Poultry and fish production
• Application of a restricted material
• Application of a pesticide listed in regulation as having the potential to pollute groundwater when used outdoors in industrial and institutional settings
• Application by licensed pest control operators, including agricultural and structural applicators and maintenance gardeners

Growers must submit their production agricultural pesticide use reports to the CAC by the tenth day of the month following the month in which the work was performed, and pest control businesses must submit seven days after the application. Not all information submitted to the counties is transferred to DPR.

What must be reported.

Production agricultural pesticide use reports include the following:

• Date and time of application
• Geographic location including the county, meridian, township, range, and section
• Operator identification number or permit number (An operator identification number or permit number is issued by CAC to property operators. These numbers are needed to report pesticide use and, for permit numbers, to purchase restricted-use pesticides. DPR combines the reporting county code, the application year, the home county code, and the operator ID or permit number to form a data field called the "Grower ID")
• Operator name and address (this information is not submitted to DPR)
• Site identification number (A site identification code must be assigned to each location or field where pesticides will be used for production of an agricultural commodity. This alphanumeric code is also recorded on any restricted material permit the grower obtains for the location.)
• Commodity, crop, or site treated
• Acres planted and treated (Not required for most nonagricultural PURs)
• Application method (e.g., by air, ground, or other means)
• Fumigation methods. Since 2008, fumigation applications in nonattainment areas that do not meet federal air quality standards for pesticide VOC emissions must be identified along with details on fumigation methods (for example, shallow shank injection with a tarp). This information allows DPR to estimate pesticide VOC emissions, which contribute to the formation of atmospheric ozone, an important air pollutant.
• Product name, U.S. EPA Registration Number (or the California Registration Number if the product is an adjuvant), and the amount of product applied

All other kinds of pesticide use (mostly nonagricultural) are reported as monthly summaries that include the following information:

• Pesticide product name
• Product registration number
• Amount used of product over entire month
• Number of applications (except for structural applications, which were exempted from reporting number of applications in 2015)
• Application site (e.g., rights-of-way, structural)

Site Codes

The site code refers to the site, commodity, or crop of the pesticide application. It is often referred to as the commodity code, although there are nonagricultural codes as well, such as a structural site code used for pesticide applications to buildings and other structures. DPR uses its product label database (apps.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/label/labelque.htm) to verify that products listed in pesticide use reports are registered for use on the reported site. The product label database uses a coding system consistent with U.S. EPA official label information. To minimize errors, DPR developed a cross-reference table to link the different site code naming systems of the U.S. EPA, DPR’s product label database, and the PUR database.

Certain commodities or sites may have more than one associated site code if different production methods or uses of the commodity result in different pesticide use. For example, greenhouse and nursery operations are divided into six different site codes: greenhouse-grown cut flowers or greens, outdoor-grown cut flowers or greens, greenhouse-grown plants in containers, outdoor-grown plants in container/field-grown plants, greenhouse-grown transplants/propagative material, and outdoor-grown transplants/propagative material.

Tomatoes and grapes are also separated into further subcategories because of public and processor interest in differentiating pesticide use. Tomatoes are assigned codes to differentiate between fresh market and processing categories. Grapes are assigned separate codes to differentiate table grapes and raisins from wine grapes.

Unregistered Use

The PUR database may contain records of pesticide use on a commodity or site for which the pesticide is not currently registered. Unregistered uses that are not detected by the error-checking process may be due to an error in the DPR product label database, where the product incorrectly lists a commodity or site as being registered. Other unregistered uses may be flagged as errors by the validation procedures, but left unchanged in the database. The error-checking process does not check whether the product was registered at the time of application. It is therefore possible that an application flagged as an error due to a recent change in registration may have been legally applied at the time of application. In addition, the law sometimes allows the use of existing stocks of a pesticide product following its withdrawal from the market by the manufacturer, or suspension or cancellation by regulatory authorities, since the safest way to dispose of small quantities of pesticides is often to use them as they were intended. Finally, some pesticide products do not list specific sites or commodities on their labels as they are designed to target specific pests across all sites, such as some soil fumigants, certain pre-plant herbicides, and rodenticides. In these cases, reporting an application of one of these types of pesticides on a specific commodity or site can result in an error. In 2015, an option was added in CalAgPermits that allows the user to designate any application as "pre-plant" and enter the commodity or site without generating any error messages.

