Context:

Vermont has become the first U.S. state to ban paraquat, amid concerns linking the widely used herbicide to Parkinson’s disease and aims to spur action in other states. The move signals a shift in the national dialogue on pesticide safety, even as the EPA reviews paraquat’s safety and producers defend its use. The law allows a transition period, with farmers able to continue use on certain crops until 2030, while raising questions about economic impacts for growers. Advocates view the ban as a public-health victory that could set a precedent for broader restrictions, though farmers warn of potential competitive disadvantages and higher costs from alternatives. The outlook hinges on regulatory reviews and the pace of adoption of safer practices across agriculture.

Dive Deeper:

• Vermont’s ban makes it the first U.S. state to prohibit paraquat, a move celebrated by health advocates who point to potential connections with Parkinson’s disease.

• The law takes effect November 1, but farmers growing fruit-producing orchards, berries, and small fruit crops have until 2030 to transition away from using paraquat.

• Key stakeholders include lawmakers in Vermont, advocacy groups like The Michael J. Fox Foundation, farmers who rely on paraquat for crops such as apples and grapes, and the chemical producer Syngenta, which has defended the herbicide’s safety.

• The EPA is reviewing paraquat’s safety amid ongoing debate about its health effects, with no definitive peer-reviewed consensus that it causes Parkinson’s disease according to Syngenta, the manufacturer.

• Historic usage figures cited show paraquat was used in the U.S. at more than 10 million pounds in 2018, with heavy concentration in the South, Midwest, and California, underscoring its economic footprint.

• Farmers warn that alternatives and non-chemical methods could raise costs or reduce yields, potentially placing Vermont growers at a competitive disadvantage relative to states where paraquat remains legal.

• Public health proponents argue the ban reduces exposure risks for farmworkers and nearby communities, framing it as a protective step despite economic trade-offs for those who rely on paraquat.