It’s time to ban paraquat, an herbicide linked to increased Parkinson’s risk

When I was in high school and college, I had a summer job as a landscaper. Like a lot of summer jobs, it felt ordinary at the time. There were hot days, grass stains, and long hours as a young guy trying to make money and do the work in front of him.

Part of that work included being a chemical applicator.

At the time, I didn’t think of myself as standing at the edge of a public health debate. I didn’t think about neurotoxins, risk models, regulatory loopholes, or what invisible exposure might mean decades later. I was young, and I trusted that if something was legal to use, someone, somewhere, had decided it was safe enough. Unfortunately, that ended up being a dangerous kind of trust.

Six years ago, at the age of 49, I was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Like many people, I heard the word “idiopathic,” which is a polite, medical way of saying, “We don’t really know why this happened.” That word has never sat well with me.

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 not ‘somebody else’s problem’

I understand why doctors use it. Biology is complicated. Parkinson’s is complicated. No one can point to one summer job, one chemical, or one exposure and say with certainty, “There. That was it.” But uncertainty should not become a hiding place or a shield for inaction.

Here is what I know: The human body isn’t sealed off from the world. The brain isn’t floating above life in some protected command center. We live through a fragile interface between the brain and the world. We breathe the world. We drink it. We touch it. We work in it. We absorb it. And sometimes, 20-plus years later, the body starts sending back a message we wish we had understood sooner.

That is why I have come to think about solutions at the “boundary.” By this, I mean the boundary between chemical companies and workers; between farms and families; between what is profitable and what is protective; between the individual citizen and a government that is supposed to act when individual choice is not enough.

Last month, I was in Washington, D.C., at the Parkinson’s Policy Forum, lobbying alongside others who understand that Parkinson’s is not just a private diagnosis. It is a public challenge. We talked about research funding. We talked about care and toxic exposures. And we talked about paraquat.

On May 13, 2026, I plan to speak in Albany, at a rally to call for the ban of paraquat in New York. That feels personal.

It feels personal because I remember being that young worker. I know how easy it is for exposure to be treated as somebody else’s problem. It feels personal because people with Parkinson’s disease are too often asked to live with the consequences of decisions we never got to make.

Paraquat is a perfect example of this moral confusion. As I understand it, China has banned domestic use of certain paraquat products while allowing production for export. Think about that. A country can decide that a chemical is too dangerous for its own people, yet that same chemical can still find its way into the bodies, fields, and communities of people somewhere else.

That should tell us something. It should tell us that the market won’t protect the boundary by itself. Protection requires government. But government protection requires another key ingredient: action. Not sympathy, awareness, or another decade of “more research is needed” while workers continue to carry the burden in their bodies. Action.

I am not anti-farmer, anti-business, or anti-science. I am pro-boundary. I am pro-worker. I am pro-prevention. And I am pro-common sense.

If a chemical is linked to serious neurological harm, if safer alternatives exist, if other countries have already decided the risk is too high, then we shouldn’t wait for another generation of landscapers, applicators, farmworkers, and families to become evidence.

Sometimes the best medicine is prevention. Sometimes the most important treatment is regulation. And sometimes the solution isn’t hidden deep inside the brain.

Sometimes it’s standing right at the boundary, waiting for us to act.

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.