11
Feb
As Litigation and Settlements Mount for the Weed Killer Paraquat, Advocates Call for a Ban and Alternatives
(Beyond Pesticides, February 11, 2026) The first U.S. jury trial on the weed killer paraquat against global chemical companies Syngenta Crop Protection, Chevron U.S.A., FMC Corporation, and their predecessors was scuttled last month due to a settlement on the eve of the case being heard in court. Settlements are commonly used by pesticide manufacturers seeking to avoid public disclosure of internal documents on chemical hazards and wrongdoing that could result from a public trial. In Mertens et al. v. Syngenta, Chevron, and FMC, the six plaintiffs suing three corporations allege that exposure to paraquat-based herbicide products contributed to their Parkinson’s Disease diagnosis.
While the terms of the settlement have not yet been disclosed, Lawsuit Information Center states that the paraquat class action multidistrict litigation (MDL) includes 8,257 cases as of January 16, 2026. In 2021, multiple cases were settled for more than $187 million.
Background on Mertens Complaint
In their complaint, the plaintiffs point to five causes of action, including “strict products liability design defect†(Count 1), “strict products liability failure to warn†(Count 2), negligence (Count 3), breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count 4), and punitive damages (Count 5).
- Count 1—Strict Products Liability Design Defect: In the first count, plaintiffs allege that paraquat products “designed, manufactured, distributed and sold did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected…when used in the intended or a reasonably foreseeable manner.†In other words, when used in accordance with label instructions, the product “was likely to be inhaled, ingested and absorbed into the bodies of persons who used it, who were nearby while it was being used, or who entered fields or orchards where it had been sprayed (or areas near where it had been sprayed)†when “it was likely to cause neurological damage that was both permanent and cumulative, and repeated low-dose exposures were likely to cause neurodegenerative disease, including Parkinson’s disease.â€
The plaintiffs also maintain that the product design is defective “in that the risk of danger inherent in the challenged design outweighed the benefits of such design, considering, among other relevant factors, the gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design. . .â€
- Count 2—Strict Products Liability Failure to Warn: In the second count, “failure to warn,” the corporations or their predecessors knew about the scientific evidence “that was generally accepted in the scientific community†that paraquat would enter the bodies of plaintiffs as described in Count 1. Moreover, the average consumer would not have known the potential risk of long-term neurological damage from chronic exposure to the herbicide at low doses, even when such exposure “presented a substantial danger to users of paraquat when the product was used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.â€
- Count 3—Negligence: In the third count, “negligence,†the defendants failed to:
(i) “design, manufacture, formulate†paraquat so as to make it unlikely to be “inhaled, ingested, or absorbed;â€
(ii) protect through its design, manufacture, and formulation thus making it “likely to cause neurological damage that was both permanent and cumulative;â€
(iii) design the product to be used to prevent exposure pathways, including inhalation, ingestion, and absorption;
(iv) conduct “adequate research and testing†on the products potential to drift;Â
(v) conduct “adequate research and testing to determine the extent to which Paraquat was likely to cause or contribute to cause†permanent and cumulative neurological damage;
(vi) protect against exposure to “persons who used it, who were nearby while it was being used, or who entered fields or orchards where it had been sprayed or areas near where it had been sprayed,†and
(vii) “warn that Paraquat was likely to cause neurological damage that was both permanent and cumulative, and repeated exposures were likely to cause clinically significant neurodegenerative disease, including Parkinson’s disease.â€
In summary, plaintiffs suffered injuries when the corporations “knew or should have known that users would not realize the dangers of exposure†and “negligently failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the foreseeable risk of harm.â€
- Count 4—Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability: The fourth count, breach of warranty, alleges that the pesticide manufacturers sold goods that failed to meet reasonable quality standards or are unfit for their ordinary purpose. This is often referred to as “fair value for money spent.†(See Federal Trade Commission webpage for more information.) The grounds on which the paraquat products (“goodsâ€) failed to meet reasonable safety standards are referenced in the above descriptions for the other counts.
- Count 5—Punitive Damages: The fifth count, “punitive damages,†alleges that the corporations’ conduct “was done with oppression, fraud, and malice,†and that, “Defendants were fully aware of the safety risks of Paraquat.†The count continues, “Nonetheless, Defendants deliberately crafted their label, marketing, and promotion to mislead farmers and consumers.†Furthermore, the plaintiffs allege that this was not by accident and that the defendants “knew that [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.â€
The plaintiffs allege that, “Defendants were aware that low-dose Paraquat exposure could cause or significantly increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease or its symptoms by the 1970s.†Additionally, “There is no indication that Defendants will stop their deceptive and unlawful marketing practices unless they are punished and deterred.â€
There were six plaintiffs in the Mertens complaint that was set to go to trial on January 29, 2026, including Bill Mertens, David Steele, Joseph Wochner, Barbara Burns, Jerry Miller, and Lauriana Barajas from Pennsylvania, Washington, Florida, and Illinois. In terms of more specific background on each plaintiff:
- Mertens was a commercial pesticide applicator in New Jersey (at the time) who mixed and sprayed paraquat as part of his practice during the 1980s and 1990s, alleging exposure to products developed by Syngenta (or SCPLLC), Chevron, and FMC Corporation that led to his 2021 diagnosis;
- Steele was a farmworker and owner in Washington who sprayed paraquat from a backpack and “30-gallon trailer tankâ€, alleging exposure to products developed by Syngenta and Chevron that led to his 2017 diagnosis;
- Wochner lived and worked on a family farm in Illinois that sprayed paraquat from a crop duster plane and maintained farm equipment that contained or sprayed the herbicide, alleging exposure to products developed by Syngenta and Chevron that led to his 2009 diagnosis;
- Burns worked on a farm from 1983 to 1993, where she sprayed paraquat from both tractors and by hand, alleging exposure to products developed by Syngenta and Chevron that led to her 2019 diagnosis;
- Miller lived and worked on a farm based in Washington, regularly mixing and spraying paraquat from a backpack sprayer between 2000 and 2015, alleging exposure to products developed by Syngenta and Chevron that led to his 2016 diagnosis; and
- Barajas worked on a farm in Washington between 1983 and 1989, mixing and spraying paraquat from both backpack and tractor sprayers, alleging exposure to products developed by Syngenta and Chevron that led to his 2018 diagnosis.
