Paraquat Risk of Parkinson’s Disease for Farmers Leads To Calls For Ban in Australia

Parkinson's disease advocacy group urges Australian citizens to sign a petition to outlaw Paraquat use in that nation.

Following growing evidence linking exposure to Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease among farmers, some health advocates in Australia are calling for that nation to ban the controversial weed killer.

Paraquat has been widely used as a weed and grass killer on farms throughout the world for decades, including in the U.S. and Australia. However, it has been banned in nearly 70 other countries due to serious health risks.

In areas where the herbicide is still allowed on the market, existing warnings and safety instructions provided for users largely focus on the risk of Paraquat poisoning, as ingesting even small amounts can result in fatal injuries. However, in recent years, a number of studies have highlighted Paraquat’s risk of Parkinson’s disease, which is a serious and progressive neurological condition that causes shaking, stiffness and difficulty walking, balancing and coordinating body movements.

The manufacturers currently face thousands of Paraquat lawsuits filed by agricultural workers, farmers, landscapers and others throughout the U.S., who were frequently exposed to the herbicide and subsequently diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, indicating they were never adequately warned about the neurological side effects.

PARAQUAT Parkinson's Lawsuits

Were you or a loved one exposed to Paraquat?

Lawyers are reviewing Paraquat lawsuits for individuals who were exposed to Paraquat and developed Parkinson's disease.

Learn More SEE IF YOU QUALIFY FOR COMPENSATION

Recent news reports from Australia have focused on the weed killer’s links to Parkinson’s disease clusters among farmers in that country. In response, Parkinson’s Australia, a group that advocates for further research treatments, and steps that may prevent the condition, issued a press release last week calling for a Paraquat ban in Australia.

“As of now, 67 countries have banned the use of paraquat due to its severe health risks, including its strong link to Parkinson’s disease,” the press release stated. “While banned in places such as the UK, Europe and China, paraquat continues to be used widely in Australia and the United States.”

The group is calling for residents of that country to sign a petition for a Paraquat ban in Australia on Change.org. They note that the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) has been reviewing Paraquat since 1997, but has only suggested more stringent regulations in recent years.

Parkinson’s Australia is additionally suggesting that Australians write to the APVMA themselves, and contact their members of parliament. The group is recommending Australians dispose of Paraquat at authorized hazardous or special waste collection points.

U.S. Paraquat Parkinson’s Disease Lawsuits

There are currently at least 6,000 individual product liability lawsuits pending in the U.S. federal court system against the manufacturers of the controversial weed killer, each raising similar allegations that Syngenta and Chevron failed to adequately disclose the link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease.

Given common questions of fact and law raised in the claims, each of the individual Paraquat lawsuits have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel in the Southern District of Illinois since June 2021, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings, as part of a federal MDL, or multidistrict litigation.

To help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony that will be repeated throughout various claims, the Court previously established a “bellwether” process where a small group of Paraquat lawsuits were prepared for trial. However, Judge Rosenstengel dismissed those cases in April, after excluding the plaintiffs’ designated expert witnesses from testifying at trial, leaving those claimants without any means to establish that their Parkinson’s disease diagnosis was caused by Paraquat.

In August, Judge Rosenstengel identified another group of 10 Paraquat lawsuits for a second round of bellwether trial discovery, which will move forward with different expert witness testimony.

While the outcome of those early trials will not be binding on other plaintiffs, they will be closely watched to gauge the average Paraquat lawsuit payout awarded by juries.

Following bellwether trials before Judge Rosenstengel, if the manufacturers fail to negotiate Paraquat settlements or otherwise resolve the litigation, hundreds of individuals’ claims may be remanded to U.S. District Courts nationwide for individual trial dates in the future.

0 Comments

Share Your Comments

I authorize the above comments be posted on this page*

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

More Top Stories

Change Healthcare Data Breach Lawyers Meeting Today With MDL Judge For Initial Status Conference
Change Healthcare Data Breach Lawyers Meeting Today With MDL Judge For Initial Status Conference (Posted today)

The judge presiding over all Change Healthcare lawsuits filed in federal court is holding the first status conference of the litigation, which is expected to grow significantly as Change Healthcare data breach letters continue to be sent to impacted customers.

Angiodynamics LifePort Lawsuit Filed Over Risk of the Port Catheters Failing, Causing Severe Injury
Angiodynamics LifePort Lawsuit Filed Over Risk of the Port Catheters Failing, Causing Severe Injury (Posted yesterday)

Complaint comes as a panel of federal judges are scheduled to hear oral arguments later this month, to determine whether all AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits filed in U.S. District Courts nationwide should be centralized before one judge.