Adjuvants

Use data on spray adjuvants (e.g., emulsifiers, wetting agents, foam suppressants, and other efficacy enhancers) were not reported before full-use reporting was required. Adjuvants are exempt from federal registration requirements but must be registered as pesticides in California. Examples of adjuvants include many alkyl groups and some petroleum distillates. Adjuvant product formulations are considered proprietary and are therefore confidential, however pesticide use totals for adjuvant AIs are included in the annual report.

Cumulative Acres Treated

The cumulative acres treated is the sum of the acres treated with an AI and is expressed in acres (applications reported in square feet are converted to acres). The cumulative acres treated for a crop may be greater than the planted acres of the crop since this measure accounts for a field being treated with the same AI more than once in a year. For example, if a 20-acre field is treated three times in a calendar year with an AI, the cumulative acres treated would be reported as 60 acres while the acres planted would be reported as 20 acres.

It is important, however, to be aware of the potential to over-count acreage when summing cumulative acres for products that have more than one AI. If a 20-acre field is treated with a product that contains three different pesticide AIs, the PUR record will correctly show that the product was applied to 20 acres, but that 20 acre value will also be attributed to each of the three AIs in any chemical summary reports. Adding these values across the AIs results in a total of 60 acres treated instead of the 20 acres actually treated. For more information on over-counting pesticide use data, see Over-counting Pesticide Use.

Number of Applications

The number of applications is only included in the Annual Summary Report for 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, required 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 is not consistently reported, so they are no longer included in the annual totals. (In the annual PUR reports before 1997, each monthly summary record was counted as one application). On January 1, 2015, an amendment to section 8505.17 of the Business and Professions Code (BPC) brought about by the passage of Senate Bill 1244 (Chapter 560, Statutes of 2014), eliminated the requirement to report the number of applications made in monthly summary structural PURs.

Note that in the annual summary report arranged by commodity, the total number of agricultural applications for the site or commodity may not equal the sum of all applications of the listed AIs. Since the summary report is at the AI level rather than the product level, a single application of a product comprised of two AIs will result in the summary report assigning the single application to both AIs listed under the commodity heading. Summing the agricultural applications for these two AIs would result in an incorrect total of two applications. The total applications value at the bottom of each commodity section removes the possibility of over-counting applications for products with more than one AI, and is therefore a more accurate value. (See Over-counting Pesticide Use.

Over-counting Pesticide Use

Pesticide products may be composed of one or more AIs (plus any confidential inert ingredients). The PUR database includes a wide assortment of information related to both the product and the AIs. Different types of analyses will use different subsets of information on the product, the AI, or both. Depending on the data subset chosen for analysis, one can unintentionally over-count pesticide use if the following three criteria are all true:

• Criteria 1: The chosen subset of PUR data includes products with more than one AI.
• Criteria 2: The chosen subset of PUR data includes both product and AI information.
• Criteria 3: The analysis sums treated or planted acres, pounds or amount of product, or number of applications.

The following two examples show two different hypothetical pesticide use analyses of a fictitious product, "Generic Bug Killer," which has two AIs: chem1 and chem2. Both analyses sum pesticide use variables for the same three fictitious PUR records, however they use slightly different subsets of information from the PUR database. The second example over-counts certain pesticide use variables.

The first example (Table 1) does not meet all three criteria listed above, so it does not over-count pesticide use. Although Table 1 has PUR data for a product with two AIs (criteria 1) and is summing acres, product pounds, and applications (criteria 3), it does not include any information about chem1 and chem2, the two AIs (criteria 2). Since the second criteria is not met, the sums of acres treated ("Acres"), pounds of product ("Lbs Prod"), and number of applications ("Apps") are correct.

Table 1: Example of three PUR records for a fictitious product (Generic Bug Killer) with two AIs. Summing acres treated (Acres), product amount (Lbs Prod), or number of applications (Apps) from this table would be correct since the table does not contain AI information.

