Pesticide safety programs to protect farmworkers
PRELIMINARY REPORT | JANUARY 2024
Aaron Cavin, Zane Potter, Jill Satran, Research Analysts; Andrew Hatt, Project Research
Analyst
Valerie Whitener, Project Coordinator; Eric Thomas, Legislative
Auditor
Legislative Auditor's conclusion:
Three agencies work to protect farmworkers from pesticide exposure. Setting common goals and sharing information will likely help them reduce harmful exposures.
Key points
| Additional farmworker
studies
This is one of two JLARC studies published in 2024 addressing issues that affect farmworkers. An additional study regarding farmworker safety, health, and wage protection programs will be published in 2026. View an overview of the two 2024 studies here. |
- State law directs three agencies to coordinate efforts to protect farmworkers from hazardous pesticide exposure.
- WSDA reaches thousands of farmworkers each year through its licensing and training programs.
- WSDA and L&I coordinate on investigations but have no formal agreements for routine inspections. Doing so could better target resources and avoid duplicate inspections.
- Pesticide exposures are likely underreported. DOH has not established the medical education program required by state law.
- While the agencies share responsibility, they lack formal methods of sharing information to know the degree to which they prevent or reduce pesticide exposures.
- Legislative Auditor makes four recommendations.
This is one of three farmworker-related studies underway at JLARC. Others address the H-2A program and enforcement of safety and wage laws.
Executive summary
The 2022 Supplemental Budget directed JLARC to evaluate how the Department of Health (DOH) administers laws intended to protect farmworkers from hazardous pesticide exposure. The Departments of Labor and Industries (L&I) and Agriculture (WSDA) are included in the study due to their roles in protecting farmworkers from hazardous pesticide exposure.
State law directs three agencies to protect farmworkers from hazardous pesticide exposure
WSDA, L&I, and DOH conduct activities that are intended to prevent or reduce hazardous pesticide exposures or illness for farmworkers. The agencies have separate and shared responsibilities. Statute directs the agencies to coordinate so that they prevent duplicative enforcement or inconsistent application of regulations.
The agencies comply with state and federal laws for their training, licensing, inspections, and investigations.
Figure 1: WSDA, L&I, and DOH share responsibility to prevent, respond, and follow up on hazardous pesticide exposures
Source: JLARC staff analysis of WSDA, L&I, and DOH programs.
WSDA licenses and trains thousands of farmworkers each year
WSDA licenses individuals who supervise and apply restricted use pesticides, and ensures that licensees meet minimum standards for knowledge and safety. WSDA conducts EPA-approved trainings in both English and Spanish for pesticide handlers, applicators, trainers, and other agricultural workers.
WSDA and L&I coordinate on investigations but have no formal agreements for routine inspections
WSDA and L&I separately inspect farms to ensure compliance with pesticide safety laws and regulations. They also investigate incidents where farmworkers may have been exposed to pesticides. While they have a formal agreement outlining coordination procedures on investigations, they do not share information about routine inspections. Better information sharing could inform their decisions about where to conduct routine inspections, avoiding duplication and maximizing their resources.
Pesticide exposures are likely underreported. DOH has not established the medical education program required by state law.
Health care providers and facilities are required by state law to report cases or suspected cases of pesticide poisoning to DOH. Most pesticide cases, however, are reported not by health care providers but by other entities. DOH has stated that pesticide poisonings are underreported.
Statute requires DOH to develop a program of medical education to alert health care providers to the symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and reporting of pesticide poisoning. DOH has requested funding but does yet not have such a program.
While the agencies share responsibility, they lack formal methods of sharing information and do not know the degree to which they prevent or reduce pesticide exposures
WSDA, L&I, and DOH share an interest in preventing or reducing pesticide incidents and illness. Leading collaboration practices could help the agencies do so. Practices include defining common outcomes; developing plans to monitor, assess, and communicate their achievement of those outcomes to ensure accountability; and leveraging resources and information.
Legislative Auditor's recommendations
- WSDA and L&I should create a formal agreement to share inspection information that will support inspection scheduling, avoid duplication, and maximize resources.
- DOH should establish the medical education program required by state law.
- DOH should begin the process of incorporating pesticide illness into its eCR (electronic case reporting) system.
- WSDA, L&I, and DOH should define common outcomes for farmworker pesticide safety, develop plans to monitor, assess, and communicate their achievement of those outcomes, and leverage resources and information to improve prevention efforts and administer programs.
You can find additional information in the Recommendations section.
Part 1.
Three agencies
Washington is home to approximately 5,600 farms. Of these, about 4,300 grow crops that may require pesticide application. There are risks for farmworkers applying pesticides as well as those who may accidentally come into contact with pesticides.
Three agencies share responsibility to protect farmworkers from hazardous pesticide exposure
The Departments of Health (DOH), Agriculture (WSDA), and Labor and Industries (L&I) conduct activities that are intended to prevent or reduce hazardous pesticide exposures or illness for farmworkers.
- Prevention. WSDA trains and licenses pesticide applicators. WSDA and L&I conduct routine inspections to ensure compliance with pesticide safety regulations.
- Response. In the event of a pesticide incident, exposure, or complaint, WSDA, L&I, and DOH coordinate investigations.
- Follow-up. After an incident or exposure, DOH collects data on pesticide illnesses.
Pesticide safety for farmworkers is a part of each agency's responsibilities
While WSDA, L&I, and DOH share a common responsibility for farmworker pesticide safety, each agency's responsibilities for pesticide and workplace safety are far broader. For example:
- WSDA enforces compliance with pesticide laws at businesses, schools, residential areas, and state and local governments.
- L&I enforces workplace safety laws in all state industries. Pesticide-related inspections are a small portion of the approximately 4,660 workplace inspections it does across all industries each year.
- DOH collects data on pesticide poisonings among the general public and workers engaged in pest control, landscape maintenance, and cleaning professions.
Figure 2: WSDA, L&I, and DOH share a common responsibility for pesticide safety for farmworkers
Source: JLARC staff analysis of WSDA, L&I, and DOH programs.
State law requires WSDA and L&I to enforce federal standards
State law directs both WSDA and L&I to enforce compliance with the agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues WPS to protect farmworkers from hazardous pesticide exposures. It requires numerous safety provisions such as training for farmworkers and pesticide handlers, personal protective equipment, and restrictions on entry into areas where pesticides have been applied.
States are responsible for enforcing WPS and other provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA is the federal law governing the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. The EPA provides technical and financial assistance to each state's lead agency for FIFRA enforcement. Washington's lead agency is WSDA.
WSDA and the EPA signed an agreement that outlines how the agency will enforce the WPS rules and sets performance expectations. On average, EPA provides about $588,000 annually to WSDA for pesticide enforcement, licensing, and training.
