John Platt, once a thriving horse rancher in Florida’s Panhandle, now finds himself in a legal battle against one of the world’s largest agricultural chemical companies, Syngenta. Platt, who purchased 26 acres of pristine woodlands in 2004, has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, a condition he attributes to his long-term exposure to paraquat, a powerful herbicide he once applied on his property.

As he recalls the early days of transforming his land into a horse ranch, Platt reflects on serious risks that he did not understand at the time. “When I bought the land, I weighed around 190 pounds,” he shared. “Now, I’m under 150 pounds, and every day is a struggle. I have tremors, I struggle to recall words, and I experience severe fatigue.” Platt’s awakening shines a light on a much larger human health crisis, as he joins approximately 6,000 other plaintiffs who claim that paraquat exposure led to their Parkinson’s diagnoses.

Paraquat’s links to neurological conditions was concealed

Paraquat, marketed by Syngenta under the trade name Gramoxone, has been approved for American agriculture for decades. The herbicide is primarily used on major cash crops such as corn, soybeans and cotton. The chemical gained popularity as farmers sought alternatives to glyphosate, particularly as weeds developed resistance. However, paraquat use has come under increased scrutiny due to a growing body of research linking it to neurological conditions.

Due to these serious risks, the herbicide has been banned in over 60 countries, including the United Kingdom, the European Union and Brazil, due to safety concerns. In late 2022, Canada removed paraquat from its market entirely, further isolating the U.S. as a prominent user of the herbicide.

While Syngenta maintains that extensive scientific research does not support a causal relationship between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease, internal documents from Syngenta’s predecessor, Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), reveal serious risks that were concealed and strategically covered up. Company scientists recognized the potential neurotoxicity of paraquat as early as the 1950s, indicating awareness of its dangers long before widespread use.

In 1967, ICI was aware that paraquat infiltrated the blood of farmers who worked with the chemical. The ICI knew in 1973 that paraquat could travel into the spine and the brain. Back then, doctors referred to certain symptoms of chest tightness and severe headaches from paraquat exposure as “paraquat syndrome.”

Court records show that as evidence of the herbicide’s risks mounted, Syngenta engaged in efforts to discredit researchers who raised concerns. A toxicologist from ICI wrote in 1975 that “good publicity” had helped mitigate public concern about paraquat’s safety, despite emerging data indicating long-term health risks. “Due possibly to good publicity on our part, very few people here believe that paraquat causes any sort of problem,” he noted in a communication with a Chevron toxicologist.

Paraquat deception brings about historic lawsuits in the U.S.

The industry coverup of paraquat’s neurological risks have brought about new lawsuits. In 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a decade-long review of paraquat and re-approved its use, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to link paraquat to Parkinson’s disease. However, this decision has since been challenged in court by various nonprofits, prompting the EPA to agree to reconsider its ruling, a process that is being drug out until January 2025.

As the federal trial against Syngenta continues, proceedings have faced repeated delays, leaving plaintiffs like Platt in limbo. “These cases are particularly heartbreaking,” said Sarah Doles, Platt’s attorney, and co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “Many of our clients are elderly and in declining health. They just want to tell their story and seek justice before it’s too late.”

Platt’s battle is not only a personal struggle but also a part of a broader conversation about agricultural practices and public health. As evidence mounts regarding the potential dangers of paraquat, the ongoing litigation could reshape the regulatory landscape for pesticides in the United States.

California Assembly member Laura Friedman, is currently advocating for a ban on paraquat. Friedman criticized the EPA’s reactive approach to pesticide regulation, stating, “We’ve seen our federal agencies being in much more of a reactive mode, waiting for people to get sick before they take action. Other countries don’t operate that way.”

Follow Pesticides.news for more stories and information related to pesticides and their negative effects on health.

Sources include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

TheGuardian.com

Pubmed.gov

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com