Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science

California Workers Say Herbicide Is Giving Them Parkinson's (latimes.com) 43

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Los Angeles Times: It was the late 1980s when Gary Mund felt his pinky tremble. At first it seemed like a random occurrence, but pretty quickly he realized something was seriously wrong. Within two years, Mund -- a crew worker with the Eastern Municipal Water District in Riverside County -- was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. The illness would eventually consume much of his life, clouding his speech, zapping most of his motor skills and taking away his ability to work and drive. "It sucks," said Mund, 69. He speaks tersely, because every word is a hard-won battle. "I was told the herbicide wouldn't hurt you."

The herbicide is paraquat, an extremely powerful weed killer that Mund sprayed on vegetation as part of his job from about 1980 to 1985. Mund contends the product is responsible for his disease, but the manufacturer denies there is a causal link between the chemical and Parkinson's. Paraquat is manufactured by Syngenta, a Swiss-based company owned by the Chinese government. The chemical is banned in at least 58 countries -- including China and Switzerland -- due to its toxicity, yet it continues to be a popular herbicide in California and other parts of the United States. But research suggests the chemical may cross the blood-brain barrier in a manner that triggers Parkinson's disease, a progressive, neurodegenerative disorder that affects movement. Now, Mund is among thousands of workers suing Syngenta seeking damages and hoping to see the chemical banned.

Since 2017, more than 3,600 lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts seeking damages from exposure to paraquat products, according to Syngenta's 2022 financial report (PDF). [...] Paraquat is 28 times more toxic than another controversial herbicide, Roundup, according to a report from the Pesticide Action Network. (Roundup has been banned in several parts of California, including a 2019 moratorium by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors forbidding its use by county departments.) Paraquat also has other known health effects. It is listed as "highly toxic" on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's website, which says that "one small sip can be fatal and there is no antidote." The EPA is currently reviewing paraquat's approval status. However, both the EPA and Syngenta cited a 2020 U.S. government Agricultural Health Study that found there is no clear link between paraquat exposure and Parkinson's disease. A 2021 review of reviews similarly found that there is no causal relationship.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Workers Say Herbicide Is Giving Them Parkinson's

Comments Filter:
  • by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Friday December 22, 2023 @12:03AM (#64097879)

    Otherwise how is it still legal in California?

    • Otherwise how is it still legal in California?

      Paraquat is made by a company owned by the government of China.

      It is sold in America but banned in China.

      Perhaps China is getting even for the Opium War.

    • by RossCWilliams ( 5513152 ) on Friday December 22, 2023 @12:25AM (#64097943)
      As far as I can tell paraquat is not patented, one of the reasons it is cheap and widely used around the world despite its health effects. It is produced by a lot of different companies around the world. So how did China get into this discussion .... it makes you wonder about the story's sources and their motivations. https://madeksholaw.com/the-ma... [madeksholaw.com] Paraquat is legal in the US for the same reason a lot of things are. You have to prove something is unsafe to get it banned. The absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but that is not the way we treat it. The defense of lot of profitable products of questionable safety start with the phrase "There is no evidence "
      • Paraquat is legal in the US for the same reason a lot of things are. You have to prove something is unsafe to get it banned. The absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but that is not the way we treat it. The defense of lot of profitable products of questionable safety start with the phrase "There is no evidence "

        Yet life is safer than it has ever been. You should have lived 100 years ago. Damned progress.

        • Yeah. They should be thanking their corporate masters for their Parkinsons. What an honor to live in such a healthy age!

          • Yeah. They should be thanking their corporate masters for their Parkinsons. What an honor to live in such a healthy age!

            Guy in the article is 69. Even with Parkinsons he has exceeded the average life expectancy in the 1960s. Life wasn't actually better back then.

            • Exactly.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

              Life is safer now because of the efforts of people like this man who fight to have things that are killing us outlawed. It didn't just happen organically.

              • You also won't feed 8 billion people organically (pun intended). Banning herbicides might well reduce cancer or Parkinsons. It will absolutely increase starvation. Pick your poison (no pun intended).

                I for one am happy for the green revolution, including fertilizer, pesticides, and even GMOs. This ain't little house on the prairie any more.
                • "You also won't feed 8 billion people organically (pun intended). Banning herbicides might well reduce cancer or Parkinsons. It will absolutely increase starvation. Pick your poison (no pun intended)."

                  Well, now we know you know absolutely nothing about the discussion we are having.

                  First, there are organic means of combating weeds.
                  Second, intensive organic farming produces more food per acre. It requires more labor, but there is plenty of labor available.

                  "I for one am happy for the green revolution, includin

                  • Second, intensive organic farming produces more food per acre. It requires more labor, but there is plenty of labor available.

                    Unless your labor cost is approaching free it makes food vastly more expensive. This is certainly true in the developed world. Check the price of organic vs industrial grown fruit and vegies sometime (and I say this as someone who buys free range eggs and pastured meat. I can afford it but totally recognize most people can't).

                    You do know that many plants produce chemicals harmful to insects and also to other plants, right?

                    Indeed, plants can also produce or propagate many things that are harmful to humans as well, but nonetheless this is why I like GMOs. We can make more plants make those "natural" pe

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Because the Swiss had better lobbyists than the Chinese, otherwise, why would something done by this Swiss company in 1980-1985 didn't surface until AFTER it was bought by the Chinese in 2017?

      Syngenta [wikipedia.org] was founded in 2000 by the merger of the agrichemical businesses of Novartis and AstraZeneca, and acquired by China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina) in 2017.

      Or do you think the Chinese bought that company in 2017 and then time travelled back to 1980 to do bad things?

  • The US Agriculture department is a whole owned subsidiary of the agricultural lobby, which includes petrochemical/big-pharma who make insecticides, and big agribusiness which has farmers in a stranglehold. The odds that they would publish a report saying that a major profitable agricultural chemical is dangerous are lower than the likelihood all the drug cartels would see the error of their ways and end the drug trade. However the "study" was defined, the result was guaranteed to clear those making the big
    • So is every other agricultural ministry in any other country. The capitalist oligarchy easily defanged anything democracy tried to put against it quite long time ago.

      Marx's gravestone is shaking from all that laughter coming from 6ft under.

  • by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Friday December 22, 2023 @07:58AM (#64098467) Homepage Journal

    When I was in college in the latter half of the 1970's one of the local alternative rock radio stations was using "paraquat test kits" as the prizes in their radio contests. At the time they were saying that the US government was spraying paraquat on marijuana fields. Unethical growers would hurry up and harvest the fields, getting the tainted product to market before it shriveled up.

    Someone felt that using this tainted product was a bad idea and came up with a test kit.

    • They were and ingesting paraquat is a very bad idea. It is extremely toxic. They later switched to other mixtures, which probably were not less dangerous to the potential user but were harder to detect. Some of them contained fuel oil and similar materials.
  • However, both the EPA and Syngenta cited a 2020 U.S. government Agricultural Health Study that found there is no clear link between paraquat exposure and Parkinson's disease. A 2021 review of reviews similarly found that there is no causal relationship.

    Well, that's definitive then, right?

    If a review of reviews is good enough to take harmless decongestants off the market, then it should be good enough to keep this herbicide on the market.

    What's that? No?

  • Michael J Fox Foundation statement on Paraquat. I knew that MJF was involved with wineries in before being diagnosed. I wonder if there is any connection for him

    https://www.biologicaldiversit... [biologicaldiversity.org]

"Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal." - Zaphod Beeblebrox in "Hithiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Working...