Banning paraquat could be our Erin Brockovich moment for Parkinson’s

There are moments when a disease stops being only a medical story and becomes a public trust story. A prevention story. A question of whether the people who know enough to act will do so in time. I think Parkinson’s disease is having one of those moments now.

For years, many of us living with Parkinson’s have been told some version of the same unsatisfying sentence: We do not know what caused it. Parkinson’s is complicated. Genes, aging, and biology matter. No one should pretend that one chemical explains every diagnosis. But uncertainty is not ignorance. And it is certainly not an excuse for paralysis.

The Parkinson’s Foundation says genetics contribute to about 10% to 15% of Parkinson’s cases, while environmental factors, including pesticide exposure, can influence risk. That leaves millions of us living in the gray zone between “we do not know” and “we should have known enough to do more.”

Paraquat sits squarely in that gray zone. This highly toxic herbicide has been linked in multiple studies and advocacy campaigns to increased Parkinson’s risk. Its use is already banned in more than 70 countries, including China, where it is still manufactured and exported, yet remains legal in the United States. Advocates, scientists, patients, and families have warned about it. Still, the chemical remains in use.

Recommended Reading

March 2, 2026 News by Margarida Maia, PhD

States push to ban or restrict paraquat, a herbicide linked to Parkinson’s

It’s time to end the Parkinson’s roulette

This is where the Erin Brockovich comparison starts to feel less like a movie reference and more like a civic instruction manual.

That story wasn’t just about contamination. It was about people being told that their symptoms, suspicions, and suffering did not add up to enough. It was about a community learning that what ran beneath their feet had been treated as someone else’s acceptable risk.

Parkinson’s patients know that feeling. We know what it’s like to live inside a body that changed before anyone could explain why. We know what it’s like to wonder whether something invisible and ordinary — a field, a roadside, a job, a chemical, a season of exposure decades ago — may have helped set the disease in motion.

I worked summers in high school and college as a landscaper and chemical applicator. I do not know with 100% confidence that those exposures contributed to my Parkinson’s disease. I may never know. That is part of the cruelty of this disease. The trigger can be pulled decades before the diagnosis arrives. That delay is exactly why prevention matters.

We cannot wait for every patient to become a perfect forensic case. We cannot demand impossible certainty from sick people and then treat the absence of certainty as proof of safety. When a chemical is associated with a serious, progressive brain disorder, the burden should not fall only on patients to prove harm after the damage is done.

I’ve been thinking about this as a kind of Parkinson’s roulette. Every continued exposure is another spin. Another chamber. Another generation asked to trust that the odds will not land on them. And here is the hard truth: Waiting to act does not unload the gun. It keeps loading it. That is why this moment matters.

Vermont has now passed first-in-the-nation legislation to ban paraquat. New York has an active bill, A10074/S9094, that would prohibit the distribution, sale, and use of pesticide products containing paraquat. Other states are also weighing action. This is no longer theoretical. It is legislative. It is immediate. And in states with active bills, it is urgent.

New York, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and other states have a chance to do more than study the past. They can help prevent future harm. They can say brain health is not a niche issue. They can say farmers, applicators, rural residents, children, and families should not have to absorb avoidable neurological risk as the cost of doing business.

This should not be partisan. Parkinson’s does not ask how you vote before it enters your home. It does not care whether you live in a city, suburb, or farm town. It does not care whether you are a patient, spouse, child, caregiver, worker, or neighbor.

Public trust means the government has a duty to protect people when the pattern of risk becomes too great to ignore.

We may never get a courtroom scene where the truth lands all at once. Real life is slower than that. It arrives as testimony, science, journalism, advocacy, state bills, family stories, and patients who refuse to be quiet.

That is our collective Erin Brockovich moment. Not one person. Not one lawsuit. Not one headline. A movement of people saying: “We have seen enough to act.”

And if we are wrong to be cautious, the cost is inconvenience. If we are wrong to keep waiting, the cost may be another person, another family, another diagnosis, another life spent wondering whether somebody could have stopped the trigger before it fired.

Note: Parkinson’s News Today is strictly a news and information website about the disease. It does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. This content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or another qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The opinions expressed in this column are not those of Parkinson’s News Today or its parent company, Bionews, and are intended to spark discussion about issues pertaining to Parkinson’s disease.