The EPA’s claim that paraquat is safe is dead wrong. California must ban it
Not since DDT was banned more than 50 years ago have independent scientists made a more compelling case for the urgent need to ban a dangerous pesticide than they have for paraquat.
The pesticide’s unacceptably high risks start with the fact that ingesting a single teaspoon can be fatal and there is no antidote. Exposure can damage the kidneys and lungs and lead to burns so severe they require skin grafts.
Hundreds of studies have linked the neurotoxic pesticide to the onset of Parkinson’s disease.
In fact, it so reliably produces hallmarks of the disease in animals that scientists expose animals to the pesticide to test for potential treatments for Parkinson’s.
That’s why paraquat is banned in 58 countries across the globe. But here in the United States more than 10 million pounds of it continue to be used annually on crops like citrus, almonds, artichokes, garlic, pears, strawberries and grapes.
And yet, in January the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs announced it had doubled down on its opinion that paraquat can be used safely. That decision, which followed a year-long review prompted by a lawsuit from farmworker and public health groups, paves the way for its ongoing use.
Worse yet, in making that stunning announcement, the agency responsible for ensuring pesticides do not pose an unreasonable risk to human health admitted it had not even completed a review of dozens of recent peer-reviewed studies it received spotlighting paraquat’s troubling link to Parkinson’s.
The agency expects to finalize the decision in January 2025.
The EPA has twice rejected the extensive evidence of paraquat’s neurological harms, and to date has given no indication of its intent to change course.
That should set off alarm bells here in California, where more than 425,000 pounds of paraquat was sprayed in 2021 alone, with over three-quarters of the total used in just eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley.
New research published earlier this year based on paraquat use in California reaffirms the pesticide’s links to an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease.
In 2022 public health and environmental groups submitted a formal request to the state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation asking the state to cancel paraquat’s registration. Yet, over a year later, the department has failed to respond to the wealth of scientific studies submitted.
Because Californians can’t afford more delays in the face of the overwhelming research detailing paraquat’s harms, California Assemblymember Laura Friedman, D-Burbank, and public health advocates introduced the bill to ban the pesticide in the state.
The bill would especially benefit the farmworkers who put food on our tables.
Because it’s in the fields where the greatest risks exist for people — breathing in paraquat laden dust and vapors in the hot summer air, getting pesticide residues on skin and clothes and ultimately taking them back to their families.
The disproportionate health threats paraquat poses to farmworkers, 97% of whom are Latino or Latina, were highlighted in a recent advisory opinion from the People’s Tribunal on Pesticide Use and Civil Rights in California and a recent study of paraquat on California’s low-income Latino communities.
The EPA admitted that farmworkers could be harmed by paraquat, but concluded “that these risks were outweighed by the benefits of the use of paraquat…”
However, in asserting that paraquat’s benefits outweighed the risks, the EPA failed to account for the increased Parkinson’s risks faced by farmworkers.
That deeply flawed, unjust reasoning should not be tolerated by regulators and lawmakers in California, a state with a rich history as a national leader in putting thoughtful, balanced environmental protections in place that prioritize Californians’ health.
In the wake of the EPA’s ongoing refusal to adequately address paraquat’s dangerous health harms, state legislators must rise to this important moment and pass AB 1963.
Not just because an ever-growing body of research demands it, but because it’s the only moral choice.