State law requires the agencies to coordinate their efforts
State law requires WSDA and L&I to:
- Coordinate their activities to prevent duplicative enforcement or inconsistent application of regulations, especially the WPS.
- Coordinate on rulemaking.
- Conduct joint investigations of WPS violations if feasible and share information about investigations.
- Establish a formal agreement identifying their roles and responsibilities in investigations and enforcement.
RCW 49.17.280 states that Legislature intends for WSDA and L&I to also coordinate investigations with DOH. The three agencies signed an interagency agreement to coordinate roles and responsibilities on investigations and possible regulatory enforcement actions.
Part 2.
Licensing and training
| Washington farmworkers In 2022, there were about 57,500 farmworkers engaged in crop production in Washington. According to the National Agricultural Worker Survey, 74% of Northwest farmworkers were born in Mexico and 61% report little or no ability to speak English. |
WSDA must operate pesticide licensing and training programs as part of its agreement with the EPA. Programs should ensure that pesticide applicators and handlers are competent and have the expertise to mix or load pesticides, clean or repair pesticide application equipment, and/or apply pesticides.
WSDA's licensing and training programs meet the requirements.
WSDA licenses thousands of farmworkers each year
WSDA licenses individuals who apply or supervise the application of restricted use pesticides (i.e., pesticides that are particularly toxic and must be handled carefully). It also ensures that licensees meet minimum standards for knowledge and safety.
To obtain a license to apply certain pesticides, a person must pass one or more exams. Once licensed, the person can take additional exams to have endorsements added to their license. Endorsements are required for licensees to do special kinds of pesticide work.
WSDA offers eight pesticide exams for farmworkers.
- Three licenses are available: private applicator, rancher private applicator, and limited private applicator.
- Four endorsements also are available: Agricultural weed control, insects and diseases, soil fumigation, and aquatic pest control.
- There is also an exam on pesticide laws and safety that is required for most licenses.
People who own or work for businesses that apply pesticides need different licenses than farmworkers. Those licenses are not included in this analysis.
WSDA offers three exams in Spanish
WSDA currently offers three of the eight agricultural pesticide exams noted above in Spanish.
- The Private Applicator exam is available in Spanish. It is the most common with 9,736 licensees statewide (as of September 2023). Of those, 2,269 of these licensees (23%) indicated that Spanish is their primary language.
- Spanish language exams include test questions based on reading and interpreting a pesticide label that is written in English. Federal law requires that certified applicators be able to read and understand pesticide labels, which are written in English.
-
The number of Spanish language licensing exams in Washington is similar to California and Oregon.
The lack of Spanish language exams may limit Spanish-speaking farmworkers' ability to obtain pesticide licenses in certain categories (e.g., soil fumigation). WSDA reports that the untranslated exams are less common among all licensees, as shown in Figure 3.
WSDA stated that it intends to develop additional Spanish-language exams as resources permit. It recently hired a staff member whose responsibilities include translation. Translation involves determining appropriate terminology, conducting stakeholder outreach, and developing study materials with Washington State University. The process can take up to a year for each exam.
Figure 3: Three agricultural pesticide exams are offered in Spanish, including the most common license
Additional detail is in Appendix A.
Source: JLARC staff analysis of WSDA data as of September 2023. Licensees may hold more than one license or endorsement.
Recertification
Licensed pesticide applicators must recertify their license every five years. They have two options: retake the licensing exam or take continuing education courses.
WSDA approves continuing education courses that universities, growers, professional associations, and other state agencies offer. Since 2017, an average of 7% of recertification courses were offered in Spanish each year.
WSDA trained an average of 3,300 participants per year since fiscal year 2017
WSDA offers a variety of trainings to increase awareness of pesticide safety best practices, emerging issues, regulatory updates, and new technologies to reduce pesticide exposure incidents and off-target drift. WSDA also provides outreach and compliance assistance to farmers, employers, and agricultural associations.
WSDA's trainings are primarily for pesticide handlers and people who want to become licensed applicators, not general farmworkers. These training sessions are:
- EPA-approved.
- Conducted in English and Spanish. More than 90% of training participants since fiscal year 2017 attended Spanish-only or bilingual sessions.
- Held in-person and online.
- Offered at the request of sponsors such as private growers and agricultural associations.
Since fiscal year 2017, WSDA has held 305 trainings, including in-person sessions in 16 counties (shown in Figure 4) and 66 online sessions. Each year, the trainings reached an average of 3,300 participants and 600 agricultural establishments.
Figure 4: WSDA has offered 305 trainings statewide since fiscal year 2017
Source: JLARC staff analysis of WSDA data. Some participants may have attended multiple sessions. Language data is missing for some trainings in fiscal years 2017 and 2020.
Employers must ensure farmworkers receive pesticide safety training
The federal WPS and state regulations require that all farmworkers receive EPA-approved pesticide safety training.
While pesticide handlers must receive training, they can receive it from other entities besides WSDA. Licensed applicators and people who attend WSDA's "Train-the-trainer" sessions also can provide handler training.
Employers typically meet this training requirement for general farmworkers by showing them a short EPA-approved training video and giving them the opportunity to ask questions. WSDA developed training videos that employers may use for this purpose. WSDA staff do not typically conduct these trainings.
WSDA and L&I check for compliance with this training requirement during inspections. More detail is in Part 3.
Part 3.
Inspection and investigation
WSDA and L&I conduct routine inspections and investigations.
- Routine inspections are typically unannounced visits. Agency staff check compliance with the federal worker protection standard.
- Investigations are done in response to a complaint, referral from another agency, or pesticide incident.
On average, WSDA must perform at least 36 inspections each year as part of its agreement with the EPA.
WSDA and L&I inspect farms for compliance with the federal Worker Protection Standard
| Worker Protection Standard WPS requires employers to provide pesticide-related information and equipment such as:
|
While WPS inspections focus on pesticide safety, L&I also reviews employer compliance with other farmworker protection laws, such as outdoor heat exposure rules.
During an inspection, WSDA or L&I staff members review a checklist of WPS requirements and observe whether they are met. Inspectors also interview farmworkers and pesticide handlers in their preferred language, which is typically Spanish. If the inspector does not speak Spanish, other agency staff either interpret or conduct the interviews. Staff may also use a telephone-based translation service. L&I has an agency-wide policy that directs its staff to provide all limited English proficiency customers with meaningful access to agency programs and services.
Agencies use risk-based approaches to select farms for inspection
The agencies complete their inspections separately. In total, they inspect and identify pesticide-related violations in about 1% of all farms annually.
From 2019 through 2022:
- WSDA conducted about 45 routine agricultural WPS inspections each year.
