Case guide
Checking a paraquat ban headline? EPA’s page describes restricted uses, safety controls and ongoing review.
Updated Oct 4, 202614 sources
See If You Qualify
Free · No obligation · About 2 minutes
Updated Oct 4, 202614 sources
This may apply to you if
These are cited sources. Their inclusion does not imply that they endorse People’s Justice or reviewed this page.
Srishti Shrestha · Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences · First author, Agricultural Health Study Parkinson cohort
Finding: The prospective cohort did not find a statistically significant overall association for reported paraquat use. Exposure and disease measurement limits prevent treating that as proof of no possible effect.
Shrestha: pesticides and incident Parkinson disease, original cohort (opens in a new tab) · Sep 10, 2020 · Checked Oct 3, 2026
Kimberly C. Paul · Department of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles · First author of the cited agricultural exposure case-control study
Finding: Modeled historical paraquat applications were associated with Parkinson disease under several exposure measures and periods; proximity is not personal dose or a legal acceptance boundary.
Paul: agricultural paraquat applications and Parkinson disease, original case-control study (opens in a new tab) · Feb 2, 2024 · Checked Oct 3, 2026
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, first-author affiliation · Environmental Research · 2020
Read the source: Pesticide use and incident Parkinson disease in the Agricultural Health Study (opens in a new tab) · Checked Oct 3, 2026
University of California, Los Angeles, first-author affiliation · International Journal of Epidemiology · 2024
Read the source: Agricultural paraquat dichloride applications and Parkinson disease (opens in a new tab) · Checked Oct 3, 2026
Not covered by this case
The process
You answer a few questions
About two minutes. Nothing is sent until you agree on the last step and press submit.
A lawyer looks at it
A lawyer at the firm reads your answers and checks them against the current case criteria.
The firm decides and gets in touch
If the firm takes your case, you get the terms in writing to read before you sign. You can always say no.
Checking a paraquat ban headline? EPA’s page describes restricted uses, safety controls and ongoing review. Read the date and scope. That record does not decide your illness or personal legal claim.
It describes restricted US uses and safety controls. It does not describe homeowner use as allowed. Check the actual product and rule rather than a headline.
Only trained certified applicators, meaning users with the required credentials, may use these products. EPA lists no home or residential-area application uses. The overview does not settle every later federal or state rule. Check the dated rule and exact label. A count of other countries’ bans is not provided here.
EPA describes studies with different results. Its review of labeled uses does not decide your own cause. Keep each study’s design with its result.
The California study found links based on addresses and old spraying records. The farm cohort’s overall paraquat result was not statistically significant, meaning chance could explain it. The ways they measured exposure differ. Other pesticide use can affect results. Two California authors disclosed work as experts for plaintiffs. These findings do not decide your claim.
It describes doubt about how much paraquat may turn into vapor. EPA says it needs more data. A plan does not prove that a review is complete.
EPA describes a new study that changed its assumptions about vapor. Its November 2025 account says that uncertainty increased. The agency plans to request more data and use them to update its analysis. A plan is not proof that the work is complete. That uncertainty does not establish the amount anyone breathed.
Label rules address how paraquat may be used. A buffer or entry rule does not measure your dose. Ask about the actual product, site and dates.
EPA lists spray-drift controls, limits on some methods and rules on when workers may reenter fields. Those rules have defined scopes. They do not set a universal claim boundary. A study’s nearby-address model serves a different purpose and does not measure the dose that reached one person.
Seek medical care at once. Tell professionals what happened and what is known about the chemical. Do not wait for a rule or claim debate.
CDC describes serious acute poisoning from paraquat and immediate care after exposure. A symptom list does not prove the substance, amount or a Parkinson’s cause. Follow professional instructions for the actual situation instead of choosing a home treatment or handling unsafe materials to support a claim.
Keep the product record, dates and care reports. Ask which current rule and personal filing law apply. Read the actual legal costs before agreeing.
Covered health-record access has exceptions. General court guidance supplies no national paraquat filing cutoff, and a regulatory review does not itself establish compensation. Confirm the receiving firm, representation and expense terms, including costs after a loss, rather than inferring acceptance from a ban headline.
Syngenta’s corporate predecessor ICI identified paraquat neurotoxicity in 1958 and confirmed brain penetration in 1966
Paraquat exposure was associated with an overall odds ratio of 1.64 for Parkinson’s disease, confirming a statistically significant increased risk
People who reported using paraquat had about 2.5 times the odds of Parkinson’s disease (odds ratio 2.5; 95% CI 1.4–4.7)
The review is free and private. Asking for it doesn’t commit you to anything.
Register your interestThe EPA has never formally attempted to ban paraquat. The agency classified it as a Restricted Use Pesticide in 1978 (limiting use to licensed applicators) and has conducted periodic registration reviews, but has consistently reaffirmed the herbicide’s registration. The 2021 interim decision added safety measures but no ban. EPA’s registration review is still ongoing; in November 2025 EPA released a memorandum on a new vapor pressure study and said it plans to require more data. The EPA’s position stands in stark contrast to more than 70 countries that have banned paraquat, including major agricultural nations like the EU, China, and Brazil. Advocates continue to push for a U.S. ban, but regulatory action remains stalled.
No. The fact that paraquat remains legal in the United States does not prevent you from filing a lawsuit or undermine your claim. Product liability law does not require that a product be banned or recalled for lawsuits to succeed — it requires that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn of known risks. Syngenta and its predecessors knew of paraquat’s link to Parkinson’s disease and failed to warn users. The EPA’s failure to act is actually cited by plaintiffs as evidence that regulatory systems failed to protect the public, strengthening the argument that judicial remedies are necessary. Many successful mass tort litigations — including tobacco, asbestos, and Roundup — proceeded and resulted in massive settlements while the products remained on the market.
More than 70 countries have banned paraquat. The most significant bans include: the European Union (2007, covering all 27 member states), China (2017), Brazil (2020, the world’s largest agricultural market), Thailand (2019), Malaysia (2020), Peru (2021), Chile (2020), Taiwan (2020), and dozens of countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The United Kingdom banned paraquat as part of the EU ban before Brexit. Switzerland, where Syngenta is headquartered, also prohibits paraquat use. The international consensus is clear: the vast majority of countries that have reviewed the scientific evidence have concluded that paraquat poses unacceptable risks to human health. The United States is a notable outlier in continuing to allow its use.
Checked against 12 primary sources by People's Justice editors · Updated
How we make moneyPeople's Justice research team · Updated Oct 4, 2026