The decision by Swiss agrochemical giant Syngenta to withdraw its flagship herbicide paraquat from the Australian market has sparked concerns among local farmers. The move follows new regulations imposed by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) in June, which have rendered the product commercially unviable due to increasingly complex and expensive supply chains.
Paraquat, a chemical with a long-standing association with Parkinson's disease in users, has been at the centre of a global controversy. While current evidence does not demonstrate an increased risk of Parkinson's through approved uses, new rules introduced by the APVMA aim to address acute exposure and risks to animals. These measures include phasing out backpack sprayers, mandatory additional personal protective equipment (PPE) for users, and a significantly lower maximum application rate per hectare.
The herbicide is already banned in more than 70 countries worldwide, including across the European Union since 2007. In Australia, paraquat has remained widely used despite its domestic use being prohibited. Its continued availability was facilitated by Syngenta's supply through a third-party manufacturer, which it initially believed would allow it to continue providing the product.
Associate Professor Wes Thevathasan, a Melbourne neurologist, highlights the growing global consensus within his field regarding the link between paraquat exposure and Parkinson's disease. He notes that multiple epidemiological studies suggest paraquat increases the risk of developing Parkinson's by approximately threefold. However, Syngenta's withdrawal will not immediately remove all paraquat from Australian markets, as generic versions of the herbicide remain available to farmers.
The decision has sparked uncertainty among local growers, with Andrew Weidemann, a spokesperson for Grain Producers Australia, expressing concerns about the implications for farmers. He notes that Australia is a relatively small market and suggests that decisions like this may deter future investment from chemical companies, potentially leaving growers with fewer options at a time when tools for managing herbicide resistance are urgently needed.