Why 32 Countries Banned Paraquat But the US Has Not: The Regulatory Story

Countries That Have Banned Paraquat

Paraquat has been banned or severely restricted by more than 32 countries around the world — a remarkable international consensus on the herbicide's unacceptable risk profile. The list includes some of the world's largest agricultural nations and some of the most scientifically sophisticated regulatory bodies, yet the United States has declined to follow their lead.

Countries and regions that have banned or severely restricted paraquat include:

• European Union (all 27 member states) — banned in 2007 following an EU scientific review
• China — banned paraquat in 2016, a significant decision given China's enormous agricultural sector
• Brazil — one of the world's largest agricultural exporters, banned paraquat in 2020
• Switzerland — home country of Syngenta (paraquat's primary manufacturer) banned it domestically
• United Kingdom — banned following the EU prohibition, maintained after Brexit
• Malaysia, Thailand, and Sri Lanka — Asian agricultural nations that have restricted or banned paraquat
• Many Central American and South American nations — have enacted restrictions in response to documented poisonings and health impacts

The global bans reflect a consistent pattern: countries with active scientific regulatory review processes have concluded that paraquat's risks — both from acute poisoning and from chronic neurological harm — outweigh its agricultural benefits, particularly given the availability of alternative herbicides. The United States stands out as one of the few major agricultural nations that continues to permit broad paraquat use.^[1]

The European Union Ban

The European Union's 2007 decision to ban paraquat represents one of the most consequential regulatory actions on the herbicide. The EU ban followed a rigorous scientific review process by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission, which concluded that paraquat could not be safely used under any conditions specified on its label without posing unacceptable risks to applicators and the environment.

The EU review specifically found that there were no feasible protective measures that could reduce the risk of operators to acceptable levels, and that safer alternatives existed for the agricultural purposes for which paraquat was used. The EU's precautionary approach — which gives more weight to potential harm when scientific uncertainty exists — stands in contrast to the EPA's approach, which has emphasized risk mitigation measures over outright prohibition.

Syngenta challenged the EU ban through legal proceedings, arguing that the scientific evidence did not support such a sweeping prohibition. The European Court of Justice ultimately upheld the ban in 2011, finding that the EU's regulatory assessment was scientifically sound and legally valid. This judicial confirmation of the EU ban is frequently cited by paraquat lawsuit plaintiffs in the United States as evidence that the scientific and regulatory case for a US ban is well-founded.

The EU ban has had significant practical consequences: EU farmers have transitioned to alternative herbicides for pre-plant weed control, and research suggests that this transition has not resulted in the agricultural productivity losses that paraquat advocates predicted. This track record weakens one of the primary arguments against a US ban — that there are no adequate alternatives to paraquat's agricultural functions.^[1]

The EPA's Position

The EPA's position on paraquat has been one of managed restriction rather than prohibition. The agency's most recent registration review concluded that paraquat can be used safely when all required protective measures are followed, including the use of closed-system transfer equipment, full-body personal protective equipment, and compliance with the restricted-use certification requirements.^[1]

The EPA's paraquat risk assessments have been criticized by public health advocates on several grounds. First, critics argue that the EPA has given insufficient weight to the epidemiological evidence linking paraquat to Parkinson's disease, focusing its risk assessment primarily on acute poisoning while treating the Parkinson's connection as insufficiently established. Second, critics contend that the EPA's assumption that label directions will be faithfully followed is unrealistic given documented rates of PPE non-compliance in agricultural settings.^[7]

The EPA's position on paraquat sits within a broader pattern of U.S. pesticide regulation that tends to favor continued registration with risk mitigation over outright bans. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), under which the EPA regulates pesticides, establishes a cost-benefit framework that weighs pesticide risks against agricultural benefits. Critics argue this framework gives insufficient weight to neurological harms that manifest years or decades after exposure and disproportionately affect vulnerable farm worker populations.

NIEHS has been more forthcoming in acknowledging paraquat's Parkinson's disease risk, noting on its paraquat health topics page that studies have found an association between paraquat exposure and Parkinson's disease and that the agency's own Agricultural Health Study has contributed substantially to documenting this association.^[2] The disconnect between the EPA's regulatory stance and the NIEHS's scientific assessment has been a point of friction between federal agencies.

Regulatory History in the US

Paraquat has been registered for use in the United States since 1964, just a few years after it was first introduced commercially by ICI (now Syngenta) in the United Kingdom. Its initial registration reflected the regulatory science of the era, when paraquat's Parkinson's disease risk was not yet understood.

