Assembly Bill 1963, introduced recently by Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), would sunset the use of paraquat beginning in January 2026. The herbicide, which is described by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as highly toxic, is regularly sprayed on almonds, grapes, cotton and other crops in the state.

“Paraquat is banned in more than 60 countries, including those with large agricultural economies, like the United Kingdom, China, Brazil and the members of the European Union,” Friedman said during a news conference Wednesday. “California should follow their lead.”

Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.

California is the nation’s top user of paraquat, spraying millions of pounds annually, she said. Environmental and public health groups have said exposure to the product is associated with Parkinson’s disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, childhood leukemia and other ailments.

“California needs to be a leader in eliminating highly toxic pesticides like paraquat,” Friedman said. “We need to put public safety and environmental sustainability first and foremost, in keeping with California values.”

A recent Los Angeles Times report documenting concerns about paraquat highlighted one of more than 3,600 lawsuits that have been filed in state and federal courts seeking damages related to exposure to the product.

Paraquat is manufactured by Syngenta, a Switzerland-based company that is owned by the Chinese government. (The chemical is banned in both Switzerland and China.)

Syngenta emphatically rejects claims of links between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease and other ailments.

“While we have great sympathy for those suffering from the debilitating effects of Parkinson’s and other diseases, there is no scientific basis for this new bill which fails to account for the thorough assessments undertaken by state and federal regulatory bodies,” the company’s chief communications officer, Saswato Das, wrote in an email.

“We would like to stress that paraquat is safe when used as directed,” Das said. “In California, paraquat helps farmers control weeds in important crops, removing hazards for field work and preventing weeds from taking water and nutrients from crops.”

But recent research has found that farmworkers and low-income Latino people are disproportionately exposed to paraquat in their communities. Kern County is a “hot spot” for paraquat application in the state; more than 5.3 million pounds were sprayed there between 2017 and 2021, according to a March report from the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.

Recent research has found that farmworkers and low-income Latino people are disproportionately exposed to paraquat in their communities.

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

Nearly 180,000 pounds were sprayed in the Kern County communities of Shafter and Wasco, whose combined population of 50,000 is more than 80% Latino. More than 20% of residents live below the poverty line, the report says.

Three other majority Latino communities — Corcoran, Delano and McFarland — with high rates of poverty also saw peak paraquat use on agricultural fields, the report says.

Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook characterized paraquat as “antique technology in agriculture” that has been on the market for more than 60 years.

“A lot of the chemicals that we’re still relying on are archaic, outdated. It’s time for them to go, and paraquat leads that list,” Cook said during the news conference. “Most of the world has already moved on, including the parts of the world where originally paraquat was invented.”

Cook said he hopes the legislation will “send a signal to Washington, to the EPA, that they’re falling short here.”

The EPA is reviewing paraquat’s approval status. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation is also reviewing the product as part of its administrative renewal process and ongoing evaluation and monitoring of pesticide risks and impacts, agency officials said.

“The department takes seriously concerns raised regarding potential human health and environmental impacts associated with paraquat use,” spokeswoman Leia Bailey said in a statement.

Bailey said officials are reviewing more than 4,000 public comments and more than 40 scientific studies regarding paraquat that were submitted to the agency last year, including many requesting that it “reevaluate, suspend and/or cancel paraquat product registration.” The results of that review will be publicly released when complete.

During the news conference, Friedman pointed to a 2019 meta-analysis of 13 studies that found that people exposed to paraquat are 1.64 times more likely to be diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease — which she described as a “huge ratio.”

“I wish we had an EPA and an FDA and a California regulatory environment that was proactive and that said, ‘Before you can use these chemicals, you have to prove that they’re safe’ — but that’s just not how it works,” she said.

Das, of Syngenta, said paraquat has been the subject of more than 1,200 safety studies.

“Despite decades of investigation and myriad epidemiological and laboratory studies, no scientist or doctor has ever concluded in a peer-reviewed scientific analysis that paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease,” he said.

In the meantime, many Californians who have been exposed to paraquat are hoping for swifter action.

“We’d like to see it banned,” Riverside County resident Tammie Mund recently told The Times. Her husband, Gary Mund, was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 1990 after years of spraying the product.

Under EPA guidelines, only certified applicators wearing personal protective equipment are allowed to use the chemical.

Friedman said there are are alternatives to paraquat, including integrative pest management, biological controls, habitat manipulation and other strategies that are “less destructive to the environment.”

She likened her bill to similar legislation governing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAs — also known as “forever chemicals” — which are prevalent in water, textiles and other materials and pose known health risks. The state has taken steps to limit the use of PFAs but hasn’t done enough, she said.

“At its core, this bill is about protecting public safety,” Friedman said. “This is a very toxic chemical, it’s not something that is necessary, and we need to do more to protect our vulnerable community members — particularly our agricultural workers.”