Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Pesticides topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Agriculture committee to review H739, a bill to prohibit sale and use of paraquat
Summary
A Senate committee previewed H739, which would prohibit the use and sale of the herbicide paraquat; committee members emphasized fact‑finding, heard public comment from advocates and growers, and agreed to invite public‑health experts, UVM scientists and farmers before taking action.
A state Senate agriculture committee on May 12 previewed H739, a bill that would prohibit the use and sale of the herbicide paraquat, and agreed to gather additional testimony before deciding whether to recommend concurrence with the House.
The committee heard brief public comment from Teo Jagar, who identified himself as representing a grass group that works with the Michael J. Fox Foundation’s Parkinson’s research efforts, and from Anna Subling of a public interest research group. Jagar said he was pleased with the House committee’s handling of the bill and offered to provide testimony; Subling emphasized the health impacts paraquat may have on applicators and nearby communities and said she supported the House’s work on the measure.
Committee members read the bill’s findings, which summarize regulatory and scientific concerns included in H739: the text identifies paraquat (paraquat dichloride) as a highly toxic non‑selective contact herbicide, cites international restrictions, and points to scientific studies the bill describes as linking paraquat exposure to increased risk of Parkinson’s disease and other harms. The committee also noted the bill references federal regulatory action and an EPA interim decision to continue registration for some paraquat products despite public objections.
Members focused discussion on process: who currently uses paraquat, whether technically feasible alternatives exist, and whether the committee should consider targeted exemptions for certain crops. Several members said they did not want to rush to ban a widely used product without hearing both public‑health experts and farmers who rely on the chemical. The Chair instructed staff to assemble a balanced witness list and suggested inviting University of Vermont scientists, neurologists, public‑health experts, environmental advocates, and farmers or orchardists who use paraquat.
Field testimony requests surfaced during the meeting: Charlie Gray, who identified himself as field manager at FourPoor Farm and vice president of a regional growers association, asked for an appointment to explain why paraquat is essential for his large‑acre strawberry operation and requested the committee consider adding strawberries to an exemption list alongside apples.
No votes or formal actions were taken. The committee agreed to schedule hearings and follow up with staff on witness invitations and supporting materials before any recommendation is made.