All the plaintiffs “had no reason to suspect [that their diagnoses were] connected to…past Paraquat exposure†and were “never told, either by a medical professional, by media, or by the Defendants, that exposure to Paraquat could cause [them] to suffer Parkinson’s disease.†As a result of their exposure, they have been unable to maintain regular employment and suffer general and economic damages as a result of their diagnosis.
Paraquat’s Link to Parkinson’s Disease
The complaint describes what is known about the associations between paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease. There are numerous hallmarks of Parkinson’s that can be linked back to the effects paraquat has, based on the known science and evidence at the time of its registration with EPA and subsequent production, manufacturing, sale, and marketing. The lawyers for the plaintiffs explain:
“It has been scientifically known since the 1960s that Paraquat (due to its redox properties) is toxic to the cells of plants and animals. The same redox properties that make Paraquat toxic to plant cells and other types of animal cells make it toxic to dopaminergic neurons in humans—that is, Paraquat is a strong oxidant that interferes with the function of, damages, and ultimately kills dopaminergic neurons in the human brain by creating oxidative stress through redox cycling. â€
Animal studies and “hundreds of in vitro studies†find that paraquat creates oxidative stress, which can result in the “degeneration and death of dopaminergic neurons.†The plaintiffs describe this as “one of the primary pathophysiological hallmarks of Parkinson’s disease.â€Â
“Epidemiological studies have found that exposure to Paraquat significantly increases the risk of contracting Parkinson’s disease,†according to the complaint. They continue: “A number of studies have found that the risk of Parkinson’s disease is more than double in populations with occupational exposure to Paraquat compared to populations without such exposure.â€
The complaint raises important points of information on federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), for the jury’s consideration. “As a general rule, FIFRA requires registrants, the chemical companies registered to sell the pesticides, to perform health and safety testing of pesticides,†according to the complaint. It continues: “However, FIFRA does not require the EPA itself to perform health and safety testing of pesticides, and the EPA generally does not perform such testing.†In addition, “FIFRA further provides that, ‘In no event shall registration of an article be construed as a defense for the commission of any offense under [FIFRA]. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(f)(2).’â€
Previous Coverage
The impacts of paraquat on public health are widely discussed in peer-reviewed science and an investigative analysis of its supply chains.
For example, the report, Designed to Kill: Who Profits from Paraquat, and accompanying interactive storymap, unpack the supply chain of the infamous herbicide paraquat and underscore the true costs of pesticide products, from manufacturing to use in the fields. This report is part of a larger initiative, the Pesticide Mapping Project—“a collaborative research series that illustrates the health and climate harms of pesticides across their toxic lifecycle: including fossil fuel extraction, manufacturing, international trade, and application on vast areas of U.S. land.â€
The report also explores the supply chain and adverse health effects of the various ingredients that go into the manufacturing and production of the active ingredient, as well as infrastructure in the United States. The Syngenta agrochemical facility in St. Gabriel, Louisiana, “formulates and packages Gramoxone and more than a dozen other herbicides for sale.†This area is located squarely in Cancer Alley, home to “about 200 fossil fuel and petrochemical operations†that contribute to cumulative toxic exposure across multiple classes of chemicals. Simultaneously, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2022 identified the Syngenta facility in St. Gabriel “for heightened risk of a chemical disaster†since communities living in proximity face significant damage from “flooding, storm surges, and category 4 and 5 hurricanes.†The facility “stores large quantities of ammonia, chlorine, sulfur dioxide, and hydrocyanic acid on an industrial campus in the direct path of frequent hurricanes.†(See Daily News here.)
The current administration continues to stonewall and fail to take proactive action to review the registration of paraquat, going so far as to spread misleading information about taking further action when there are no stated plans to do so, as highlighted in recent coverage by The New Lede. “The agency is not starting a new safety assessment, according to an EPA spokesperson,†says Carey Gillam. She continues: “The spokesperson confirmed there are no new actions behind [EPA Administrator Lee] Zeldin’s Jan. 9 tweet, and that the status of paraquat remains unchanged from November when the agency asked paraquat manufacturers to provide additional data on paraquat volatilization to help understand exposure risks to people living beyond areas where paraquat is sprayed.â€
Call to Action
Public health and environmental advocates are increasingly shifting to advocate for the transition to alternative pest management systems, including organic as defined by federal law, in their local communities. You can take action by asking your mayor to adopt organic land management of public parks and spaces. In the event that your local mayor is not in the system, please email this message to them personally!
Additionally, you can sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Update to stay notified on ways you can take action to expand public investments and programs that expand organic land management, in agricultural contexts and on public green spaces, parks, and playing fields, to move beyond a reliance on synthetic materials.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Source: Mertens et al. v. Syngenta, Chevron, and FMC
Where is the protection for consumers and not the participation in Big Biz. Shameful
February 11th, 2026 at 5:35 pm