After joining PAN last spring, I spent a lot of time getting up to speed on the policy landscape in California. I initially felt overwhelmed by the state’s many regulatory strategies and plans to reduce or adapt to climate change.
After joining PAN last spring, I spent a lot of time getting up to speed on the policy landscape in California. I initially felt overwhelmed by the state’s many regulatory strategies and plans to reduce or adapt to climate change. However, I quickly realized one glaring oversight – every single strategy excludes concrete reductions in chemical pesticide use as a means to mitigate and adapt to climate change. And that’s a huge problem. Without decreased pesticide dependency and increased ecological pest management, California will fail to meet its climate goals, with the impacts of climate change and pesticide use continuing to fall disproportionately on people of color.
Climate change expected to exacerbate pesticide exposure
Effects of climate change will likely increase the agricultural sector’s use of pesticides and increase pesticide exposure for rural communities and farmworkers unless we begin to incentivize other forms of pest management. Research shows climate change will most likely result in increased chemical pesticide use because of decreased efficacy of pesticides and increased pest and disease pressure. These findings are highly concerning, given pesticides are already applied on cropland in California at a 4.5 times higher rate than the national average.
Of course, increased pesticide use means more pesticide exposure. At present, long-term exposure to pesticides is linked to a host of illnesses and diseases, from developmental disorders in children to cancer. However, higher temperatures under climate change will also mean higher environmental toxicity and pesticide volatilization (when a pesticide turns into a gas.) Volatilization is a primary source of pesticide drift, which can cause varying degrees of pesticide poisoning, including acute illness for those exposed to the toxic vapor.
The compounded effects of potential increased pesticide use with increased exposure could have disastrous environmental effects and health impacts predominantly for people of color. Pesticide exposure occurs mainly along racial lines in California, with research finding that 60% of zip codes with the highest proportion of residents of color host > 95% of agricultural pesticide use in the state.
Farmworkers in particular are on the frontlines of pesticide exposure, and increases in pesticide use exacerbate other effects from climate change like extreme heat. When applying chemical pesticides, farmworkers wear heavy duty PPE (personal protective equipment) that raises the risk of dangerous heat stress by preventing the body from cooling down. Protective clothing that workers rely on to take precautions from pesticide exposure would therefore increase risk from heat-related illnesses as temperatures rise because of climate change.
Given the projected increase in pesticide use and exposure particularly for farmworkers and residents of color, ecological pest management and a transition away from chemical pesticide dependency must be a key part of our climate resilience and adaptation goals in California.
And. . . pesticides worsen climate change
In a particularly destructive cycle, while climate change is likely to increase pesticide use, pesticides can themselves contribute to climate change. Many chemical pesticides release greenhouse gas emissions during their production, storage, transportation and application. Meanwhile, alternative agriculture systems that limit chemical pesticide use, like organic farming, have been shown to significantly increase carbon stored in soils in California.
Given how climate change will likely result in increased pesticide use and exposure, and how pesticide use can increase greenhouse gas emissions, California urgently needs to reduce pesticide dependency and incentivize ecological pest management and climate-friendly, socially-just agricultural systems, such as agroecology. Both agroecology and ecological pest management focus on mimicking natural ecosystems and building soil health and crop resilience to prevent the need for pest control measures in the first place. Yet, despite the mountain of evidence, the state’s climate change strategies have remained all but silent on pesticide use reduction.
Our climate strategies leave out pesticide reduction targets
There are two primary overarching climate strategies in California — The California Air Resources Board’s Scoping Plan, and the California Natural Resources Agency’s Climate Adaptation Strategy. The Scoping Plan is focused on climate change mitigation, while the Climate Adaptation Strategy is focused on – you guessed it — adaptation and resilience to climate change. Both strategies are currently in draft-form and in the process of being finalized by state agencies. However, neither plan currently includes chemical pesticide reduction targets or goals to combat climate change in the agricultural sector.
The Scoping Plan is silent on chemical pesticides, while the Climate Adaptation Strategy merely states the need for safer pest management by reporting on the use of “specified pesticides.” However, the state already reports pesticide use, and high rates of pesticide applications have continued despite reporting requirements. What’s needed are clear reduction targets.
Specific targets would help guide meaningful investments in incentives for farmers experimenting with alternative crop and pest management practices, and in an expansion of technical assistance providers who specialize in ecological pest management and agroecology.
Photo courtesy | Kandarian Organic Farms
Both plans also fail to acknowledge the power of shifting to alternative agricultural systems that reduce chemical dependency, like agroecology or diversified organic agriculture, to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A systems-level approach would support farm management shifts that would have a much larger impact on addressing climate change than current strategies that focus on oversimplified measures like changes to single farming practices.
The Healthy Soils Program also ignores pesticides
The California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Healthy Soils Program, the premier program in the state meant to incentivize climate-friendly agriculture practices, offers incentives to farmers to reduce tillage (thought by some to increase carbon stored in soils), but leaves out incentives for farmers to reduce pesticide use.
