Bee-killing pesticides, common in gardening products, could face new limits in California

One bill aims to speed the study and regulation of insecticides. Another would close a related loophole that poses risks to pollinators, waterways and people.

It’s now clear that our decades-long love affair with pesticides is contributing to the worldwide collapse of bee colonies, with ramifications for all plants and animals — including us — that depend on these mighty pollinators. So a law that kicks in Jan. 1 will prevent California farmers from using a category of pesticides known as neonics, which have been particularly linked to bee harm, at times when the insects are most likely to be foraging for food.

But while recent research increasingly links neonics both to broader ecosystem problems and to serious health conditions in humans, the new state regulations focus only on protections for bees.

There also are no rules, so far, limiting the use of neonics on ornamental plants or grass around California homes, businesses or parks, or in products such as pet flea medicines. Instead, while some manufacturers and retailers are heeding to these growing concerns and voluntarily pivoting away from neonics, the insecticide remains common in popular products.

Neonics and other pesticides — including some not approved for use in California — also end up in our soil, waterways, animals and people through the use of insecticide-coated seeds. Such seeds are widely used but currently unregulated in the state.

Two proposed laws backed by a coalition of Democratic lawmakers and environmental advocates aim to tackle these gaps.

One would make California regulators complete a study on how neonics impact pollinators, water systems and human health by July 2024. And the Department of Pesticide Regulation would have to adopt rules for using the pesticide on ornamental plants, trees and turf by July 2026.

Another bill would close the so-called “treated seed loophole,” which also is the subject of a lawsuit now pending against the state.

Supporters of the bills aren’t trying to ban all neonics, or to prohibit farmers from buying treated seeds, according to Lucas Rhoads, staff attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is leading the charge on the legislation. Instead, Rhoads said, they’re trying to establish “common-sense regulations” and tools that can address the “widespread harms” these products can cause.

“Both of these bills are win-wins,” Rhoads said, arguing they’d safeguard public health and the environment while also protecting bees and other pollinators that farmers rely on to keep agricultural landscapes healthy.

Agriculture groups, however, are pushing back. They note that state regulators already are studying these issues, and banning or severely limiting these products before those studies are complete could trigger a new set of problems, with limited options to control some pests.

“We are opposed to over-reaching programs that will deprive farmers with needed tools and new technologies,” said Renee Pinel, president of the Western Plant Health Association, which represents fertilizer and crop protection companies in California, Arizona and Hawaii.

Despite such objections the Assembly easily passed both bills last month. If the bills make it through the state Senate this summer, it’ll be up to Gov. Gavin Newsom to decide if California will join a small but growing number of states that restrict non-agricultural use of neonics, and if the Golden State will pave the way with first-in-the-nation regulations of pesticide treated seeds.

Popular but controversial

Neonics, which are short for neonicotinoid pesticides, were first used in the mid-1990s and quickly became the most widely used insecticides in the country. The Natural Institutes of Health reports that by the early-2010s almost all non-organic corn and roughly a third of soybeans grown in the U.S. came from seeds coated with neonics.

The products became so popular because they permeate plant tissue, making everything from the roots to leaves to pollen potentially poisonous to targeted insects. But while these products are aimed at fending off pests, such as beetles and aphids that can wreak havoc on crops and other plants, neonics don’t discriminate.

Studies link the pesticide with health problems and death for all sorts of insect populations, with two decades of research to show how they’re harming honeybees. Pests, parasites and a lack of biodiversity also are causing problems for bees, but studies find that bees are less able to fend off or survive those stressors if they’ve been exposed to neonics.

After those concerns popped up, in the mid-2000s, the state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation spent the next 14 years studying how farmers’ use of neonics impacts bee colonies and what could be done to reduce risks.

Last year the state published new regulations, limiting when and where farmers can apply neonics, so they’ll avoid, for example, using them when flowering plants are in bloom. Those rules, which take effect Jan. 1, are expected to limit application of 57 products currently registered for use in California and reduce the amount of neonics applied statewide by nearly half.

While those rules are focused on protecting bees, recent studies also have linked neonics to a loss of bird species, declining fish populations, health issues for wildlife (such as birth defects in deer) and a range of problems for humans.

One study found that children exposed to neonics through pet flea medicines have a higher risk of developing autism spectrum disorders, for example, with the neurotoxin acting on the brain much like nicotine. (Researchers said the association “warrants further investigation.”) Others found an elevated risk of memory loss in adults and of heart defects for babies born near farms that applied neonics, while animal studies link neonics to low sperm count, thyroid problems, delayed reflexes and more.

Most humans now face chronic exposure to neonics.

