Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Paraquat Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates paraquat phase-out, weighing 2030 runway and narrow exemptions for fruit growers
Summary
Members of the Agriculture committee discussed a bill to limit use of paraquat, with several supporting a phased ban through 2030, narrow exemptions for fruit and berry producers, tighter application rules and agency monitoring; the committee agreed to draft compromise language and invite staff experts for more detail.
The Agriculture committee met for a community discussion about proposed restrictions on paraquat, with members debating whether to accept House language, craft a compromise that protects Vermont farmers and whether to set a 2030 phase-out date.
The chair opened the session by saying the House text made “too many assumptions” and asked the committee to base any law on the testimony they had heard. The chair said testimony raised concerns about paraquat’s risks but did not, in their view, establish definitive causation between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease; at the same time they said paraquat is “a chemical that if not used correctly could be deemed a very bad chemical.” The chair emphasized the committee’s stated principle that decisions should be made for “what is best for the Vermont farmer.”
Several members said they favor a compromise that preserves limited uses for fruit producers. One member described their learning curve on agricultural matters and urged the bill to include clear application rules — specifying personal protective equipment, application heights and methods — to protect workers and nearby residents. That member also urged explicit coverage for strawberry growers and suggested using a narrower phrase such as “fruit-producing trees” rather than naming a single crop.
Other committee members said they were comfortable with a multi-year phase-out tied to federal developments. One member urged the committee to rely on forthcoming EPA actions and recommended a 2030 date to give Vermont growers time to adapt; that member also asked the bill to require tracking of who currently uses paraquat so permits can be monitored. Members repeatedly expressed concern about broad field spraying and drift from large boom sprayers, and favored limiting the bill so it does not unintentionally permit large-scale aerial or boom applications that could increase off-site exposure.
A member summarized the evidence standard in legal terms — noting the difference between preponderance, clear-and-convincing and beyond-a-reasonable-doubt — and said testimony produced mixed results on causation. Another committee member said testimony from an apple grower who would likely stop that part of their business if paraquat were banned was persuasive in arguing for narrow exemptions.
Committee members also discussed market availability and control: one speaker said roughly “125 gallons” had been sold in Vermont (as an indication of limited local use), and others noted retail access is restricted to licensed commercial applicators in practice. The group agreed that the 2030 timetable would not preclude the legislature from revisiting the issue if the EPA or federal authorities take further action before then.
On next steps, the committee agreed to bring staff and technical experts (named in the discussion as Bradley and Linda) back to a drafting session to produce committee language that reflects testimony, clarifies permitted uses, application methods and PPE requirements, and pins down whether berry categories should be broadened beyond strawberries. No formal motion or vote was recorded during this informal discussion.
The committee then moved on to other housekeeping business.
