Pest management professionals (PMPs) in California will have fewer rodent control tools in their toolboxes as of Jan. 1, 2025.
That’s when a law that bans the use of first-generation anti-coagulant rodenticides goes into effect.
California Governor Gavin Newsom approved on Sept. 25 an amendment to AB 2552, a law that prohibits the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides with some exceptions. Now, the bill prohibits the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin, and considers these active ingredients “restricted materials.”
It also bans the use of first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides with the active ingredients diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin in a “wildlife habitat area.” The law defines “wildlife habitat area” as a park or wildlife refuge managed by a state agency, regional government, quasi-government agency, or a special district. It states wildlife includes “birds of prey, mountain lions, bobcats, fishers, foxes, coyotes, and endangered species, such as the northern spotted owl, pacific fisher, and San Joaquin kit fox.”
Anyone who violates the law by selling or using the banned pest control solutions — first-generation or second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides — will be subject to a $25,000 fine per day for each violation. Plus, they will be subject to any other penalties “established by law,” according to AB 2552. Funds collected from violations will go to California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) for administering and enforcing the law.
Megan Provost, president of RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment) — the association that represents manufacturers, formulators, distributors and other industry leaders involved with specialty pesticides and fertilizers — was quoted in the Los Angeles Times’ coverage of the law. “Effective rodenticide products are necessary for protecting the health and safety of people, structures and businesses — including those responsible for food safety — from the diseases and property damage caused by rats and other harmful rodents,” she said, adding “pesticide-specific legislation … that supersedes this process was unnecessary.”
Leave A Comment