Amid mounting evidence linking the herbicide paraquat to Parkinson’s disease and other severe health issues, seven U.S. senators recently called upon the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose an outright ban on the pesticide. In an Oct. 31 letter, the senators urged EPA Administrator Michael Regan to take decisive action to protect public health, noting that over 70 countries have already banned paraquat due to its known dangers. The senators’ letter follows a similar plea by 47 members of the U.S. House of Representatives earlier in October, which cited extensive research documenting the health risks associated with paraquat use.
“Paraquat is a highly toxic pesticide whose continued use cannot be justified given its harms to farmworkers and rural communities,” the letter reads, reflecting widespread concern over the pesticide’s impact on those frequently exposed to it. According to The Guardian, studies have linked paraquat exposure to a 64 percent higher likelihood of developing Parkinson’s disease, in addition to an increased risk of thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and other thyroid issues.
The link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease has been well-documented. Ray Dorsey, a neurologist at the University of Rochester, emphasizes the role that paraquat has played in the rise of the neurodegenerative disease over the past 60 years. “For 60 years, paraquat has been helping fuel the rise of Parkinson’s disease,” Dorsey explained. He added that the body of evidence from human and laboratory studies, as well as internal company research, “is overwhelming.” He concluded, “When paraquat is banned, more lives will be spared the consequences of Parkinson’s.”
For farm workers and rural communities, chronic exposure to paraquat has led to numerous other health problems beyond Parkinson’s disease. The herbicide is known to contribute to kidney and liver damage, respiratory issues, and reproductive harm, with studies indicating neurodevelopmental risks for fetuses exposed during pregnancy. In some rural areas, chronic exposure has even been associated with a higher risk of leukemia in children. Health advocates argue that paraquat’s continued use is fueling public health disparities, particularly for communities living and working near fields regularly treated with the herbicide.
Countries worldwide have responded to paraquat’s documented risks by banning its use, with nations like China, Brazil, the European Union, and Turkey outlawing the pesticide over health and environmental concerns. Yet in the U.S., paraquat remains legal, and the EPA has stated that there is no “clear link” between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease. Despite existing restrictions due to paraquat’s acute toxicity, the agency has not fully restricted its use and continues to permit it in agriculture.
The EPA did, however, announce that it would review additional studies and issue a final report on the matter by mid-January 2025. In response to recent calls from lawmakers to address paraquat’s risks, an EPA spokesperson stated that the agency “will respond to the letter appropriately,” leaving open the possibility of future regulatory changes.
Syngenta, the Chinese-owned company that manufactures paraquat, has continued to deny any definitive connection between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease. According to the company, no “peer-reviewed scientific publication has established a causal connection between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease.” Nevertheless, internal documents obtained by The Guardian reveal that Syngenta has known for years about paraquat’s potential neurotoxic effects. The company reportedly engaged in efforts to counteract scientific research suggesting a connection between paraquat and Parkinson’s, even going so far as to hire the reputation management firm v-Fluence to influence public perception.
The controversy has led to thousands of paraquat users who suffer from Parkinson’s disease bringing lawsuits against Syngenta, alleging that the company knew of the herbicide’s risks but failed to warn users. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits claim that Syngenta had a responsibility to disclose the potential health impacts of paraquat use rather than attempting to hide the evidence of harm.
The risks of paraquat are not limited to human health alone; the herbicide also poses significant environmental threats. Paraquat residues have been detected in soil and water supplies near treated farmland, raising concerns about long-term environmental contamination. Communities in close proximity to agricultural areas face heightened exposure to paraquat residues, further intensifying health disparities for already vulnerable populations.
California recently took steps to address paraquat’s risks through state-level legislation requiring an expedited review of the herbicide. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill following pressure from local lawmakers, who cited the same health risks underscored in recent federal legislation. While the state’s review could potentially lead to a ban within California, advocates stress the need for broader national action to prevent exposure.
The paraquat controversy underscores the need for systemic reform in U.S. pesticide regulation, especially concerning toxic chemicals that disproportionately affect farm workers and rural communities. Advocates argue that the U.S. should prioritize public health over industry interests, particularly when scientific evidence points to severe health risks. A coalition of environmental, labor, and health organizations has joined forces to support a ban, citing paraquat as an example of why stronger regulatory oversight is necessary to protect vulnerable populations.
Farm worker advocacy groups emphasize that paraquat’s continued legality reflects a broader issue of regulatory neglect, with health and safety often overlooked in favor of agricultural industry profits. Labor groups are calling on the EPA to align with international standards and adopt policies that safeguard farm workers, who are at the greatest risk from toxic pesticides.
Public health advocates and legislators continue to urge the EPA to take decisive action on paraquat, citing the example set by the more than 70 countries that have already banned the pesticide. Neurologist Ray Dorsey captures the urgency of the issue, stating, “When paraquat is banned, more lives will be spared the consequences of Parkinson’s.”
As the EPA reviews additional scientific studies, advocates for a ban are closely monitoring the agency’s response, emphasizing that the health risks of paraquat outweigh any potential agricultural benefits. For farm worker communities, environmental health advocates, and legislators, the decision on paraquat could set a precedent for future pesticide regulation in the U.S. and help protect public health and environmental safety.
COMMENTS