- L&I conducted eight agricultural inspections that included pesticide-related violations each year.
- Both agencies conducted additional inspections that did not find pesticide-related violations.
They use different approaches to select sites for routine inspection.
- L&I uses a risk-based scheduling algorithm to choose inspection sites. The algorithm uses many factors, including workers' compensations claims data to identify employers and/or industries with a high risk for hazards that could cause serious injuries. The data in the algorithm is not limited to pesticide-related illness or injury.
- WSDA chooses inspection sites based on field observation, professional judgment, and other factors, including the likelihood that the farm employs farmworkers whose duties could expose them to pesticides and how recently pesticides have been applied.
WSDA and L&I lack formal agreement and methods for sharing information about inspections
WSDA and L&I do not share information with each other about routine inspections.
- State law prohibits L&I from giving advance notice of inspections except as authorized by L&I’s director or designee. This is intended to help ensure the element of surprise for conducting inspections.
- Since WSDA may determine inspection sites through field observation, its ability to provide advance notice of inspections is limited. WSDA’s practice is to not inspect a farm if it has recently been inspected by L&I. However, there is no process to ensure that L&I has not recently inspected a farm. WSDA staff may be informed of a recent L&I inspection by the farm owner or manager after arriving on site.
Agency staff may share results informally, but the agencies do not have a formal agreement or process to share the information in a systematic way. Better sharing of inspection results between the two agencies could provide each agency with more reliable data to inform their decisions about where to conduct routine inspections. For example, violations found by WSDA could help inform L&I's algorithm that identifies higher-risk farms to inspect. Conversely, violations found by L&I could help inform patterns of non-compliance at farms that WSDA could utilize when conducting its field observations.
WSDA, L&I, and DOH coordinate on investigations with a formal agreement
WSDA and L&I investigate incidents where farmworkers may have had a hazardous exposure to pesticides. Investigations are usually in response to complaints or referrals. DOH investigates if an illness or injury may have been caused by hazardous exposure to pesticides. Unlike WSDA or L&I, DOH does not conduct investigations for the purposes of regulatory enforcement.
WSDA, L&I, and DOH use an interagency agreement to coordinate responses to pesticide incidents. The agreement identifies the lead agency in an investigation and sets the procedures for collaboration. The agencies work together as needed depending on the specific case.
- L&I is the lead investigator for potential WPS violations that involve an employer-employee relationship. For example, L&I would investigate if farmworkers entered an area where pesticides were applied before it was safe to do so.
- WSDA is the lead investigator for potential WPS violations that are not employer-employee relationships. It also investigates other violations of state and federal pesticide application laws. For example, WSDA would investigate if pesticides drifted from one farm to a neighboring farm.
- DOH investigates pesticide-related illnesses that may have been caused by exposure to pesticides. Its investigatory role is discussed in more detail in Part 4.
DOH refers cases with possible regulatory violations to WSDA or L&I if the affected farmworker either agrees or is hospitalized. WSDA and L&I report human exposures to DOH.
|
Example of interagency collaboration on a pesticide drift exposure
WSDA referred the case to DOH and L&I since it involved an employer-employee relationship. DOH and L&I coordinated their investigation and site visits. Of the 23 workers interviewed, DOH identified 18 as likely suffering from pesticide-related illness. L&I identified five pesticide safety violations and a general training violation. It fined the employer, which also owned the neighboring farm, $7,000. Source: DOH and L&I data. |
In July 2022,
farmworkers arrived at a farm in Yakima County to pick blueberries. Within
half an hour of arriving, workers reported a strong odor and neurological,
gastrointestinal, and respiratory symptoms. Unbeknownst to the workers or
their supervisor, the neighboring hop farm had just been sprayed with
pesticides, which had drifted into the blueberry farm. Several workers
sought emergency medical care. The son of one of the workers reported the
case to WSDA. WSDA and L&I conduct timely investigations
WSDA and L&I have different timelines for investigating pesticide-related incidents.
From 2019 through 2022, WSDA conducted 209 agricultural pesticide investigations. Fifty involved possible human exposure.
- Statute requires WSDA to respond to all cases of possible human exposure immediately and all other complaints within 48 hours.
- WSDA met the human exposure response time in 96% of cases. It met the general complaint response time in 99% of cases.
In the same period, L&I conducted 76 investigations with pesticide-related violations.
- L&I's goal is to start an investigation no later than 15 working days after receiving complaints or referrals alleging serious hazards, and 30 working days for general hazards.
- L&I met this timeline in all cases from 2019 to 2022. Its average inspection response time was 10 days for both serious and general hazards.
WSDA and L&I assess penalties to help promote compliance
After completing an inspection or investigation, WSDA and L&I may assess penalties. They do so according to criteria in statute and rule, with higher penalties for violations that result in human exposure or that pose a greater risk of adverse effects. Statute requires that WSDA issue warnings for first-time violations, except in certain circumstances. L&I may issue a penalty for first-time violations.
- From 2019 to 2022, WSDA assessed penalties on 37 pesticide-related violations with an average final penalty amount of about $1,300.
- In that same period, L&I assessed penalties on 71 pesticide-related violations with an average final penalty amount of $1,220.
- Common violations were related to lack of training, lack of WPS safety posters and notifications about pesticide applications, and lack of decontamination supplies.
WSDA has processes to track and ensure that employers fix pesticide-related violations. In general, WPS and worker safety violations must be corrected immediately. L&I meets its goal of rapid abatement of employer violations. From 2019 to 2022, L&I reported that employers corrected 97% of pesticide-related violations in a timely manner, which is normally 30 days or fewer.
Legislative Auditor's recommendation
- WSDA and L&I should create a formal agreement to share inspection information that will support inspection scheduling, avoid duplication, and maximize resources.
Part 4.
Pesticide poisoning surveillance
| Incident
An accident with a pesticide. People may or may not have been exposed to the pesticide. Exposure Poisoning, illness,
injury
|
DOH collects data to understand pesticide poisoning, identify outbreaks and emerging pesticide problems, and support interventions and prevention efforts. As directed by statute, DOH collects data on acute rather than chronic pesticide exposure. This means its data reflects incidents of sudden exposure to a pesticide that may cause immediate illness or injury rather than the cumulative effects of exposure over many years.
The Washington Poison Center, L&I, and other entities report cases to DOH
DOH receives reports of suspected pesticide-related poisoning from multiple sources:
- Farmworkers who experience pesticide poisoning may report cases directly to DOH by phone.
- The Washington Poison Center (WPC) provides daily reports of suspected pesticide poisonings from people who have called its 24-hour hotline.
- L&I provides weekly reports of workers' compensation claims involving work-related pesticide injuries and illnesses.