In the second example (Table 2), there are two additional columns: the AI name ("AI") and the pounds of AI ("Lbs AI"). The addition of AI information satisfies criteria 2. Now all three criteria are fulfilled and over-counting becomes an issue for acres treated, pounds of product, and number of applications. Although Table 2 shows the same three PUR records as Table 1 (as identified by unique year - use number ("Use no") combinations), there are now six table rows instead of three: each PUR record has a row for each of the two AIs, chem1 and chem2. The values for Year, Use no, Product, Acres, Units, Lbs Prod, and Apps are repeated on both rows of each PUR record. Summing acres treated ("Acres"), product amount ("Lbs Prod"), or number of applications ("Apps") from Table 2 now results in doubled amounts (The total pounds of AI ("Lbs AI"), however, is correct).

Table 2: Example of three PUR records for a fictitious product (Generic Bug Killer) with two AIs. Summing acres treated (Acres), product amount (Lbs Prod), or number of applications (Apps) from this table would be incorrect since the table contains AI information and the product has two AIs. Summing the pounds of AI (Lbs AI), however, is correct.

To avoid over-counting, it is important to identify individual PUR records by the unique combination of year and use number assigned to the record, and be aware of whether or not any data values are being repeated for PUR records that span multiple rows before performing any aggregations.

3. Data Summary

This report is a summary of 2018 data submitted to DPR as of September 17, 2019. PUR data are continually updated and therefore may not match later data from CalPIP or internal queries that contain corrected records identified after September 17, 2019.

Pesticide Use In California

In 2018, as in previous years, the region of greatest pesticide use was California’s San Joaquin Valley (Table 3). The four counties in this region with the highest use were Fresno, Kern, Tulare, and San Joaquin. These counties were also among the leading producers of agricultural commodities.

Table 3: Total pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported in each county and their rank during 2017 and 2018. Text files of data are available.

Reported pesticide use in California in 2018 totaled 209 million pounds, an increase of just over two and a half million pounds (1.3 percent) from 2017. Much of the increase occurred in production agriculture, where use rose by 2.6 million pounds (1.4 percent). Structural, landscape maintenance, and postharvest pesticide use decreased by five, three, and 32 percent, respectively. Postharvest treatments are predominantly commodity fumigations, but can also include pesticide treatments to irrigation ditches and other parts of fields not planted in crops. The remaining assortment of nonagricultural pesticide uses increased as a whole by about nine percent. This group includes pesticide use for research purposes, vector control, pest and weed control on rights-of-way, and pest control through fumigation of non-food and non-feed materials such as lumber and furniture.

Table 4 breaks down the pounds of pesticide by general use categories: production agriculture, postharvest treatment, structural pest control, landscape maintenance, and all others.

Table 4 Pounds of pesticide active ingredients, 1999 – 2018, by general use. Text files of data are available.

4. Trends in Pesticide Use for Select Pesticide Categories

This report discusses three different measures of pesticide use: amount of AI applied in pounds, cumulative acres treated in acres (see Cumulative Acres Treated), and to a lesser degree, application counts. While most pesticides are applied at rates of one to two pounds per acre, some may be as low as a few ounces or as high as hundreds of pounds per acre. When comparing use among different AIs, pounds will emphasize pesticides used at high rates, such as sulfur, horticultural oils, and fumigants. In contrast, acres treated and application count use measures lack this bias toward pesticides with higher application rates. However, a summation of acres treated is only a partial representation of the total pesticide use reported: Only applications reported with units of acres or square feet are included in the total. Applications with volume units (cubic feet, tons, pounds, etc.) cannot be converted to acres, and area treated is not always reported for non-production-agricultural pesticide use reports, so these pesticide applications are excluded from cumulative acres treated totals. Application counts can also be a useful measure of pesticide use, however it has been inconsistently reported for non-production-agricultural use and is no longer required for structural use reporting, so it is not included as often in the annual report.

