ALAMEDA COUNTY, Calif. (KSEE/KGPE) – Two former Central Coast field workers and a Central Valley non-profit are suing a state agency over new pesticide regulations, claiming they knew the thresholds they set could cause cancer.

The suit was filed against the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) on Feb. 2 by Rocio Ortiz and Ana Barrera, Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR), Pesticide Action, and the Agroecology Network.

“These regulations are not just words on paper — they’re the difference between families like mine feeling safe at home or living with constant worry,” Ortiz wrote in a statement. “DPR had years to get this right. Instead, they created confusing, contradictory rules that put our communities at risk of harmful exposure.”

Those “confusing, contradictory rules” were the solution to another lawsuit against DPR that began in 2017. It set limits on the pesticide “1,3-Dichloropropene,” (1,3-D): one for those living near agricultural fields and the other for those working in those fields.

However, as the suit points out, there are four main problems.

Failure to comply with legal mandates
In 2022, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment capped 1,3-D exposure at 0.04 parts per billion (ppb) per day – that’s 14 times lower than DPR’s target for those living near fields.

“We live, work, and raise our children near fields where this chemical is used,” Barrera, a school teacher who used to work in the fields near Salinas, wrote.” DPR knows it causes cancer, yet they continue to write rules that protect the industry instead of the people breathing this air every day.”

Targets are inconsistent
According to the new regulations, those living near agricultural fields are allowed to be exposed to nearly 20 times the levels of Pesticide 1,3-D than what is considered safe for field workers.

“DPR cannot have regulations that contradict each other and allow different levels of exposure to 1,3-D at home or at work for the same people,” Angel Garcia, co-director of CPR, wrote in a statement. “The law requires clarity, consistency, and meaningful protection — none of which are present here.”

Lack of clarity
Although the targets for field workers are within what DPR considers safe limits, CPR says it ignores the fact that workers might also be exposed off the clock.

“[It] allows for far more exposure because it assumes that workers are only exposed to 1,3-D for 40 hours a week for 40 years – even though many farmworkers also live near farms and are exposed 24/7 for a lifetime,” DPR wrote in a statement.

Failure to support assumptions and conclusions
They also say it “makes the assumption that farm workers work from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., when emissions are at their lowest.”

However, according to a 2022 study from UC Merced, only 2.8% of farm workers started between 8 a.m. and 8:59 a.m., while 60% started their shifts before 7 a.m., when emissions are significantly higher.

Because of these findings, the suit alleges DPR is in violation of the California Food and Agricultural Code by “allowing the public to be exposed to pesticide emissions at levels that cause harm to human health.”

It also alleges the new regulations violate requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by “failing to provide clarity and internal consistency.”

“After everything our communities have endured, it is devastating to see DPR still refuse to do its job,” Barrera said. “We live, work, and raise our children near fields where this chemical is used. DPR knows it causes cancer, yet they continue to write rules that protect the industry instead of the people breathing this air every day.”

This is the fourth case brought against DPR over its handling of 1,3-D.

YourCentralValley.com reached out to DPR for comment, but in a Thursday statement, they wrote, “The Department of Pesticide Regulation does not comment on pending litigation.”