- WSDA and L&I report suspected cases of pesticide poisoning discovered during inspections or investigations.
- Health care providers and facilities are required to report pesticide poisonings to DOH by statute (RCW 70.104.055) and WAC (WAC 246-101-101). Providers and facilities must immediately report cases that involve multiple people (cluster cases), hospitalization, or death. All other pesticide poisonings must be reported within three business days.
Pesticide exposures are likely underreported
Pesticide exposures and poisonings are likely underreported, according to DOH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), EPA, and researchers. While DOH does not have current estimates of underreporting, studies by multiple entities have estimated that, nationally, as many as 88% of acute occupational pesticide poisonings are not reported to public health authorities.
There are several factors that play a role in underreporting:
- Providers may not recognize the symptoms of pesticide poisoning.
- Providers may not be aware that they are required to report pesticide poisonings to DOH.
- Providers may not know how to report to DOH.
- Farmworkers may be unable to access medical care due to lack of time off, location, cost, and other factors.
- Farmworkers may fear retaliation if they report a pesticide exposure or potential poisoning.
Underreporting increases the risk that authorities may not identify dangerous practices, detect trends, or catch violations. It also limits the agencies' ability to evaluate the effectiveness of farmworker safety trainings or inspections.
Figure 5: Four percent of actual pesticide poisoning cases are reported by health care providers
| Source of first report of case of pesticide poisoning | Cases | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| WA Poison Control | 139 | 49% |
| Workers' compensation claim | 63 | 22% |
| DOH identification during investigation | 49 | 17% |
| Health care providers | 12 | 4% |
| WSDA | 9 | 3% |
| Employers | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 1% |
| Total | 284 | 100% |
Source: JLARC staff analysis.
From 2019 to 2022, DOH identified 284 work-related pesticide poisonings of farmworkers
After receiving a report of a pesticide poisoning, DOH conducts an investigation.
| Data note DOH data about pesticide reports may differ from L&I and WSDA data about incidents. There are two main reasons:
|
In investigations, DOH interviews the affected person(s) and collects information such as the pesticides applied, the target crops, routes of exposure (e.g., skin, mouth), personal protective equipment used, demographic information, and the circumstances of the exposure. Farmworkers' participation in a DOH investigation is voluntary. DOH determines how likely it is that the reported illness is due to pesticide exposure. Investigations may take days or weeks to complete, depending on the availability of information.
From 2019 to 2022, DOH investigated 393 reports of suspected work-related pesticide poisonings of farmworkers. Of these, DOH identified 284 as actual agricultural pesticide poisonings. Most resulted from pesticide drift (i.e., the unintentional movement of a pesticide away from the area where it was applied). Most farmworkers were exposed when they were doing routine work unrelated to pesticide application. During this period, 92% of those affected identified as Hispanic, 2% as non-Hispanic, and 6% did not identify their ethnicity.
DOH has not added pesticide poisoning to its electronic case reporting system
| Notifiable Conditions Serious health conditions that, by law, providers must report to state or local health authorities. Pesticide poisoning is a notifiable condition. |
DOH has an electronic case reporting (eCR) system that enables health care providers to report notifiable conditions. Providers must have compatible records systems and meet other criteria to participate in the system.
- eCR securely transmits patient and clinical information (e.g., symptoms, patient demographics) directly from electronic medical records.
- eCR provides public health data more quickly and completely than other methods. Without eCR, providers must call state or local health authorities and report detailed case information over the phone.
- The CDC encourages states to use eCR for notifiable conditions.
DOH's eCR system initially focused on COVID-19 reporting. DOH is expanding eCR to include additional notifiable conditions. However, it has not yet added pesticide poisoning reporting to this system.
Including pesticide poisoning to DOH's eCR system could increase health care providers' and facilities' reporting of pesticide poisoning to DOH. This would improve DOH's capacity to understand pesticide poisoning, identify outbreaks and emerging pesticide problems, and support interventions and prevention efforts. Including pesticide poisoning in the state eCR system is a leading practice that California has implemented.
DOH has not set up a medical education program as required by statute
Since 1991, state law has directed DOH to develop a medical education program about pesticide poisoning. The aim is to teach health care providers about the symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and reporting of pesticide poisoning.
| Foundational Public Health Services
funds Funds appropriated to the Office of Financial Management for public health. A group including DOH, local health jurisdictions, tribes, and the state board of health distribute the funds. |
DOH has not yet established the program. It has requested funds to do so, and in fiscal year 2024, it requested $820,000 from the state's Foundational Public Health Services funds. The proposal included the medical education program and outreach to health care providers and farmworkers. It was not funded.
When developing medical education related to farmworker pesticide safety, EPA guidance recommends outreach to a broad range of health care workers and facilities, seeking provider input, and partnering with professional associations to promote awareness of pesticide illness and reporting. DOH's proposals have been consistent with these best practices.
DOH’s program has informed pesticide research, labeling, and registration
DOH aims to monitor public health risks, identify high-risk populations, and understand the circumstances leading to a pesticide exposure.
DOH has provided data and analysis to:
- Center for Disease Control (CDC) and EPA, which use it to inform pesticide registration decisions, pesticide label changes, and Worker Protection Standard revisions.
- Researchers, including the CDC and the University of Washington’s Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center (PNASH).
- CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as part of a national surveillance system for pesticide illness.
Legislative Auditor's recommendations
- DOH should establish the medical education program required by state law.
- DOH should begin the process of incorporating pesticide illness into its eCR (electronic case reporting) system.
Part 5.
Interagency collaboration
Agencies recognize the need for coordination to reduce pesticide incidents
The interagency agreement between WSDA, L&I, and DOH states their shared intent to leverage resources, minimize duplicative actions, and facilitate actions that will reduce the number and severity of future pesticide exposure incidents.
Agencies lack common outcomes and information sharing practices
Although the agencies all intend to prevent or reduce pesticide incidents, exposures, and illnesses, they lack shared outcomes, systems of accountability, and ways of measuring achievement.
Each agency tracks its processes and monitors its performance in its own way. For example:
- WSDA's measures include the number of trainings it provides, the number of WPS inspections it conducts, and the number of WPS violations it identifies.
- L&I's measures include how quickly it responds to complaints and referrals and the timeliness of violation corrections.
- DOH's measures include the number of cases it investigates, the number of pesticide illnesses it identifies, and the severity of illnesses.
The agencies do not currently analyze if their pesticide-related trainings or inspections lead to fewer pesticide incidents or illnesses.
As noted in Part 4, DOH has formal ways to share information with federal agencies and researchers. While it has shared information with WSDA and L&I on an ad hoc basis, it does not routinely share detailed information from its pesticide illness database. As a result, WSDA and L&I are limited in their ability to use DOH's data to improve the performance of their prevention efforts.
