Farmworker Advocates Sue California Over Conflicting Regulations for Cancer-Causing Fumigant Pesticide 1,3-D
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 4, 2026
Attorney Contacts:
- Michael Freund, Michael Freund and Associates, freund1@aol.com, 510-499-1992
- Chelsea Tu, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., ctu@crla.org, 831-757-5221 x1436
Plaintiff Contacts:
- Angel Garcia, Californians for Pesticide Reform, angel@pesticidereform.org, 559-748-7065
- Margaret Reeves, Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network, mreeves@panna.org, 510-593-4351
Farmworker Advocates Sue California Over Conflicting Regulations for Cancer-Causing Fumigant Pesticide 1,3-D
Nine years after landmark court victory, California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s 1,3-D regulations still fall far short, say advocates
LINDSAY, CA — Nearly a decade after community members first sued the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) for its unlawful regulation of the cancer-causing fumigant 1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D), affected residents and advocacy organizations are back in court.
On Monday, community residents Rocio Ortiz and Ana Barrera, along with Californians for Pesticide Reform and Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network, filed suit challenging DPR’s regulations governing the use of 1,3-D.
The lawsuit alleges that DPR’s newly adopted regulations violate fundamental requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to provide clarity and internal consistency, and violate the California Food and Agricultural Code, by allowing the public to be exposed to pesticide emissions at levels that cause harm to human health.
After nearly nine years of litigation following the 2017 case Vasquez et al. v. Department of Pesticide Regulation, DPR has now issued two separate regulations for 1,3-D that conflict with one another.
The first regulation, for people living near pesticide applications (known as residential bystanders), took effect in 2024 and uses a regulatory target air level of 0.56 parts per billion (ppb) per day over a 70-year lifetime.
On January 1, 2026, a second regulation took effect, intended to protect people who work near 1,3-D applications, known as occupational bystanders. This second regulation uses a threshold of 0.21ppb per 40 hours per week over 40 years.
Each regulation applies different target air concentration levels to essentially the same population, creating regulatory confusion and undermining the state’s duty to protect communities and workers from a known carcinogen.
“After everything our communities have endured, it is devastating to see DPR still refuse to do its job,” said Ana Barrera, a plaintiff in the case. “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.”
Rocio Ortiz, also a plaintiff, emphasized the human cost of regulatory failure. “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. DPR had years to get this right. Instead, they created confusing, contradictory rules that put our communities at risk of harmful exposure. We should not have to keep suing the state just to be protected from cancer-causing chemicals.”
The state’s expert cancer risk assessment branch, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), in 2022 established a lifetime cancer risk level for 1,3-D, known as a No Significant Risk Level, or NSRL, equivalent to 0.04ppb — far lower than either of DPR’s regulatory targets.
The regulatory target for DPR’s occupational bystander regulation accepts the OEHHA NSRL but 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. The new lawsuit charges that the regulation does not protect the public from harm because it fails to consider any exposure outside of work hours.
The occupational bystander regulation also makes the assumption that farm workers work from 8am to 4pm, when emissions are at their lowest. In fact, most farmworkers start work before 8am when emissions are significantly higher.
In addition, the first regulation allows residential bystanders to be exposed to levels that the second regulation acknowledges would cause cancer for occupational bystanders.
“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,” said Angel Garcia, co-director of the statewide coalition Californians for Pesticide Reform. “The law requires clarity, consistency, and meaningful protection — none of which are present here.”
As well as the failure to adequately protect health, the lawsuit charges that the contradictory regulations violate the consistency requirement of the Administrative Procedures Act, and also lack the legally required clarity because they do not include any provisions to warn workers about nearby 1,3-D use.
This marks the fourth time community members and advocates have gone to court over DPR’s handling of 1,3-D. The plaintiffs are suing to invalidate the two regulations and compel DPR to adopt one clear, consistent, and health-protective regulation that finally brings California into compliance with its own laws. California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. and Michael Freund and Associates represent the plaintiffs.
###
Background on 1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D)
1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D) is a highly toxic soil fumigant primarily used in industrial-scale agriculture to control nematodes and other soil pests. It is applied by injection into soil or through drip tubes, where it volatilizes into a gas that can drift beyond treated fields. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation has classified 1,3-D as a toxic air contaminant and recognizes it as a human carcinogen.
Exposure to 1,3-D has been linked to increased cancer risk and other serious health effects, particularly for people living, working, or attending school near treated fields. Communities most affected by 1,3-D exposure are rural, low-income, and predominantly Latino.
Background on Prior Litigation
In 2017, farmworker and community members filed Vasquez v. Department of Pesticide Regulation, challenging DPR’s long-standing failure to adequately regulate 1,3-D. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that DPR had violated the law by creating an “underground regulation” with no public process and the appellate court affirmed.
Following the appellate victory, DPR developed a regulation for residential bystanders. Plaintiffs returned to court to challenge DPR’s failure to fully comply with the court’s writ, resulting in DPR being compelled to develop a second regulation addressing risks to occupational bystanders. Despite these repeated court interventions over nearly a decade, advocates say that DPR’s most recent regulations continue to fall short, prompting the current lawsuit.
Timeline: Legal Challenges to DPR’s Regulation of 1,3-D
2017 — Farmworker and community members file Vasquez et al. v. Department of Pesticide Regulation, challenging DPR’s failure to lawfully regulate the cancer-causing fumigant 1,3-D.
2018 — Trial court rules in favor of plaintiffs, finding DPR violated the law by adopting an “underground regulation” with no public process.
2021 — Joined by the manufacturer Dow, DPR appeals and loses; the appellate court affirms that DPR’s regulation of 1,3-D is unlawful.
2022 — OEHHA adopts a No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for 1,3-D equivalent to 0.04ppb
2023 — DPR develops a regulation for residential bystanders using a target air level of 0.56ppb - 14 times higher than OEHHA’s NSRL. Plaintiffs return to court to challenge DPR’s failure to comply with the court order.
2023 — The court orders DPR to develop a second regulation addressing exposure risks to occupational bystanders, and to work on it “jointly and mutually” with OEHHA.
2024 — The first regulation, for residential bystanders, takes effect, using DPR’s 0.56ppb regulatory target threshold.
2026 — The second regulation, for occupational bystanders, takes effect, using a cancer regulatory target air level of 0.21ppb during workhours, resulting in two conflicting regulations for 1,3-D that allow widely different levels of exposure to essentially the same populations. Community members and advocacy organizations file suit again, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the California Food and Agricultural Code.
Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) is a diverse, statewide coalition of 200+ member groups working to strengthen pesticide policies in California to protect public health and the environment. Member groups include public and children's health advocates, clean air and water groups, health practitioners, environmental justice groups, labor, education, farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates from across the state.
Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN) is a California non-profit corporation dedicated to creating a just, healthy, and equitable food system. We recognize that pesticide and biotech corporations have dictated how we grow food, and regulate pesticides placing the health and economic burdens of pesticide use on farmers, farmworkers and rural communities. PAN works with those on the frontlines to tackle the pesticide problem — and reclaim the future of food and farming.
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. (CRLA) is a nonprofit, anti-poverty law firm that dismantles unjust systems through community lawyering in California’s historically rural areas. We work with people priced out of private legal representation so they can uphold civil rights in housing, employment, health, and public education. Through our 17 Rural Justice Centers, communities can access a broad range of legal tools, including direct legal services, place-based advocacy to expand equity in civic institutions, and specialized litigation to advance civil rights.
