Pest control tools are not the enemy

OPINION – To protect California’s food supply, public health, and agricultural economy, we should bring together science and medical expertise into the policy-making process. Rodents contaminating food storage and invasive pests threatening crops are not hypothetical risks; they are growing realities. Addressing these challenges requires collaboration between legislators, regulators, growers, toxicologists, and medical professionals.

We should strive for common ground and better solutions, rather than focusing solely on eliminating options. A more constructive approach involves collaborating across disciplines to protect Californians while ensuring that pest management remains grounded in evidence and prioritizes public safety.

Pest control tools are not chosen lightly. Every product on the market undergoes a decade or more of rigorous, peer-reviewed testing and regulatory scrutiny by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California’s own EPA Department and Department of Pesticide Regulation. These pest control tools are not experiments; they are the most thoroughly tested and regulated substances in the country, backed by thousands of data points regarding their impact on water, air, health, and soil.

As the California State Legislature, Department of Pesticide Regulation, and the California Council of Science and Technology review the pre-plant, post-harvest, and structural pest control tools, decisions should be guided by science, not by headlines and political pressure. Yet, far too often, we see regulators and legislators pushing bans based on a single, unverified study or an emotional appeal. Many of these claims rely on academic papers that haven’t undergone peer review, replication, or validation. That’s not science. That’s careless policymaking dressed as reform.

You wouldn’t build a bridge based on an unverified blueprint. Why would we risk California’s food supply and public health on untested claims?

Nature doesn’t negotiate. It doesn’t yield to good intentions or slogans. Pests don’t care if you’re tall, short, wealthy, have a college degree, or if you are red, green, independent, or blue. They invade schools, homes, hospitals, and crops. They destroy infrastructure and spread diseases like hantavirus, leptospirosis, and West Nile virus. These are not hypotheticals. They are real threats people face every day.

You can’t wish pests away. You can’t regulate them out of existence. And we certainly can’t fight them with a tweet or hope.

Currently, due to pest adaptations and greater restrictions on pest control options, Californians are experiencing spikes in rodent infestations in both farms and urban areas. Crops are being attacked, homes are being damaged by termites, and mosquitoes are spreading across larger regions. These are not fringe concerns; they are central public health and food security issues.

Without effective pest control tools, what’s the alternative? Watching as crop yields plummet, grocery prices soar, and public health suffers?

This should not be a debate between “pro” and “anti” pesticide. This is a debate between science and agenda-driven narratives. Between evidence and emotion. Between a regulatory system built on data and one based on ideology.

It’s time we demand more from our decision-makers. Science must prevail, but not just any science. Validated, replicated, peer-reviewed science. We owe that to our communities, our families, and the workers in the fields who risk their lives to provide us with food.

The stakes are too high to get this wrong. Pest control tools save lives. It’s time we started treating them and the science behind them with the seriousness they deserve.

Dr. S. Eliza Lockwood is an emergency medicine physician and medical toxicologist, a Medical Affairs lead at Bayer, and a national and international lecturer on medical toxicology, tropical medicine, and global health.