Key milestones in paraquat's U.S. regulatory history include:

• 1964: EPA first registers paraquat dichloride for pesticide use in the United States
• 1978: EPA restricts paraquat to certified applicator use only following concerns about acute toxicity incidents
• 1980s: Scientific research begins to document the structural and mechanistic similarity between paraquat and MPTP, a known dopamine neurotoxin that causes Parkinson's-like symptoms
• 1990s-2000s: Epidemiological studies begin to accumulate linking paraquat exposure to Parkinson's disease in human populations
• 2016: EPA strengthens paraquat label requirements, mandating closed-system transfer equipment, updated PPE requirements, and enhanced training
• 2019-2020: EPA conducts preliminary registration review of paraquat; public health advocates petition for cancellation
• 2021: EPA proposes interim registration review decision maintaining paraquat's registration with additional restrictions
• 2021-present: MDL 3004 litigation intensifies; thousands of Parkinson's disease claimants file lawsuits

Throughout this regulatory history, the gap between the evolving scientific understanding of paraquat's neurological risks and the EPA's regulatory response has widened. The agency has incrementally tightened restrictions without taking the step of cancellation that the EU, China, Brazil, and dozens of other nations have taken. Paraquat lawsuit plaintiffs argue that this regulatory failure enabled ongoing exposure that caused preventable Parkinson's disease in thousands of agricultural workers.^[1]

Syngenta's Role and Influence

Syngenta AG, headquartered in Basel, Switzerland (a country that has itself banned paraquat), is the world's primary manufacturer and marketer of paraquat and the leading defendant in MDL 3004. Syngenta markets paraquat in the United States under the Gramoxone brand name and has aggressively defended the herbicide's safety profile through scientific publications, regulatory submissions, and litigation.

Documents produced in the paraquat litigation are expected to shed light on what Syngenta knew about paraquat's Parkinson's disease risk and when. In comparable pesticide and pharmaceutical litigations, internal company documents have frequently revealed that manufacturers had access to unfavorable safety data earlier than publicly acknowledged. Plaintiffs' attorneys in the paraquat MDL have been conducting extensive document discovery targeting Syngenta's internal communications, research funding activities, and interactions with regulatory agencies.

Syngenta's parent company, ChemChina (now Sinochem), acquired Syngenta in 2017 for approximately $43 billion — making it the largest foreign acquisition by a Chinese company at that time. This corporate ownership structure has implications for the litigation, as it raises questions about financial resources available to fund both the defense of the litigation and any eventual settlement.

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, the co-defendant in the paraquat MDL, was a prior registrant of paraquat products in the United States. Chevron's paraquat products were registered under trade names different from Gramoxone, and the company's liability in the litigation stems from its role as a registrant during periods when plaintiffs allege they were exposed.^[1]

Advocacy for a US Ban

A broad coalition of public health advocates, farm worker rights organizations, environmental groups, and Parkinson's disease researchers has been pressing the EPA to cancel paraquat's registration and follow the lead of the 32-plus countries that have banned it. These advocacy efforts have intensified alongside the MDL litigation and the growing scientific evidence base.

Key advocacy arguments include:

• The scientific evidence linking paraquat to Parkinson's disease is now sufficiently robust to meet the standard for regulatory action under FIFRA
• Effective alternative herbicides exist for all the agricultural applications where paraquat is currently used, making a ban feasible without significant productivity loss
• Farm workers and farm communities bear a disproportionate burden of paraquat's health risks, raising environmental justice concerns
• The EPA's continued registration of paraquat places it at odds with the regulatory conclusions of the EU, China, Brazil, and 30-plus other nations
• The ongoing MDL litigation demonstrates that the agricultural industry was aware, or should have been aware, of paraquat's Parkinson's disease risk and that voluntary market withdrawal is unlikely

The Parkinson's Foundation has been an active voice in calling for stronger paraquat regulation, noting that with nearly 1 million Americans living with Parkinson's disease and 90,000 new diagnoses annually, any preventable contributor to this burden deserves urgent regulatory attention.^[6]

The National Toxicology Program has conducted studies specifically examining paraquat's neurotoxicity, and its findings have contributed to the scientific consensus that paraquat's neurological risks are real and significant.^[4] As this evidence base continues to develop, pressure on the EPA to reconsider its registration decision is likely to grow — particularly if bellwether trials in MDL 3004 produce significant verdicts for plaintiffs that publicly highlight the human cost of the agency's current approach.

Frequently Asked Questions