The contrast between measuring pesticide use by pounds or by acres can be seen by looking at the use of different pesticide types (Figures 1 and 2). Figure 1, the amount applied by weight (pounds), shows that pesticides with both fungicidal and insecticidal properties (fungicide/insecticides) such as sulfur had the highest use in 2018. The fungicide/insecticide category was followed by insecticides, fumigants, herbicides, fungicides, and finally, "Other" types of pesticides, which grouped all remaining types of pesticides that did not have large enough amounts used to warrant their own graph trend line. ("Other" pesticides include rodenticides, molluscicides, algaecides, repellents, antimicrobials, antifoulants, disinfectants, and biocides). In contrast, by cumulative area (acres) treated in Figure 2, insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides had the highest use, followed by fungicide/insecticides, "Other", and, finally, fumigants.

Figure 1: Pounds of all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1998 to 2018, where "Other" includes pesticides such as rodenticides, molluscicides, algaecides, repellents, antimicrobials, antifoulants, disinfectants, and biocides. Data are available.

The trends in use for a single AI will usually follow similar patterns of increases or decreases for both pounds and acres treated measures of pesticide use. However, when pounds and acres treated move in different directions for one AI, it is often due to non-production-agricultural uses of the AI which do not legally have to include acreage, or it could be from a change in use of products with higher or lower percentages of the AI. In contrast, when looking at cumulative totals of many AIs over a period of time or a region, it is quite common for the trends to diverge depending on what measure of pesticide use is analyzed, with pounds increasing while acres treated decreases, or vice versa.

There were 209 million pounds of pesticides used in 2018, an increase of just over two and a half million pounds (1.3 percent) from 2017. The AIs with the highest total reported pounds were sulfur, petroleum and mineral oils, 1,3-dichloropropene, glyphosate, and metam-potassium (potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate). Sulfur accounted for 23 percent of total pesticide pounds in 2018.

Reported pesticide use by cumulative acres treated in 2018 was 105 million acres, an increase of 859 thousand acres (0.8 percent) from 2017. The non-adjuvant pesticides applied to the greatest area in 2018 were sulfur, glyphosate, petroleum and mineral oils, abamectin, and lambda-cyhalothrin (Appendix figure A-1). For insecticides, the top AIs by acres treated included petroleum and mineral oils, abamectin, lambda-cyhalothrin, methoxyfenozide, and chlorantraniliprole. For fungicides, the top five AIs were copper, followed by azoxystrobin, fluopyram, pyraclostrobin, and trifloxystrobin. For AIs that could serve as either fungicides or insecticides, sulfur was by far the highest in acres treated, followed by petroleum and mineral oils, kaolin clay, lime-sulfur, and finally neem oil (Figure 3). Glyphosate topped the list for acres treated among herbicides, followed by oxyfluorfen, glufosinate-ammonium, paraquat dichloride, and pendimethalin. Fumigants had relatively low acres treated compared to other types of pesticides. Aluminum phosphide was applied to the largest number of cumulative acres compared to other fumigants, slightly above 1,3-dichloropropene when ranked by acres treated. Metam-potassium, chloropicrin, and zinc phosphide made up the remaining top five fumigants. The remaining "Others" category was largely comprised of plant growth regulators and harvest aids, with gibberellins leading in acres treated, followed by ethephon, mepiquat chloride, thidiazuron, and finally 2,4-D (when used as a harvest aid rather than an herbicide) (Figure 4).

Since 1990, the reported pounds of pesticides applied and acres treated have fluctuated from year to year. These fluctuations can be attributed to a variety of factors, including changes in planted acreage, crop plantings, pest pressures, and weather conditions. An increase or decrease in use from one year to the next or in the span of a few years may not necessarily indicate a general trend in use, but rather variations related to changes in weather, pricing, supply of raw ingredients, or regulations. Regression analyses on use over the last twenty years do not indicate a significant trend of either increase or decrease in total pesticide use.

Figure 2: Acres treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1998 to 2018, where "Other" includes pesticides such as rodenticides, molluscicides, algaecides, repellents, antimicrobials, antifoulants, disinfectants, and biocides. Data are available.