Best practices include defining common outcomes, sharing information, and monitoring performance
Despite each agency's participation in preventing and addressing pesticide exposures, they do not manage the work as a system. Best practices in performance management direct agencies to:
- Establish common, measurable goals and outcomes.
- Develop plans to monitor, assess, and communicate progress to ensure accountability.
- Use the results of their monitoring to improve their efforts and leverage resources and information.
Figure 6: The agencies do not apply best practices to set goals, measure progress, and leverage information
Source: JLARC staff analysis.
Agencies can apply leading practices to improve work and reduce pesticide exposures
WSDA, L&I, and DOH have opportunities to share data to leverage resources, minimize duplicative actions, and facilitate actions that will reduce the number and severity of future pesticide exposure incidents.
Establish common, measurable outcomes of pesticide safety for farmworkers
Clearly defining measurable short- and long-term outcomes would improve the agencies' ability to develop strategies to achieve their shared goal of reducing the number and severity of future pesticide exposure incidents. The outcomes must be measurable so that the agencies can take the next step of ensuring accountability.
Ensure accountability for pesticide safety prevention efforts
Tracking progress towards shared outcomes would allow agencies to better assess the effectiveness of their programs. For example, a process could help the agencies determine if their licensing and training programs are effectively reducing pesticide exposures, illnesses, and compliance violations.
Leverage resources and information
Each agency collects information that could help the other agencies target resources, work to achieve common goals, and reduce pesticide incidents and illnesses. For example:
- DOH could share data from its surveillance system to inform WSDA and L&I trainings and other programs.
- WSDA and L&I compliance inspectors could share results of inspections and investigations to inform trainings.
- WSDA and L&I could share inspection information with each other to prevent duplication of inspections, inform inspection scheduling, increase their reach, target resources to high-risk areas, and identify repeat violators.
In their pesticide safety efforts, agencies should share data on incidents and illnesses to inform their prevention activities, and they should monitor data on pesticide incidents and illnesses to see how prevention activities are measurably contributing to their goals.
The Legislature has expressed interest in interagency collaboration for pesticide safety
WSDA and L&I are required by statute (RCW 17.21.440, RCW 49.17.280) to coordinate adoption, implementation, and enforcement of worker protection standards for pesticide safety. Statute also directs WSDA and L&I to coordinate with DOH on pesticide investigations and enforcement.
The Legislature has repeatedly expressed interest in interagency collaboration:
- In 1989, the Legislature created the Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking (PIRT) review panel to centralize pesticide incident information, support investigations, monitor investigation response times, and recommend ways to improve pesticide use safety. The Legislature eliminated PIRT in 2010 due to funding constraints.
- In 2018, E2SB 6529 established the Pesticide Application Safety Workgroup to recommend ways to improve pesticide application safety and consider whether to create a new version of PIRT. It recommended creating a safety committee.
- In 2019, SSB 5550 created the Pesticide Application Safety Committee (PASCO), as recommended by the workgroup.
PASCO includes representatives of WSDA, L&I, DOH, and other agencies and stakeholders, to facilitate interagency collaboration on pesticide safety for farmworkers. Statute directs PASCO to explore how DOH, WSDA, L&I, and the Washington Poison Center collect and track data and consider the feasibility of a shared interagency database. PASCO may also evaluate and recommend policies to improve pesticide application safety, data collection, reporting, and community engagement.
Shortly after its creation, PASCO’s work was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It did not submit the required reports to the Legislature in 2020 and 2021, and the 2022 report did not address key issues in its mandate. As of October 2023, the committee has not yet reported to the Legislature its recommendations on interagency data sharing, policies to improve pesticide application safety, community engagement, or the other subjects it was charged with. PASCO is scheduled to end in 2025.
Legislative Auditor's recommendation
- WSDA, L&I, and DOH should define common outcomes for farmworker pesticide safety, develop plans to monitor, assess, and communicate their achievement of those outcomes, and leverage resources and information to improve prevention efforts and administer programs.
Recommendations
The Legislative Auditor makes four recommendations.
Recommendation #1:
WSDA and L&I should create a formal agreement to
share inspection information that will support inspection scheduling, avoid
duplication, and maximize resources.
WSDA and L&I have a formal agreement for coordinating on investigations but have no formal agreements for sharing information about routine inspections. Doing so could better target resources and avoid duplicate inspections.
Legislation Required: None
Fiscal Impact: JLARC staff assume the recommendation can be implemented within existing resources.
Implementation Date: April 2025
Agency Response: To be included in proposed final report.
Recommendation #2:
DOH should establish the medical education program
required by state law.
Statute directs DOH to establish a medical education program to educate providers about the symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and reporting of pesticide poisonings.
When developing medical education related to farmworker pesticide safety, EPA guidance recommends outreach to a broad range of health care workers and facilities, seeking provider input, and partnering with professional associations to promote awareness of pesticide illness and reporting.
Legislation Required: None
Fiscal Impact: Indeterminate. DOH’s previous funding requests to the Foundational Public Health Services group have not specified the amount needed solely for a medical education program.
Implementation Date: April 2025
Agency Response: To be included in proposed final report.
Recommendation #3:
DOH should begin the process of incorporating pesticide
illness into its eCR (electronic case reporting) system.
Including pesticide poisoning in DOH's eCR system could increase health care providers' and facilities' reporting of pesticide poisoning to DOH. This would improve DOH's capacity to understand pesticide poisoning, identify outbreaks and emerging pesticide problems, and support interventions and prevention efforts.
Legislation Required: None
Fiscal Impact: JLARC staff assume the recommendation can be implemented within existing resources.
Implementation Date: April 2025 for initial plans. Full incorporation may take additional time.
Agency Response: To be included in proposed final report.
Recommendation #4:
WSDA, L&I, and DOH should define common outcomes
for farmworker pesticide safety, develop plans to monitor, assess, and communicate
their achievement of those outcomes, and leverage resources and information to
improve prevention efforts and administer programs.
Best practices in performance management direct agencies to:
- Establish common, measurable goals and outcomes.
- Develop plans to monitor, assess, and communicate progress to ensure accountability.
- Use the results of their monitoring to improve their efforts and leverage resources and information
If the agencies define their common outcomes, establish systems to monitor and measure performance, and share resources, they will be better able to protect farmworkers from hazardous pesticide exposures.
Legislation Required: None
Fiscal Impact: JLARC staff assume common outcomes can be established within existing resources. Additional resources may be needed for implementation.
Implementation Date: April 2025
Agency Response: To be included in proposed final report.
Agency Response
To be included in proposed final report.