Exposure comes through the produce we eat, which, if it’s not organic, has often been sprayed with the insecticide or grown from pre-treated seeds. We also drink it, since neonics move easily in water. Some 93% of surface waters in the Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties region tested positive for one of the most popular types of neonics, according to a study published in 2021 by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

As a result, more than 90% of pregnant women tested in California and four other states had at least one type of neonic insecticide in their system, according to a study published last year by the American Chemical Society.

The Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing its labeling requirements for neonics, and by fall the federal agency is expected to issue a decision on any possible changes to printed warnings or directions for proper use.

While California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation evaluated human health effects based on what they knew before registering neonics for use in California some three decades ago, Jennifer Teerlink, assistant director of the department’s Pesticide Programs said they’re now in the “home stretch” of a comprehensive review of how different uses of neonics impact human health.

“We look forward to sharing that publicly as soon as possible,” Teerlink said.

As that study wraps up, and with new rules now set for the use of neonics in agricultural settings, Teerlink said her department has turned its attention to evaluating the non-agricultural uses of neonics.

But environmental groups say they don’t want to wait another 14 years for protection.

Rushing research and rules

In February, Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, D-San Ramon, introduced legislation to potentially speed up the process of state scientific review.

If Assembly Bill 363 becomes law, the Department of Pesticide Regulation would need to wrap up a comprehensive study on non-agricultural uses of neonics, and adopt rules for consumer use of those products, by summer 2026.

Bauer-Kahan last year got a bill through the legislature that would have banned lawn and garden use of neonics, with an exemption only for invasive species. That’s in line with neonics bans in place in New Jersey, Maine and Nevada, while another seven states only allow the products to be used by pesticide professionals.

However, Newsom vetoed Bauer-Kahan’s bill last fall, saying the Department of Pesticide Regulation would be studying that issue this year. So this year’s bill focuses on making sure that study is completed in a timely and comprehensive way.

The department is evaluating the bill and can’t yet comment on whether the timelines it would mandate are feasible, spokeswoman Leia Bailey said Thursday.

As for why Western Plant Health Association opposes AB 363, Pinel noted that most invasive insects enter California through non-agricultural settings, such as tourism. So she said it’s “vital to control pests from finding a foothold in non-agricultural environments.”

In reviewing these issues, Teerlink said her department will carefully consider how any restrictions might impact broader plant and ecosystem health in California.

AB 363 passed the Assembly along party lines with a 57-16 vote. It’s now waiting to be heard in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

Treated seeds under microscope

Bauer-Kahan also is backing Assembly Bill 1042, which would direct the Department of Pesticide Regulation to develop regulations for seeds treated with pesticides before they’re planted.

No state has such rules in place today, per the Natural Resources Defense Council. The New York legislature this week approved a related ban, which the governor there is now considering.

In the meantime, federal law requires that all pesticides applied to seeds must be registered with the EPA. And if the application happens in California, the pesticides must also be registered here. But once the seed is treated, state and federal regulations don’t consider the seeds themselves to be “pesticides,” so they don’t track or regulate their use.

California regulators can’t, for example, tell farmers not to plant pesticide-treated seeds next to sensitive waterways, Rhoads said. They also can’t stop farmers from using seeds treated with pesticides that aren’t legal in California.

Just 43% of treated seeds used in California are coated with pesticides registered for use here, according to a study the state’s Department of Food and Agriculture did from 2010 to 2021. The study couldn’t identify any registration for 15% of the pesticides used, while the EPA had canceled use for nearly one in 10 products found on seeds in circulation here.

Supporters of using treated seeds say the practice actually leads to farmers using less pesticides over time. But Rhoads says that argument is based on misleading data. Instead of treating plants only when pests pop up, he said all seeds are now proactively treated, which leads to greater overall use — and contamination.

Only 2% to 3% of the pesticides coated on seeds are taken up by the plants themselves, according to a 2020 study cited by the pesticide department. Another 2% to 3% blows away during planting (though Pinel said new innovations in seed coatings and planting equipment are reducing those figures), and more than 90% of the pesticides in seed coatings are absorbed into soil, water or non-targeted plants. That’s why studies have linked heavy use of treated seeds with massive water contamination in agricultural areas, Rhoads said.

With such data in mind, the Natural Resources Defense Council led other environmental groups in suing the Department of Pesticide Regulation this February, arguing the department isn’t fulfilling its missions by not regulating pesticide treated seeds. The Attorney General’s office responded last week, asking the judge to throw out the case and arguing in court records that regulators had acted in accordance with the law. A hearing in that case is set for Aug. 18.

Meanwhile, AB 1042 passed the Assembly on a 53-19 vote. It’s also now in the Senate’s Environmental Quality Committee.

Both bills must pass the Senate by Sept. 14. Newsom then has 30 days to sign or veto them.