Why Paraquat Should Be Banned

© 2004. Research Information Ltd. All rights reserved The herbicide paraquat has a long history of poisonings and deaths. It is acutely toxic and has no antidote. Less than a teaspoonful leads to death. Many of the recorded deaths have been accidents or cases of suicide. These tragedies have detracted attention from the risks of occupational exposure to paraquat. While regular contact or occasional use does not necessarily result in a fatality, acute poisoning and chemical burns to agricultural workers and small-scale farmers are a frequent occurrence. Recent evidence is indicating new concerns with chronic effects, such as a possible link to Parkinson’s Disease. Public interest organisations have called for a phase out of the production and sale of paraquat also known by its trade name, Gramoxone. The active ingredient was included in the list of ‘Dirty Dozen’ pesticides drawn up by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) in 1982. Paraquat has been banned by 13 governments, but according to the manufacturers it is still used in over 120 countries. In 2003, the European Commission’s Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health approved paraquat for use in Member States under its pesticide Authorisations Directive (Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/ EEC)). The decision was not unanimous, and the Swedish government has now taken action in the Court of Justice of the European Communities, charging the Commission with misjudging the risks associated with the use of paraquat, and disregarding its duty of protection. Sweden alleges that the Commission has “overstepped the limit of its discretionary powers by infringing the precautionary principle in connection with the risk assessment and risk management of paraquat. ” (Kingdom of Sweden v. Commission of the European Communities) Six public interest organisations have initiated legal action against the European Commission in the European Court of First Instance, calling for an annulment (European Environmental Bureau, PAN Europe). The largest manufacturer of paraquat, now the Swiss company Syngenta, acknowledges that acute health problems, particularly skin irritation and nail damage (www.syngenta.com), ‘may be found during occupational exposure, mainly in hand-held applications, as a result of unwashed spillages, from unwashed splashes of commercial product, or from prolonged dermal contact with spray solution. ’ It adds that the damage is ‘indicative of inadequate standards of personal hygiene. ’ But numerous studies demonstrate that workers and small-scale farmers are living and working in conditions that make it almost impossible to protect themselves against hazardous pesticides (Murray & Taylor 2001, Wesseling et al. 2001) . The annual global sales of paraquat are estimated to be over $1,000 million, equivalent to about 25,000 tonnes (Copping 2002): Syngenta accounted for about $300 million in 2003 (Newman 2004). Paraquat is used widely in the production of maize, fruit and vegetables, rice, sugar cane, bananas, cereals and many other crops. In crops like cotton and potatoes it can be used to desiccate leaves before harvest, and it is commonly used in no-till agriculture. At least 62% of sales are in developing countries, particularly in Asia and Latin America (See Table 1). This compares to less than 30% of all pesticide sales to developing countries, suggesting that paraquat sales are targeted in these regions. Two years after Syngenta’s joint venture to establish a paraquat plant in Nantong, China has become the second largest market for Gramoxone after the US (Syngenta 2002). In developing countries, 900 million of the poorest people, surviving on under $1 a day, live and work in rural areas. Most depend in some way on agriculture. Few have WHY PARAQUAT SHOULD BE BANNED