Current Recommendation Status
JLARC staff follow up on the status of Legislative Auditor recommendations to agencies and the Legislature for four years. The most recent responses from agencies and status of the recommendations in this report can be viewed on our Legislative Auditor Recommendations page.
Appendices
Appendix A: Licensing and endorsement exams | Appendix B: Trainings | Appendix C: Applicable statutes | Appendix D: Study questions | Appendix E: Methods | Appendix F: Audit authority
Appendix A: Licensing and endorsement exams
This appendix provides information about pesticide licenses that are applicable to farmworkers, the languages in which exams are offered, and the number of licensees, as of 2023. Individuals may hold more than one license or endorsement.
| Exam Category | Purpose | Languages Offered | Number of Licensees (2023) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private Applicator | Supervise and apply restricted use pesticides for any agricultural commodity on property owned or rented by them or their employer. | English and Spanish | 9,736 |
| Agricultural Weed Control | Control weeds in all agricultural crops including forest environments (except with soil fumigation). | English and Spanish | 1,259 |
| Laws and Safety | Required for most licenses. | English and Spanish | Not a separate license |
| Agricultural Insects & Diseases | Control insects and diseases in agricultural crops including forest environments (except with soil fumigation). | English | 893 |
| Soil Fumigation | Use soil fumigants to control pests including weeds, insects, and diseases. | English | 302 |
| Aquatic Pest Control | Control aquatic pests in water areas including canals, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, and pipelines. | English | 215 |
Rancher Private Applicator |
Supervise and apply restricted use herbicides on non-production agricultural land, as well as restricted use herbicides and rodenticides on limited production agricultural land where grain and hay are grown primarily for personal use. | English | 87 |
| Limited Private Applicator | Supervise and apply restricted use herbicides on non-production agricultural land (e.g., pasture, fencerows). | English | 84 |
Appendix B: Trainings
This appendix provides information about WSDA trainings offered in fiscal year 2022.
| Training Type | Description | Number of Trainings | Number of English-language Participants | Number of Spanish-language Participants |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hands-on Handler Training | Trains pesticide handlers how to use pesticides safely and effectively, above WPS training requirements. | 19 | 101 | 1,418 |
| Spanish Private Applicator Pre-License | Prepares Spanish-speaking applicants to take the Private Applicator pesticide license exam. | 7 | 0 | 289 |
| Technical Assistance | Provides education on air blast sprayers, including calibration and how to limit pesticide drift. | 5 | 0 | 34 |
| Airblast Sprayer Calibration and Configuration | Provides participants with knowledge to calibrate and configure air blast sprayers more effectively, as well as ways to monitor weather conditions to reduce the incidence of drift. | 3 | 13 | 49 |
| WPS Train-the-Trainer Refresher | Reviews training skills covered in the Train-the-Trainer course for those certified within the last three years. | 3 | 18 | 36 |
| Recertification | Continuing education courses covering a variety of pesticide-related topics. | 2 | 0 | 130 |
| Respirator Fit Test | Trains participants on choosing the correct respirator, creating a respirator program, and conducting a respirator fit test. | 2 | 18 | 20 |
| WPS Train-the-Trainer | Trains people how to conduct pesticide safety trainings for agricultural workers and pesticide handlers that meet WPS requirements. | 2 | 16 | 17 |
| Total | 43 | 166 | 1,993 |
Appendix C: Applicable statutes
- Pesticide safety. WSDA administers the state Pesticide Control Act (RCW 15.58) and Pesticide Application Act (RCW 17.21).
- Worker safety. L&I administers the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (RCW 49.17) and Worker and Community Right to Know Act (RCW 49.70).
- Public health. DOH administers RCW 70.104.
(1) As used in this section, "federal worker protection standard" or "federal standard" means the worker protection standard for agricultural workers and handlers of agricultural pesticides adopted by the United States environmental protection agency in 40 C.F.R., part 170 as it exists on June 6, 1996.
(2)(a) No rule adopted under this chapter may impose requirements that make compliance with the federal worker protection standard impossible.
(b) The department shall adopt by rule safety and health standards that are at least as effective as the federal standard. Standards adopted by the department under this section shall be adopted in coordination with the department of labor and industries.
(3) If a violation of the federal worker protection standard, or of state rules regulating activities governed by the federal standard, is investigated by the department and by the department of labor and industries, the agencies shall conduct a joint investigation if feasible, and shall share relevant information. However, an investigation conducted by the department of labor and industries under Title 51 RCW solely with regard to industrial insurance shall not be considered to be an investigation by the department of labor and industries for this purpose. The agencies shall not issue duplicate citations to an individual or business for the same violation of the federal standard or state rules regulating activities governed by the federal standard. By December 1, 1996, the department and the department of labor and industries shall jointly establish a formal agreement that: Identifies the roles of each of the two agencies in conducting investigations of activities governed by the federal standard; and provides for protection of workers and enforcement of standards that is at least [as] effective as provided for other enforcement under this chapter.
(1) As used in this section, "federal worker protection standard" or "federal standard" means the worker protection standard for agricultural workers and handlers of agricultural pesticides adopted by the United States environmental protection agency in 40 C.F.R., part 170 as it exists on June 6, 1996.
(2)(a) No rule adopted under this chapter may impose requirements that make compliance with the federal worker protection standard impossible.
(b) The department shall adopt by rule safety and health standards that are at least as effective as the federal standard. Standards adopted by the department under this section shall be adopted in coordination with the department of agriculture.
(3) If a violation of the federal worker protection standard, or of state rules regulating activities governed by the federal standard, is investigated by the department and by the department of agriculture, the agencies shall conduct a joint investigation if feasible, and shall share relevant information. However, an investigation conducted by the department under Title 51 RCW solely with regard to industrial insurance shall not be considered to be an investigation by the department for this purpose. The agencies shall not issue duplicate citations to an individual or business for the same violation of the federal standard or state rules regulating activities governed by the federal standard. By December 1, 1996, the department and the department of agriculture shall jointly establish a formal agreement that: Identifies the roles of each of the two agencies in conducting investigations of activities governed by the federal standard; and provides for protection of workers and enforcement of standards that is at least as effective as provided to all workers under this chapter. The department's role under the agreement shall not extend beyond protection of safety and health in the workplace as provided under this chapter.
[ 1996 c 260 § 2.]
