| Sumario: | This paper provides a retrospective on California's oversight of 1,3‐dichloropropene (1,3‐D). It utilizes archival documents, including internal memos, emails, and risk assessments, to demonstrate how the state's Department of Pesticide Regulation consistently expanded allowable 1,3‐D use while presenting each policy change as scientifically justified. The findings indicate that regulators depended on industry modeling, adopted exposure assumptions that minimized short‐term spikes and refused to implement stricter standards recommended by public health agencies. These adjustments, which were often portrayed as protective reforms, ultimately preserved longstanding racial and economic disparities. The article illustrates, with historical depth, how risk governance can evolve over time through waivers, revised thresholds, and technical justifications—steps that maintain pesticide‐intensive production despite ongoing harms. In policy terms, this study emphasizes the necessity for regulatory processes that demand stronger cumulative exposure analyses and guarantee transparent public oversight. By tracing how governance tools transformed to address increasing scrutiny while preserving industry access to hazardous pesticides, the paper illustrates how pesticide regulation can become a means of environmental racism. This situation calls for robust protections and the inclusion of marginalized communities in decision making.
|
|---|