Vasquez et al. v. California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation and Dow Reference : A154922 ; RG17847563 Complaint date : No description Status : Final judgment Place of jurisdiction : United States, Alameda Plaintiffs types : Farmers, Environmental NGOs Plaintiffs names : Juana Vasquez, California Rural Legal Assistance, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Pesticide Action Network America Defendants : Dow Agrosciences, California Department of Pesticide Regulation Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice : Michael Meuter, Aaron Voit, Daniel Nesbit, California Rural Legal Assistance, Michael Freund, Michael Freund & Associates Case nature : Administrative Type(s), Product(s), Active substance(s) : Dichloropropene, Nematicide Requests : No description Name of the Court : Superior Court of California, County of Alameda of Alameda, United States Jurisdiction level : No description Decision date : March 9, 2023 Decision nature : No description Decision content : No description Legal basis : No description Court Ruling : Link to the ruling Summary : In a ruling on September 8, 2021, the California 1st District Court of Appeal declared that the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's township cap program for the spray use of 1,3-dichloropropene is illegal, upholding the trial court ruling, which Dow Agrosciences, which markets 1,3-dichloropropene, under the brand name Telone, had appealed. In January 2017, Juana Vasquez, an agricultural worker from the Ventura district, as well as NGOs, opposed to the cancer risk mitigation measure for bystanders, which limits the use of 1,3-D on an annual basis in each canton, set by the program, challenged it in court, considering on the one hand, that it was an underground regulation in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and that it failed to incorporate the recommendations of the California Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Board, as required by Food and Agriculture Code sections 12980 and 12981. The Court of Appeals found that the program was an "underground regulation", i.e., a regulation that bypasses the formal rulemaking process (with prior notification, public consultation and comment, etc.). It therefore ordered DPR to submit a new proposed regulation regarding potential cancer risks to bystanders from the use of 1,3-D to the Office of Administrative Law by November 9, 2022. In November 2022, DPR informed the Court that a proposed regulation had indeed been filed with the Office. However, it does not comply with the Court of Appeals' ruling, according to Juana Vasquez and the other plaintiffs in the trial court, who are therefore challenging the program in court. On March 9, 2023, the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, granted their request, finding that DPR's response did not comply with the Court of Appeal's decision. As a result, it ordered that no later than September 15, 2023, DPR submit to the Office of Administrative Law a regulatory proposal that addresses the potential cancer risks associated with the use of 1,3-D for non-professional bystanders and professional bystanders. Scientific references : No scientifice reference for this case. Related links : Ruling of the Court of Appeal of the State of California (2021) California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, Proposed regulation (November, 2022) Press release, Californians for Pesticide Reform : "Court Orders State Back to the Drawing Board on Cancer-Causing Pesticide"