Cheap, effective and dangerous: how Australian farmers came to depend on the toxic weedkiller paraquat

Australia's decision to allow continued use of the potent yet hazardous herbicide paraquat has sparked significant debate among public health advocates, environmentalists, and farming communities. Despite being outlawed in numerous countries, including the European Union, China, Malaysia, Brazil, and even the U.S. state of Vermont, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) has permitted its usage after a nearly three-decade-long evaluation process. This decision follows stringent conditions, which include limiting application rates and restricting its use to enclosed systems rather than traditional backpack sprayers.

Paraquat, classified as a Schedule 7 poison, poses serious risks to human health upon contact, ingestion, or inhalation. Health advocacy groups and neurologists have raised alarms regarding potential long-term exposure links to Parkinson’s disease. Nevertheless, the herbicide remains indispensable for many Australian farmers due to its efficacy against both broadleaf and grassy weeds, particularly in no-till farming environments where chemical weed control is crucial. Its utility becomes even more pronounced when dealing with weeds resistant to other major herbicides like glyphosate, often necessitating combined applications.

The dependence on paraquat is rooted in economic factors and evolving dynamics within the global pesticide market. Historically, the industry was dominated by multinational corporations based in Europe and America, offering patented and costly products. However, over the past two decades, Chinese manufacturers have emerged as dominant players in the production of generic and significantly cheaper pesticides. Tax incentives and government support have propelled firms such as Rainbow, Wynca, Adama, Yangnong, and Syngenta China into becoming global leaders in agrochemicals. By 2025, approximately half of Australia’s pesticide imports—by value—are sourced from China, compared to just 10 percent in 2006.

The proliferation of generic pesticides has enhanced product availability. Facilitated by the 2015 China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which eliminated tariffs on pesticide imports, the influx of affordable products has made it easier for Australian farmers to access necessary chemicals. Additionally, Australia’s regulatory framework does not mandate comprehensive assessments for registering new products with approved active ingredients, contributing to the current landscape where 121 distinct products containing paraquat are available in the country. These products, marketed under names like Rainquat, Gramoxone, and Spraytop, are predominantly sourced from Chinese manufacturing facilities.

Major agricultural chemical retailers in Australia, Nutrien and Elders, have capitalized on this trend by developing their own low-cost generic brands, further embedding Chinese-sourced formulations into the national supply chain. Industry insiders note that European-sourced materials have dwindled significantly, with minimal presence in the Australian market today.

The implications of banning paraquat remain a pressing concern for Australian farmers and agronomists. With limited viable alternatives that are both cost-effective and efficient, the prospect of a complete prohibition on paraquat raises questions about the future of sustainable and productive farming practices in the region. The ongoing reliance on this herbicide underscores the complex interplay between agricultural necessity, economic feasibility, and public health considerations.