Pesticide manufacturers like Bayer (Monsanto) have successfully marketed herbicides as a climate change solution. These corporations claim that using herbicides allows farmers to reduce or eliminate their need to till the soil to control weeds, which increases the amount of carbon stored in soils. However, the science is still unconfirmed on whether the effects of reducing tillage on carbon stores are significant. And with no-till production, herbicides typically become the primary way to control weeds on conventional farms, increasing dependence on herbicides.
In addition to the program’s failure to recognize the association between reduced tillage and increased herbicide use, the program fails to recognize the negative impacts of pesticides on soil health.
The Healthy Soils Program is mentioned in both the state’s Scoping Plan and Climate Adaptation Strategy as key to mitigating and adapting to climate change. However, the program falls short without incentivizing practices that directly reduce pesticide dependency like ecological pest management.
Farmers leading the way
I’ve mentioned ecological pest management and agroecology multiple times. But what does ecological pest management actually look like? We spoke to a few farmers who are leading the way with innovative ecological pest management strategies. These alternatives to chemical pesticides are practical and effective, see for yourself:
CRECE (Community in Resistance for Ecological and Cultural Empowerment)
CRECE is an urban farm based in Santa Ana, California deeply rooted in the local community. The farm co-owners aim to help community members, many of whom are immigrants who used to farm in Mexico, transition to dignified jobs in food and agriculture. They focus on building healthy soils and, by extension, healthy crops, so they don’t have to use pesticides in the first place. They rotate crops, mulch, cover crop and compost. Over time, these practices have improved their soil health and minimized pest pressure. They will still occasionally come across pests such as aphids or white flies, but they cause minimal harm thanks to the wide range of management practices focused on increasing crop diversity and building soil health, thereby increasing pest resilience.
However, Abel Ruiz, a co-owner of the farm, believes state programs for farmers could do much more to support urban farmers using ecological pest management practices, and to ensure community-based farmers know about the programs to begin with. Ruiz says he’s “not aware of programs that support folks trying to create infrastructure from a community-based approach.”
Our state policies could do much more to support farms like CRECE leading the way in creating ecological and community-based food and farming systems.
Photo courtesy | Berkeley Basket
Berkeley Basket started as a demonstration garden to show local residents that they can grow food in their own backyard. They’ve since expanded to three different residential spaces in Berkeley, and grow anywhere from 40-50 crops in one season without pesticides.
Berkeley Basket uses two natural pest control products, neem oil (a natural pest repellent) and Serenade (a biofungicide), to help control powdery mildew and rust, two common plant diseases. But their biggest key to farming without pesticides? Diverse crop rotations. Typically, once they notice crop damage from a disease or pest, they will simply rotate out that crop the next season until the problem is resolved. Rotating to crops without the same pest or disease susceptibilities can prevent build ups of the pest or disease.
Moretta Browne, co-farm manager, agrees that urban farms are often left out of the conversation when it comes to how to support farmers implementing more ecologically-sound practices. Browne thinks it’s critical urban farmers be better included in state programs and public dialogue “so folks in rural places and downtown Berkeley can talk about how the environment impacts how and what we’re growing and how to mitigate those effects.”
Photo courtesy | Induchucuiti Organic Farms
Induchuchuiti Organic Farms is a four-acre vegetable farm based in Salinas, California. It’s run by Celsa Ortega Valvidares, who uses only organic farming practices. Ortega farms without chemical pesticides by planting flowers with pest-repellent properties and increasing the health and nutrients of the soil. Similar to what other growers have mentioned, she says that building healthy soils leads to healthier plants that can better withstand pest pressures.
However, Ortega would like to see more consistent, language-accessible support and mentorship — particularly on the topic of business administration – for farmers like her who immigrate to the U.S. alone with few resources.
Photo courtesy | Kandarian Organic Farms
Kandarian Organic Farms, a 138 acre farm in Los Osos Valley, grows more than one thousand crops. Farm owner Larry Kandarian has farmed organically by learning to “live with the weeds” and building healthy soils. He manages weeds by using an implement called a “drag” invented by another local farmer that essentially shaves the weeds down to a manageable level.
To Kandarian, it’s key that the California government help support farm mentorship and farmer-to-farmer tours and sharing, so other growers can see and learn for themselves how farms like his operate without chemical pesticides. Because as Larry puts it, “seeing is believing.”
In conclusion. . .
The overuse of chemical pesticides in California is an environmental and racial justice crisis that continues unabated and will only be worsened by climate change. But farmers show us that alternative systems and practices can put food on the table without sacrificing the health of farmworkers and rural residents, the economic viability of rural communities, or the environment. However, as mighty as they are, these farmers need support.
The state’s Scoping Plan, Climate Adaptation Strategy and Healthy Soils Program must provide clear pesticide reduction targets and incentives for farmers to shift to management practices and agricultural systems that reduce chemical pesticide dependency, such as ecological pest management, agroecology and diversified organic agriculture. Doing so would give the state’s climate strategy some teeth, and would finally begin to address the historical legacy of environmental racism and ecological disaster inherent in chemical-intensive agriculture.
Photo Courtesy: Induchucuiti Organic Farms