Angel Garcia of Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) speaks at the news conference before the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s hearing on the pesticide 1,3-D/Telone in Visalia on January 8, 2025. Photo provided by CPR.
In a fiery protest on Tuesday, farmworker communities and advocates gathered in Visalia to denounce the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) for what they called a racist and unscientific approach to regulating a cancer-causing pesticide, 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D). Critics argue the draft regulation exposes Latino and Indigenous children and residents near agricultural fields to dangerously higher cancer risks compared to farmworkers in adjacent fields.
At the heart of the controversy is DPR’s decision to permit children and nearby residents to be exposed to 14 times more 1,3-D than the state’s official cancer risk threshold for farmworkers. The pesticide, widely used on crops like strawberries and almonds, has long been linked to severe health risks, including cancer.
“This regulation is blatantly discriminatory,” said Raul Garcia, an organizer with the Tulare County Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety. “Dow got what they wanted. Farmworker communities like mine got the promise of more cancer.”
The draft regulation sets the daily exposure threshold for children and residents at 0.56 parts per billion (ppb), aligning with Dow Chemical’s, the manufacturer of 1,3-D, lobbying efforts.
By contrast, the state’s cancer experts at the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recommend a much stricter standard of 0.04 ppb—a level DPR has adopted only for occupational bystanders, like farmworkers near application sites.
Tuesday’s public hearing at the Visalia Veterans’ Memorial Building had over 100 attendees express anger and frustration at the draft regulation, which they criticized as unscientific and racist. More than 50 members of San Joaquin Valley farmworker communities spoke, highlighting the disparity in cancer risk targets that allow children and residents to be exposed to 14 times more 1,3-D than adult workers in neighboring fields. Attendees submitted about two dozen scientific papers to the public record, while only one agricultural industry representative spoke.
“DPR is finally using the OEHHA findings for some, but why not everybody?” asked Bianca Lopez, Executive Director of the Valley Improvement Projects. “It is certainly unscientific to say that children can tolerate 14 times more exposure to a carcinogen than adults. This isn’t just unscientific; it’s racist.”
The regulation’s assumptions were also questioned. DPR assumes that occupational bystanders—farmworkers in fields near but not at the application site—are exposed to 1,3-D only during work hours and not before or after. The exposure level for these workers is set at 0.21 ppb for an 8-hour workday over a 40-year career, which DPR equates to the lifetime exposure threshold of 0.04 ppb per 24-hour day. Advocates argue these assumptions fail to account for real-life cumulative exposure.
Byanka Santoyo, of the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment in Kern County, dismissed these assumptions as absurd.
“This regulation would protect no one,” Santoyo said. “It’s as if they’re regulating for a fictional worker who doesn’t live, breathe, or grow up near these fields.”
Advocates emphasized the racial disparities in pesticide exposure. A 2022 report found that the majority-Latino counties in California see ten times more 1,3-D applied per capita compared to counties with lower Latino populations.
Felipe Perez, a Firebaugh City Councilmember, pointed to his own community as an example. “The Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified School District has 130,000 pounds of 1,3-D applied within its boundaries every year. My community is treated as a sacrifice zone for corporate profits,” Perez said.
Perez also highlighted the broader environmental justice implications.
“I just don’t understand how our State—which is supposed to be a leader in environmental justice—has created separate and unequal regulations for the same pesticide, 1,3-D,” he said.
Advocates noted that the six state-run pesticide air monitors have consistently registered 1,3-D levels above OEHHA’s 0.04 ppb threshold, further underscoring the regulation’s inadequacy.
Advocates also highlighted DPR’s track record of favoring corporate interests over public health. Angel Garcia, Co-Director of Californians for Pesticide Reform, likened DPR’s approach to Trump-era policies prioritizing profits over people.
“If DPR can manipulate their regulations to sidestep the conclusions of state toxicologists, they’ll do it again and again,” Garcia said. “California must resist this and demand that science drive policy.”
The hearing, held at the Visalia Veterans’ Memorial Building, drew impassioned testimony from farmworker families and advocates. As DPR deliberates its final regulation, communities on the frontlines of pesticide exposure vow to continue their fight for equal protection under the law.
“Our children deserve better,” said Perez. “This regulation cannot stand.”
