California Ag Network

Tag: pesticide alternatives

  • CDFA Accepting Proposals for Biologically Integrated Farming Systems Program

    The CDFA’s Office of Pesticide Consultation and Analysis (OPCA) is now accepting concept proposals for its Biologically Integrated Farming Systems Grant Program (BIFS). The BIFS grant program funds on-farm demonstration and evaluation of innovative, biologically based farming systems that employ sustainable pest management (SPM) strategies. These practices aim to reduce reliance on biologically disruptive pesticides while allowing growers to maintain yields and economic sustainability.

    Past BIFS projects have refined and promoted SPM practices such as areawide mating disruption, biological control via natural enemy releases and habitat planting, non-fumigant soil disinfestation, removing diseased plants, bio-pesticides and more across cropping systems.    

    The 2026-2027 Request for Proposals (RFP) identifies five priority funding areas based on recent or proposed regulatory actions and grower needs:

    • Areawide management
    • Monitoring that informs pest management
    • Post-harvest disease control
    • Neonicotinoid alternatives in tomato
    • Paraquat alternatives

    OPCA does not require BIFS project proposals to address one of the priority topics.

    This funding cycle includes $2 million in available grant funding, with up to $1 million per project. A portion of OPCA’s allocation of the pesticide mill assessment funds this solicitation.

    Following review of concept proposals, OPCA will notify applicants in late July 2026 and invite selected applicants to develop and submit a full proposal. Full proposals are due at the end of August 2026.

    Concept proposals are due by June 30 at 5 p.m. Public or private colleges and universities, local, state, and federal government entities including tribal governments, non-profit organizations, and commodity groups are eligible to apply. The project lead(s) and their institutions must be based in California.

    Detailed information, including the application process and requirements, is available at https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oars/opca/bifs.html. — Story contributed by the California Department of Food and Ag

  • DPR Releases Summary of Expert Convening on Fumigation

    The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released the post-harvest commodity fumigation component of a multipart independent scientific study evaluating alternatives to fumigant pesticides. Prepared by the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST), the convening report summarizes key themes and discussion points from a convening assembled by CCST to discuss fumigants that are used to protect stored food products after harvest, potential alternatives and opportunities to reduce exposure for workers and nearby communities.

    CCST’s convening included academic, industry, public health, environmental justice and regulatory experts who met for a series of discussions on post-harvest commodity fumigation in November. The discussion specifically focused on four fumigant pesticides: methyl bromide, sulfuryl fluoride, phosphine, and propylene oxide. All four fumigants are restricted material pesticides primarily used on produce after harvesting to protect food from fungal disease and insect pests while in storage. The report synthesizes findings from those discussions to summarize and reflect participants’ diverse perspectives on the state of post-harvest commodity fumigation in California.

    The convening report includes discussion summaries related to:

    • How and why post‑harvest fumigants are used today, including factors that drive fumigation for stored commodities.
    • Community exposure and emission concerns, along with current mitigation practices and opportunities to strengthen protections for nearby residents and workers.
    • Available and emerging alternatives to traditional fumigants, such as controlled atmospheres, irradiation, pheromone‑based tools, and multi‑pronged Integrated Pest Management approaches.
    • Barriers that limit the adoption of alternatives, including international and national regulatory requirements, cost, and the need for additional research and training.
    • Key research gaps where further scientific study is needed to support a transition to safer, effective pest management tools.