NOTES:
Finding—Intent—1996 c 260: "The legislature finds that the state's highly productive and efficient agriculture sector is composed predominately of family owned and managed farms and an industrious and efficient workforce. It is the intent of the legislature that the department of agriculture and the department of labor and industries coordinate adoption, implementation, and enforcement of a common set of worker protection standards related to pesticides in order to avoid inconsistency and conflict in the application of those rules. It is also the intent of the legislature that the department of agriculture and the department of labor and industries coordinate investigations with the department of health as well. Further, coordination of enforcement procedures under chapter 260, Laws of 1996 shall not reduce the effectiveness of the enforcement provisions of the Washington industrial safety and health act of 1973 or the Washington pesticide application act. Finally, when the department of agriculture or the department of labor and industries anticipates regulatory changes to standards regarding pesticide application and handling, they shall involve the affected parties in the rule-making process and solicit relevant information. The department of agriculture and the department of labor and industries shall identify differences in their respective jurisdictions and penalty structures and publish those differences." [ 1996 c 260 § 1.]
Severability—1996 c 260: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1996 c 260 § 6.]
(1) The department of health may investigate all suspected human cases of pesticide poisoning and such cases of suspected pesticide poisoning of animals that may relate to human illness. The department shall establish time periods by rule to determine investigation response time. Time periods shall range from immediate to forty-eight hours to initiate an investigation, depending on the severity of the case or suspected case of pesticide poisoning. In order to adequately investigate such cases, the department shall have the power to:
(a) Take all necessary samples and human or animal tissue specimens for diagnostic purposes: PROVIDED, That tissue, if taken from a living human, shall be taken from a living human only with the consent of a person legally qualified to give such consent;
(b) Secure any and all such information as may be necessary to adequately determine the nature and causes of any case of pesticide poisoning.
(2) The department shall immediately notify the department of agriculture, the department of labor and industries, and other appropriate agencies of the results of its investigation for such action as the other departments or agencies deem appropriate. The notification of such investigations and their results may include recommendations for further action by the appropriate department or agency.
[ 2009 c 495 § 10; 1991 c 3 § 357; 1989 c 380 § 71; 1971 ex.s. c 41 § 3.]
NOTES:
Effective date—2009 c 495: See note following RCW 43.20.050.
Effective date—1989 c 380 §§ 69, 71-73: "Sections 69 and 71 through 73 of this act shall take effect on January 1, 1990." [ 1989 c 380 § 90.]
(1) Any attending physician or other health care provider recognized as primarily responsible for the diagnosis and treatment of a patient or, in the absence of a primary health care provider, the health care provider initiating diagnostic testing or therapy for a patient shall report a case or suspected case of pesticide poisoning to the department of health in the manner prescribed by, and within the reasonable time periods established by, rules of the state board of health. Time periods established by the board shall range from immediate reporting to reporting within seven days depending on the severity of the case or suspected case of pesticide poisoning. The reporting requirements shall be patterned after other board rules establishing requirements for reporting of diseases or conditions. Confidentiality requirements shall be the same as the confidentiality requirements established for other reportable diseases or conditions. The information to be reported may include information from relevant pesticide application records and shall include information required under board rules. Reports shall be made on forms provided to health care providers by the department of health. For purposes of any oral reporting, the department of health shall make available a toll-free telephone number.
(2) Within a reasonable time period as established by board rules, the department of health shall investigate the report of a case or suspected case of pesticide poisoning to document the incident. The department shall report the results of the investigation to the health care provider submitting the original report.
(3) Cases or suspected cases of pesticide poisoning shall be reported by the department of health to the *pesticide reporting and tracking review panel within the time periods established by state board of health rules.
(4) Upon request of the primary health care provider, pesticide applicators or employers shall provide a copy of records of pesticide applications which may have affected the health of the provider's patient. This information is to be used only for the purposes of providing health care services to the patient.
(5) Any failure of the primary health care provider to make the reports required under this section may be cause for the department of health to submit information about such nonreporting to the applicable disciplining authority for the provider under RCW 18.130.040.
(6) No cause of action shall arise as the result of: (a) The failure to report under this section; or (b) any report submitted to the department of health under this section.
(7) For the purposes of this section, a suspected case of pesticide poisoning is a case in which the diagnosis is thought more likely than not to be pesticide poisoning.
[ 1992 c 173 § 4; 1991 c 3 § 360; 1989 c 380 § 72.]
NOTES:
*Reviser's note: The "pesticide incident reporting and tracking review panel" was eliminated pursuant to 2010 1st sp.s. c 7 § 132.
Effective dates—1992 c 173: See note following RCW 17.21.100.
Effective date—1989 c 380 §§ 69, 71-73: See note following RCW 70.104.030.
The department of health, after seeking advice from the state board of health, local health officers, and state and local medical associations, shall develop a program of medical education to alert physicians and other health care providers to the symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and reporting of pesticide poisonings.
[ 1991 c 3 § 361; 1989 c 380 § 73.]
NOTES
Effective date—1989 c 380 §§ 69, 71-73: See note following RCW 70.104.030.
(1) The pesticide application safety committee is established. Appointments to the committee must be made as soon as possible after the legislature convenes in regular session. The committee is composed of the following members:
(a) One member from each of the two largest caucuses of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives;
(b) One member from each of the two largest caucuses of the senate, appointed by the president of the senate;
(c) The director of the department of agriculture, or an assistant director designated by the director;
(d) The secretary of the department of health, or an assistant secretary designated by the secretary;
(e) The director of the department of labor and industries, or an assistant director designated by the director;
(f) The commissioner of public lands, or an assistant commissioner designated by the commissioner;
(g) The dean of the college of agricultural, human, and natural resource sciences at the Washington State University, or an assistant dean designated by the dean;
(h) The pesticide safety education coordinator at the Washington State University cooperative extension; and
(i) The director of the University of Washington Pacific Northwest agricultural safety and health center, or an assistant designated by the director.
(2) The committee shall be cochaired by the secretary of the department of health, or the assistant secretary designated by the secretary, and the director of the department of agriculture, or the assistant director designated by the director.
(3) Primary responsibility for administrative support for the committee, including developing reports, research, and other organizational support, shall be provided by the department of health and the department of agriculture. The committee must hold its first meeting by September 2019. The committee must meet at least three times each year. The meetings shall be at a time and place specified by the cochairs, or at the call of a majority of the committee. When determining the time and place of meetings, the cochairs must consider costs and conduct committee meetings in Olympia when this choice would reduce costs to the state.
(4)(a) An advisory work group is created to collect information and make recommendations to the full committee on topics requiring unique expertise and perspectives on issues within the jurisdiction of the committee.
(b) The advisory work group shall consist of a representative from the department of agriculture, two representatives of employee organizations that represent farmworkers, two farmworkers with expertise on pesticide application, a representative of community and migrant health centers, a toxicologist, a representative of growers who use air blast sprayers, a representative of growers who use aerial pesticide application, a representative of growers who use fumigation to apply pesticides, and a representative of aerial applicators. The secretary of health, in consultation with the director of the department of agriculture and the full committee, must appoint members of the advisory work group, and the department of health must staff the advisory work group. The letter of appointment to the advisory work group members must be signed by both cochairs.
