Paraquat will continue to be used in Australia despite 70 countries banning weedkiller over Parkinson’s disease fears

Australian farmers have long relied on paraquat, a powerful but highly toxic herbicide, despite its widespread prohibition in over 70 countries. Recently, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) concluded a nearly 30-year review and confirmed that paraquat can continue to be used in Australia, albeit under stricter conditions. The decision has sparked debate among health advocates, scientists, and agricultural stakeholders, highlighting the complex balance between economic necessity and public health concerns.

Paraquat is classified as a Schedule 7 poison, meaning it is extremely hazardous if ingested, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin. Its toxicity has raised alarms among health professionals, particularly neurologists, who argue that prolonged exposure could increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease. Despite these warnings, the APVMA determined that a causal link between paraquat and Parkinson’s had not been conclusively established. The regulator emphasized that while the risk remains, the current evidence base does not support an outright ban. Instead, new restrictions aim to mitigate exposure risks for farm workers, animals, and the environment.

The continued use of paraquat in Australia is deeply rooted in the agricultural sector’s dependence on cost-effective solutions. Broad-acre farmers, who cultivate crops like wheat, soybeans, and canola, rely heavily on paraquat to control weeds, especially in no-till farming systems. These methods minimize soil disruption but require robust chemical weed management. Paraquat is particularly valuable against weeds resistant to other herbicides, such as glyphosate, which is commonly used alongside it. This dual-use strategy ensures effective weed control, making paraquat indispensable for many growers.

The dominance of paraquat in Australian agriculture is also influenced by global shifts in the pesticide industry. Over the past two decades, Chinese manufacturers have emerged as major producers of generic agrochemicals, offering lower-cost alternatives to branded products once dominated by European and American firms. The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, signed in 2015, facilitated the importation of these products by removing tariffs, significantly increasing the share of Chinese-sourced pesticides in Australia. By 2025, nearly half of Australia’s pesticide imports by value originated from China, with major brands like Rainquat, Gramoxone, and Spraytop being sourced from Chinese suppliers.

This shift has reshaped the market dynamics for Australian agrochemical retailers. Companies such as Nutrien and Elders now offer their own low-cost generic formulations, sourced primarily from Chinese manufacturers. Industry insiders note that the availability of competitively priced products from Asia has diminished the appeal of European alternatives, which are often more expensive and less accessible. This trend underscores the economic pressures driving the continued use of paraquat, despite its health risks.

Despite the APVMA’s decision, concerns persist within the medical and scientific communities. Neurologists and Parkinson’s researchers argue that Australia is diverging from international standards, which emphasize a precautionary approach to chemical regulation. The European Union, for instance, banned paraquat in 2007 after a legal challenge revealed flaws in the initial safety assessments conducted by its manufacturer, Syngenta. Similarly, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has imposed stringent controls on paraquat, though some states, like Vermont, have opted for a complete ban due to Parkinson’s disease concerns.

The APVMA’s risk-based assessment model differs from the precautionary principle employed by many other nations. Under this framework, regulators evaluate the actual risk posed by a substance rather than requiring absolute proof of safety upfront. Critics argue that this approach may underestimate long-term health impacts, particularly when relying solely on manufacturer-provided data. Nevertheless, the APVMA maintains that its review of extensive scientific literature and long-term data did not confirm a direct causal relationship between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease.

The future of paraquat in Australia hinges on balancing these competing interests. With no immediate viable substitutes, farmers face the dilemma of maintaining productivity while minimizing exposure risks. Meanwhile, researchers and health advocates continue to push for more rigorous investigations into the herbicide’s long-term effects. The outcome of this ongoing debate will shape not only the fate of paraquat but also the broader landscape of agricultural chemical regulation in Australia.