Over 50 U.S. lawmakers have recently advocated for a ban on paraquat, a potent herbicide widely associated with Parkinson’s disease and other serious health risks. This appeal to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reflects growing concerns about the herbicide’s detrimental effects on farmworkers, rural residents, and even the broader environment. In late October, a group of seven U.S. senators highlighted the serious health hazards linked to paraquat, calling it a “highly toxic pesticide” that poses unacceptable risks to human health, particularly in agricultural communities.
This demand follows a similar appeal earlier in October by 47 U.S. Representatives. The lawmakers’ letters to the EPA cited recent studies suggesting that paraquat use may significantly increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease. For those exposed to paraquat within 500 meters of where it is sprayed, the likelihood of developing Parkinson’s may more than double. Concerns extend beyond neurological risks; research suggests that paraquat is linked to thyroid cancer and may cause damage to vital organs such as the kidneys, liver, and respiratory system.
While not as ubiquitous as glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Bayer’s Roundup, paraquat use has expanded in recent years. In 2018 alone, U.S. farmers applied over 15 million pounds of paraquat, a figure that has more than tripled since 1992. This escalation reflects farmers’ reliance on paraquat for crop management, as it is a fast-acting herbicide often used to clear fields before planting. However, its persistence in the environment is a major concern; paraquat remains in the soil for years before breaking down, posing long-term risks to surrounding ecosystems and human health. Another problem is its susceptibility to spray drift, which can carry the toxic substance to areas beyond the targeted fields, thereby impacting communities near agricultural zones.
The herbicide has been a focal point for health advocates due to its effects on farmworkers, many of whom work in California’s agricultural regions. Here, farmworker populations, primarily Latino, bear the brunt of paraquat exposure and its associated health risks. Research indicates that paraquat residues may enter the soil, where they can infiltrate the food chain and cause a toxic buildup in both animals and humans. This potential for contamination extends the pesticide’s impact from farm fields to consumers, prompting further calls for stringent regulatory action.
Despite these concerns, paraquat remains legally available in the U.S., though it is designated as a “restricted use” pesticide. This classification limits its application to licensed operators or certified applicators, theoretically ensuring careful handling. However, advocates argue that these measures fail to adequately protect farmworkers and nearby communities, who remain vulnerable to exposure despite the restrictions.
Several countries, including China, Brazil, and numerous European Union member states, have banned paraquat due to these risks, citing the herbicide’s toxicity and long-term health implications. In the U.S., paraquat use has been restricted in certain areas like golf courses and recreational parks, but advocates and legislators are pushing for a more comprehensive ban. They argue that paraquat’s hazards to farmworkers, rural residents, and the environment are far too severe to ignore and urge the EPA to adopt a more proactive stance to protect public health.
Syngenta, the company responsible for manufacturing paraquat, disputes claims that the chemical causes Parkinson’s disease, citing insufficient scientific evidence to establish a definitive link. The company maintains that paraquat, when used according to guidelines, is safe for licensed applicators. However, with increasing evidence of adverse health effects and widespread contamination, many health experts and advocates remain unconvinced.
As paraquat continues to be used on major crops such as corn, soybeans, and cotton, the pressure on the EPA to enact a ban intensifies. The ongoing reliance on paraquat, despite evidence of its risks, underscores a broader debate in U.S. agricultural policy about the balance between effective weed control and public health protections.