Pesticide use is summarized for eight different pesticide categories from 2009 to 2018 (Tables 5 – 20) and from 1998 to 2018 (Figures 5 – 12). These categories include reproductive toxicity, carcinogens, cholinesterase inhibitors, groundwater contaminants, toxic air contaminants, fumigants, oils, and biopesticides. Changes from 2017 to 2018 are summarized as follows:

• Reproductive toxins: Chemicals classified as reproductive toxins increased in amount applied from 2017 to 2018 by 80 thousand pounds (one percent increase), but decreased by 406 thousand acres (eight percent decrease). The increase in amount applied was mainly due to an increase in use of the fumigant metam-sodium, which increased by 621 thousand pounds (20 percent increase). The reduction in acres treated was largely due to chlorpyrifos being used on 260 thousand fewer cumulative acres (38 percent decrease). Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate that has been increasingly restricted in use since 2015. Its registration was cancelled and nearly all use will cease as of the end of December, 2020. Pesticides in this category are listed on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause reproductive toxicity.








Figure 3: Acres treated by the top five AIs in each of the major types of pesticides from 2012 to 2018. Data are available at Data are available.

• Carcinogens: The amount of pesticides classified as carcinogens decreased by 191 thousand pounds from 2017 to 2018 (0.5 percent decrease), and the acres treated decreased by 628 thousand acres (seven percent decrease). The decrease in amount applied was largely due to less use of the fumigant metam-potassium, which decreased by 413 thousand pounds (five percent decrease), and the fungicides mancozeb (13 percent decrease) and iprodione (57 percent decrease), which decreased by 204 thousand and 149 thousand pounds, respectively. The decline in acres treated was mostly due to less use of mancozeb (17 percent decrease) and iprodione (71 percent decrease), which were used on 142 thousand and 338 thousand fewer acres treated, respectively. The pesticides in this category are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer.








Figure 4: Acres treated by the top five AIs in each of the major types of pesticides from 2012 to 2018. Data are available.

• Cholinesterase inhibitors: Use of organophosphorus and carbamate cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides decreased from the previous year by 429 thousand pounds (10 percent decrease) and decreased by 360 thousand acres treated (11 percent decrease). Most of the reduction resulted from a drop in the use of the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos, which decreased by 347 thousand pounds (37 percent decrease) and 260 thousand acres treated (38 percent decrease). Other organophosphates also declined in use, such as the insecticide dimethoate, which declined by 58 thousand pounds (26 percent decrease) and 63 thousand acres (13 percent decrease), and acephate, which dropped by 27 thousand pounds (14 percent decrease) and 19 thousand acres (11 percent decrease). The organophosphate plant growth regulator ethephon also significantly declined, decreasing by 52 thousand pounds (11 percent decrease) and 57 thousand acres (10 percent decrease).
• groundwater contaminants: The use of AIs categorized as groundwater contaminants increased in amount applied by five thousand pounds (one percent increase), but decreased in acres treated by 60 thousand acres (11 percent decrease), mainly from changes in the use of the herbicide diuron. Diuron increased by nine thousand pounds (five percent increase), but was used on 56 thousand less cumulative acres treated (14 percent decrease). When pounds of a single active ingredient such as diuron increase but the acres treated decrease, it can be due to an increase in non-production-agricultural uses since these PURs typically do not report acreage. It can also be due to higher use of products that contain a larger percentage of the active ingredient.
• Toxic air contaminants: The use of AIs categorized as toxic air contaminants decreased in amount applied by nearly three million pounds (six percent decrease) and decreased in acres treated by 411 thousand acres (14 percent decrease). The 1.4 million pound decrease of the fumigant chloropicrin (15 percent decrease), the 663 thousand pound drop in sulfuryl fluoride (18 percent decrease), and the decline of metam-potassium by 413 thousand pounds (five percent decrease) accounted for much of the overall reduction in amount applied. The decrease in acres treated was due to 260 thousand fewer acres treated with the insecticide chlorpyrifos (38 percent decrease) and 142 thousand less acres treated with the fungicide mancozeb (17 percent decrease).
• Fumigants: The use of fumigant AIs decreased by two and a half million pounds (six percent decrease) and by 287 thousand acres treated (29 percent decrease). Much of the decrease was due to a reduction of 1.4 million pounds of chloropicrin (15 percent decrease), 663 thousand pounds of sulfuryl fluoride (18 percent decrease), and 413 thousand pounds of metam-potassium (five percent decrease). Cumulative acres treated declined largely due to 23 thousand less acres treated with the rodenticide fumigant zinc phosphide (41 percent decrease). Chloropicrin and metam-potassium are soil fumigants, while sulfuryl fluoride is used to control termites and other structural pests.
• Oils: Use of oil pesticides increased in amount by two and a half million pounds (seven percent increase), and increased in acres treated by 155 thousand acres (three percent increase). Only oil AIs derived from petroleum distillation are included in these totals. Although some oils are listed on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, none of these carcinogenic oils are known to be used as pesticides in California. Most oil pesticides used in California serve as alternatives to more toxic pesticides. Some highly refined petroleum-based oils are used by organic growers.
• Biopesticides: Use of biopesticides and AIs considered to be lower risk to human health or the environment increased in amount by 257 thousand pounds (three percent increase) and by 46 thousand acres (less than one percent increase). The adjuvant vegetable oil increased by 159 thousand pounds (24 percent increase) and the fungicide/insecticide kaolin clay by 75 thousand pounds (two percent increase), while the adjuvant citric acid was applied to 28 thousand more acres (one percent increase) and the fungicide potassium phosphite was used on 23 thousand more acres (six percent increase). In general, biopesticides are derived from natural materials such as animals, plants, bacteria, and minerals. In some cases, they are synthetic mimics of these natural materials.

