Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Paraquat Ban topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermont committee reviews H.739 to ban paraquat; sponsor cites health risks, counsel outlines emergency exceptions
Summary
Rep. Esme Cole introduced H.739, a short‑form bill to prohibit the use and sale of the herbicide paraquat in Vermont, citing research linking exposure to Parkinson’s disease and other health harms; legislative counsel Bradley Shulman previewed language that would allow one‑year exemptions for agricultural or environmental emergencies. The committee requested more state usage data and paused for lunch to reconvene at 1 p.m.
Representative Esme Cole on Thursday introduced H.739, a short‑form bill that would prohibit the use and sale of the herbicide paraquat in Vermont, saying decades of research link the chemical to serious human health harms.
"Paraquat is one of the most acutely toxic herbicides still in use in American agriculture," Cole told the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry committee as she outlined the bill’s aims and cited studies associating exposure with Parkinson’s disease and several cancers. Cole said the chemical acts as a desiccant and can persist in soil and travel on dust and crop residue.
Bradley Shulman, legislative counsel, previewed the bill text for the committee and described a regulatory framework that would bar sale and use of paraquat while authorizing limited exemption orders. "Exemption orders would be valid up to one year," Shulman said, and would require the order to specify the paraquat product permitted, the permit holder, dates, duration and geographic scope.
Cole framed the proposal as a public‑health response and a competitiveness issue for agricultural exports. She noted that more than 70 countries, including some major agricultural producers, have banned paraquat and argued those bans did not demonstrably harm productivity. She also said state action has been pursued elsewhere: "Missouri, Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania legislatures have stepped up to introduce similar efforts," she said.
Committee members pressed for Vermont‑specific data. One member cited roughly 107 gallons sold statewide in recent data, while Cole referenced Agency of Agriculture reporting showing 750 pounds in Addison County in 2022. The panel discussed how the product is used in Vermont — not typically applied directly onto marketable fruit but used as a desiccant on field margins, some grains and for certain nonfood uses such as rights‑of‑way clearance — and raised practical questions about alternatives for clearing vegetation.
Some members expressed concern about taking a regulatory tool off the shelf. One member said he is "philosophically opposed to banning things in this state" and urged outreach to manufacturers to restrict sales, naming Syngenta as a company the state could engage. Cole and other members emphasized urgency for people who have reported health impacts and said they expect more testimony from affected residents.
Shulman and committee members clarified terminology and the bill’s relationship to existing pesticide law: the text employs the broader legal term "pesticide" but targets paraquat as an herbicide and treats it as a restricted‑use product subject to close regulatory controls, including closed transfer systems and certified applicator requirements.
No formal action or vote was taken. Members agreed to request more detailed usage data from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture and to consider additional testimony before deciding whether to move the bill forward. The committee recessed for lunch and said it would reconvene at 1 p.m.