(c) The advisory work group must hold meetings only upon the committee's request. To reduce costs, the advisory work group must conduct meetings using teleconferencing or other methods, but may hold one in-person meeting per fiscal year.
(d) Members of the advisory work group shall be reimbursed for mileage expenses in accordance with RCW 43.03.060.
(e) The advisory work group must provide a report on their activities and recommendations to the full committee by November 9th of each year.
(5) The first priority of the committee is to explore how the departments of agriculture, labor and industries, and health, and the Washington poison center collect and track data. The committee must also consider the feasibility and requirements of developing a shared database, including how the department of health could use existing tools, such as the tracking network, to better display multiagency data regarding pesticides. The committee may also evaluate and recommend policy options that would take action to:
(a) Improve pesticide application safety with agricultural applications;
(b) Lead an effort to establish baseline data for the type and quantity of pesticide applications used in Washington to be able to compare the number of exposures with overall number of applications;
(c) Research ways to improve pesticide application communication among different members of the agricultural community, including educating the public in English and Spanish about acute and chronic health information about pesticides;
(d) Compile industry's best practices for use to improve pesticide application safety to limit pesticide exposure;
(e) Continue to investigate reasons why members of the agricultural workforce do not or may not report pesticide exposure;
(f) Explore new avenues for reporting with investigation without fear of retaliation;
(g) Work with stakeholders to consider trainings for how and when to report;
(h) Explore incentives for using new technology by funding a partial buy-out program for old spray technology;
(i) Consider developing an effective community health education plan;
(j) Consult with community partners to enhance educational initiatives that work with the agricultural workforce, their families, and surrounding communities to reduce the risk of pesticide exposure;
(k) Enhance efforts to work with pesticide manufacturers and the environmental protection agency to improve access to non-English pesticide labeling in the United States;
(l) Work with research partners to develop, or promote the use of translation apps for pesticide label safety information, or both;
(m) Evaluate prevention techniques to minimize exposure events;
(n) Develop more Spanish language and other language educational materials for distribution, including through social media and app-based learning for agricultural workforce communities;
(o) Explore development of an agricultural workforce education safety program to improve the understanding about leaving an area being sprayed; and
(p) Work with the industry and the agricultural workforce to improve protocols and best practices for use of personal safety equipment for applicators and reflective gear for the general workforce.
(6) The committee must provide a report to the appropriate committees of the legislature by May 1, 2020, and each year thereafter. An initial report on the progress of the committee must be provided in January 2020. The report may include recommendations the committee determines necessary, and must document the activities of the committee and report on the subjects listed in subsection (5) of this section. The department of health and the department of agriculture must provide staff support to the committee for the purpose of authoring the report and transmitting it to the legislature. Any member of the committee may provide a minority report as an appendix to the report submitted to the legislature under this section.
(7) This section expires July 1, 2025.
[ 2019 c 327 § 2.]
NOTES:
Findings—2019 c 327: "(1) In 2018, the legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 6529. The bill recognized that farmers, farmworkers, and the broader community share an interest in minimizing human exposure to pesticides. It also recognized that gains have been made in reducing human exposure to pesticides and that collaboration between state agencies and the farming community could further reduce agricultural workers exposure to pesticide drift.
(2) The legislation established a pesticide application safety work group that would make recommendations for improving pesticide application safety. Work group members included legislators from both chambers and caucuses, as well as representation from state agencies and the commission on Hispanic affairs. The work group sought public participation to learn more about pesticide application safety. Many stakeholders including but not limited to local farm hosts, the agricultural industry, and members of the agricultural workforce contributed valuable assistance and input.
(3) The work group reached two noteworthy recommendations regarding what can be done now to improve pesticide application safety. The recommendations are to:
(a) Expand training because the department of agriculture lacks sufficient resources to meet the training demand from pesticide applicators and handlers; and
(b) Establish a new pesticide application safety panel to provide an opportunity to evaluate and recommend policy options, and investigate exposure cases.
(4) The work group concluded that legislation is warranted to expand funding for a training program and set up a new pesticide application safety panel with clear objectives.
(5) This section expires July 1, 2025." [ 2019 c 327 § 1.]
Appendix D: Study questions
This study aimed to answer the following questions, which were presented to JLARC in June 2023 (view here).
- Do the DOH, WSDA, and L&I pesticide safety programs comply with state law and follow best practices? To what degree do they meet their intended objectives?
- Do DOH, WSDA, and L&I provide information and conduct program activities (e.g., training, investigations) in the languages used by farmworkers?
- How do DOH, WSDA, and L&I coordinate in areas of overlapping or shared responsibility? Are there opportunities to improve interagency coordination?
Appendix E: Methods
The methodology JLARC staff use when conducting analyses is tailored to the scope of each study, but generally includes the following:
- Interviews with stakeholders, agency representatives, and other relevant organizations or individuals.
- Site visits to entities that are under review.
- Document reviews, including applicable laws and regulations, agency policies and procedures pertaining to study objectives, and published reports, audits or studies on relevant topics.
- Data analysis, which may include data collected by agencies and/or data compiled by JLARC staff. Data collection sometimes involves surveys or focus groups.
- Consultation with experts when warranted. JLARC staff consult with technical experts when necessary to plan our work, to obtain specialized analysis from experts in the field, and to verify results.
The methods used in this study were conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards.
More details about specific methods related to individual study objectives are described in the body of the report under the report details tab or in technical appendices.
Appendix F: Audit Authority
The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) works to make state government operations more efficient and effective. The Committee is comprised of an equal number of House members and Senators, Democrats and Republicans.
JLARC's nonpartisan staff auditors, under the direction of the Legislative Auditor, conduct performance audits, program evaluations, sunset reviews, and other analyses assigned by the Legislature and the Committee.
The statutory authority for JLARC, established in Chapter 44.28 RCW, requires the Legislative Auditor to ensure that JLARC studies are conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, as applicable to the scope of the audit. This study was conducted in accordance with those applicable standards. Those standards require auditors to plan and perform audits to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. The evidence obtained for this JLARC report provides a reasonable basis for the enclosed findings and conclusions, and any exceptions to the application of audit standards have been explicitly disclosed in the body of this report.
JLARC members on publication date
SenatorsBob Hasegawa Liz Lovelett Mark Mullet, Chair Ann Rivers Jesse Salomon Shelly Short Lynda Wilson, Secretary Keith Wagoner |
RepresentativesEmily Alvarado Stephanie Barnard April Berg Jake Fey Keith Goehner Stephanie McClintock Ed Orcutt, Vice Chair Gerry Pollet, Assistant Secretary |