The summaries detailed above and the data presented in the following use category tables 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 Continuous Evaluation of Pesticides)

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON THE STATE’S PROPOSITION 65 LIST OF CHEMICALS THAT ARE "KNOWN TO CAUSE REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY

Table 5: The reported pounds of pesticides used that 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 available.

Table 6: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are "known to cause reproductive toxicity." Use includes primarily agricultural applications (Most non-production-agricultural pesticide use reports are not required to report acreage. A zero indicates some nonagricultural use occurred, but acreage was not reported. The word "none" indicates no use at all that year). 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 available.

Figure 5: 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 include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are available.

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES LISTED BY U.S. EPA AS A OR B CARCINOGENS OR ON THE STATE’S PROPOSITION 65 LIST OF CHEMICALS THAT ARE "KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER."

Table 7: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are "known to cause cancer." Use includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. Data are available.

Table 8: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are "known to cause cancer." Use includes primarily agricultural applications (Most non-production-agricultural pesticide use reports are not required to report acreage. A zero indicates some nonagricultural use occurred, but acreage was not reported. The word "none" indicates no use at all that year). 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 available.

Figure 6: Use trends of pesticides that are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are "known to cause cancer." Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are available.

USE TRENDS OF CHOLINESTERASE-INHIBITING PESTICIDES.

Table 9: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are organophosphorus or carbamate cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. Use includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. Data are available.

Table 10: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are organophosphorus or carbamate cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. Use includes primarily agricultural applications (Most non-production-agricultural pesticide use reports are not required to report acreage. A zero indicates some nonagricultural use occurred, but acreage was not reported. The word "none" indicates no use at all that year). 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 available.

Figure 7: Use trends of pesticides that are organophosphorus or carbamate cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are available.

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON THE "A" PART OF DPR’S GROUNDWATER PROTECTION LIST.

Table 11: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are on the "a" part of DPR’s groundwater protection list. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a). Use includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. Data are available.

Table 12: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are on the "a" part of DPR’s groundwater protection list. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a). Use includes primarily agricultural applications (Most non-production-agricultural pesticide use reports are not required to report acreage. A zero indicates some nonagricultural use occurred, but acreage was not reported. The word "none" indicates no use at all that year). 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 available.

Figure 8: Use trends of pesticides that are on the "a" part of DPR’s groundwater protection list. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a). Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are available.

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON DPR’S TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS LIST.

Table 13: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are on DPR’s toxic air contaminants list applied in California. These pesticides are the 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 nonagricultural applications. Data are available.

Table 14: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are on DPR’s toxic air contaminants list applied in California. These pesticides are the 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 (Most non-production-agricultural pesticide use reports are not required to report acreage. A zero indicates some nonagricultural use occurred, but acreage was not reported. The word "none" indicates no use at all that year). 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 available.