Thousands of U.S. farmers have Parkinson's. They blame a deadly pesticide

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Regulatory status and bans

  • Many commenters note paraquat is banned in the EU and >70 countries, often initially approved then withdrawn (e.g., EU decision after toxicity concerns and suspected Parkinson’s link; French poisoning cases mentioned).
  • Others stress most countries banned it primarily for acute toxicity (suicides, accidental ingestion, lung damage), not Parkinson’s.
  • China bans domestic use but manufactures and exports it; some see this as outsourcing health risks.

Evidence and uncertainty around Parkinson’s

  • Several epidemiological studies are linked showing:
    • ~2–2.5× higher Parkinson’s odds for people using or living/working near paraquat and similar pesticides.
    • Elevated risk for those near agricultural applications in California’s Central Valley.
  • California’s pesticide regulator acknowledges major ecological risks, but (aligning with US EPA) says current human data do not yet prove a causal link to Parkinson’s.
  • Some highlight other data: higher Parkinson’s risk for farmers generally, near golf courses, and possibly from other pollutants like TCE and copper salts, suggesting multiple environmental triggers.

Acute toxicity vs chronic exposure

  • Paraquat is described as extremely acutely toxic; small ingestion can be lethal.
  • A dramatic case of a nurse getting serious skin injury from contact with urine of a suicide patient is cited; some accuse the article of using this acute-poisoning case to imply risk from routine farm exposure.

Risk assessment and regulation models

  • Thread contrasts:
    • EU-style “precautionary principle” (assume unsafe until proven reasonably safe).
    • US “risk-based” model (allow use until harm is demonstrated, often via industry-supplied data).
  • Multiple comments emphasize how hard long-term, low-dose safety studies are in humans and how often pesticides are later revoked.

Chevron doctrine and regulatory power

  • Large subthread on the (now-overturned) Chevron deference:
    • One side: deference to technical agencies is necessary; courts and Congress lack expertise and bandwidth; ending Chevron weakens health/environmental protection.
    • Other side: Chevron allowed unelected regulators to effectively make law, enabled regulatory capture, and sometimes diluted protections (examples given from EPA, FCC, ATF).

Corporations, capture, and trust

  • Strong distrust of agrochemical firms and “big business”: references to Monsanto/Roundup PR campaigns, ghostwritten papers, revolving-door regulators, and astroturfing.
  • Some argue corporations are amoral profit machines and must be tightly policed; others caution against assuming every corporate claim is false but still advocate strong scrutiny.

Skepticism about the article

  • A detailed critique calls the piece litigation-driven and misleading:
    • Says it ignores baseline Parkinson’s prevalence among older farmers.
    • Faults it for emotional anecdotes, conflating acute and chronic exposure, and not seriously engaging with alternative explanations or falsification.
  • Others reply that widespread bans, toxicology data, and converging epidemiology justify serious concern even if causality isn’t fully nailed down.

Personal experiences and broader chemical worries

  • Multiple anecdotes: farmers, crop-duster pilots, rural residents, and relatives with Parkinson’s or related dementias; many suspect pesticide exposure.
  • Broader worries about cumulative effects of many “safe at low dose” chemicals, contaminated groundwater, PFAS pesticides, and the difficulty of avoiding exposures as a consumer.