Article

by Carey Gillam

A trial with nationwide implications is set to open Wednesday in Philadelphia pitting a retired landscaper suffering from Parkinson’s disease against the multinational agrochemical company Syngenta over accusations that the company’s paraquat weed killing products cause the incurable brain disease.

The trial was scheduled to start Monday after jurors were selected late last week, but opening statements were delayed by severe winter storm conditions. It comes as US regulators are in the middle of a years-long review of paraquat after maintaining in prior reviews that the evidence linking paraquat to Parkinson’s is insufficient. And it comes amid calls for a US ban on paraquat as well as actions in various states to block use of the pesticide. New bills seeking bans were introduced this month in Pennsylvania, Missouri and Vermont.

Both sides have a lineup of experts set to testify in what will be the first public examination of decades of scientific research and a cache of internal corporate files related to the safety of paraquat and specifically the impacts exposure to the chemical can have on the brain.

“The case will definitely inform public policy,” said George Kimbrell, legal director for the Center for Food Safety, which works with the National Family Farm Coalition on measures to protect farmworker health. “Whatever evidence comes to light from the case will no doubt affect [federal regulatory] decisions upcoming.”

Nationwide litigation

Paraquat has been used in the United States since 1964 as a tool to kill broadleaf weeds and grasses. Though banned in several countries, it is one of the most widely used herbicides in the United States. Paraquat is used in growing soybeans, cotton, and corn as well as in growing grapes, pistachios, peanuts and many other crops.

The chemical is known to be extremely dangerous to anyone who ingests even a small amount, and regulators have issued warnings and placed restrictions on its use because of poisoning risks. But whether or not it causes Parkinson’s disease is a matter of fierce debate. Syngenta maintains that there is no credible evidence of a connection between the disease and its weed killer.

Still, more than 8,000 lawsuits have been filed across the US against Syngenta by people alleging paraquat exposure caused them to develop Parkinson’s. Several other trials are planned later this year, though Syngenta has been negotiating to settle a bulk of the cases.

Alongside Syngenta as a defendant in the current case and in the nationwide litigation is Chevron, which distributed paraquat products made by Syngenta for many years before ending the arrangement in 1986. Syngenta still makes and sells paraquat – its Gramoxone brand is popular with US farmers. But Chevron has no involvement in the business and maintains it should not be part of the case, a company spokesman told the Guardian. Both companies deny any liability.

The plaintiff in the Philadelphia trial, 77-year-old Bill Mertens, operated a landscaping business in the 1980s and 1990s, mixing and spraying paraquat as part of his work, his lawsuit states. Mertens wore personal protective clothing and equipment but still was exposed by inhaling paraquat and through his clothes and skin, according to the lawsuit. He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2021.

Mertens’ lawsuit alleges that Syngenta and Chevron knew by the 1970s that low-dose paraquat exposure could cause or significantly increase the risk of Parkinson’s, stating they were “fully aware of the safety risks” of paraquat. “Nonetheless, Defendants deliberately crafted their label, marketing, and promotion to mislead farmers and consumers,” the suit alleges.

The companies knew they “could turn a profit by convincing the agricultural industry and medical community that Paraquat did not cause Parkinson’s disease, and that full disclosure of the true risks of Paraquat would limit the amount of money defendants would make selling Paraquat,” the suit states.

Key allegations

The trial will spotlight internal corporate records that date back several decades. Lawyers for plaintiffs said in pretrial hearings that they plan to present jurors with records they say show Syngenta worked not only to hide evidence of paraquat harm, but also to conduct studies to have favorable outcomes so the company could later cite those studies as a defense against litigation.

“One of our themes in this trial will be that … they have hidden things and that they have hidden documents and that they are, you know, a company that is not a good company,” plaintiff attorney Aimee Wagstaff said in a Jan. 21 court hearing in the case.

The New Lede, in collaboration with The Guardian, revealed many of Syngenta’s internal files on paraquat in 2022 and 2023.

A key allegation in the paraquat litigation, and an issue that will be central to the Philadelphia trial, is that the companies “failed to warn of the potential risk of permanent, irreversible neurological damage from chronic, low-dose exposure to Paraquat, and failed to provide adequate instructions regarding avoidance of these risks.”

The “failure to warn” theory is a common theme in each of the paraquat lawsuits, and was also a lynchpin for plaintiffs in the sweeping Roundup litigation that has thus far cost Bayer billions of dollars. Plaintiffs in that litigation alleged Monsanto, purchased by Bayer in 2018, failed to warn them that exposure to Roundup herbicides could cause cancer.

Bayer and Syngenta argue that federal law governing pesticide regulation and warning labels rests with the US Environmental Agency (EPA) and they should not be sued for not adding warnings not deemed necessary by the EPA.

At Bayer’s urging, the US Supreme Court this month agreed to weigh in on the question of whether or not federal law preempts failure-to-warn claims like those in the paraquat and Roundup litigation. A ruling in Bayer’s favor could sharply limit such lawsuits going forward.

An eye on the evidence

In the days leading up to the trial, the judge in the case has ruled on dozens of motions made by each side in decisions that shape what and how evidence will be presented. The judge denied Syngenta’s request to exclude evidence of research fraud at the  Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories in one such ruling but granted a separate motion by the Chinese-owned Syngenta blocking references to its “corporate parentage.” A motion by Mertens’ lawyers to exclude evidence about the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs opinions on paraquat was denied. A different motion by his attorneys seeking to exclude arguments that EPA’s approval of paraquat precludes defendants from warning of the Parkinson’s risks was also denied.

The Mertens case, plucked from a large inventory of cases as a bellwether, is a “defense pick,” meaning Syngenta believes it has a good chance of prevailing at trial. Other cases that had been set for trial in the last few years have all been settled before they went before a jury.

Environmental and public health advocates say they will be keeping a close eye on the paraquat case, which is expected to run 4-5 weeks, because of its significance in a broader movement by advocacy groups to reduce reliance on pesticides.

“The court system offers a critical avenue for scientific research to be brought into public light alongside contextual evidence and testimony from both sides of an issue, allowing the judiciary to draw conclusions and set precedent for others impacted,” the group Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network said in a statement.

Michael S Okun, medical advisor to the Parkinson’s Foundation and co-author of the book The Parkinson’s Plan, said the conversation around Parkinson’s disease has focused on managing symptoms while paying less attention to what causes the disease, making legal challenges and other “robust public dialogue” important for public awareness of risks.

“Generating a public, science-based dialogue about paraquat and related toxins is not about politics or blame,” he said. “It is about prevention, public health, and our responsibility to future generations. Public trials like this are an important part of the dialogue to protect this generation and the next.”