A BILL to amend and reenact § 3.2-3939 of the Code of Virginia, relating to pesticides; manufacture, distribution, use, or sale of paraquat prohibited.
HB1375 amends Virginia’s pesticide enforcement law to add paraquat to the list of pesticides that are unlawful to manufacture, distribute, sell, offer for sale, use, or offer for use in the Commonwealth. The bill defines paraquat broadly by reference to its CAS number and related salts, and it authorizes the Department to seize paraquat products found in violation of the new prohibition. The measure leaves the rest of the existing pesticide compliance framework in place, including rules on registration, labeling, adulteration, misbranding, stop-sale orders, disposal, record access, and interference with the Commissioner’s duties.
In practical terms, the bill would bar paraquat from Virginia’s commercial and agricultural pesticide market and make possession-related enforcement possible through seizure authority. Because the prohibition is inserted into § 3.2-3939, it becomes part of the state’s general pesticide violations section rather than a standalone restriction, which means it would be enforced alongside other pesticide labeling and use requirements under the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
The bill would amend § 3.2-3939 of the Code of Virginia to create a specific state-law prohibition on paraquat, a herbicide, and would expand enforcement authority by allowing the Department to seize prohibited products. It would directly affect pesticide manufacturers, distributors, dealers, agricultural users, and other persons who manufacture, sell, offer for sale, use, or offer for use paraquat-containing products in Virginia. The bill does not alter federal pesticide law, but it would impose a stricter state-level restriction on a particular active ingredient.
The available legislative history suggests strong support in committee, as the bill was reported as continued to the next session on a 22-0 vote in the House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee. No opposing votes or recorded committee debate were provided, so the public record here indicates broad committee agreement or at least no visible opposition at that stage. The absence of transcripts limits insight into broader stakeholder sentiment, but the vote history points to a favorable reception among committee members.
The main point of contention is the outright prohibition of paraquat, which is a widely used herbicide in some agricultural settings and may be viewed by supporters as a public health and safety measure and by opponents as a significant restriction on farm chemical options. Any debate would likely center on the balance between pesticide risk, worker safety, and agricultural utility, as well as whether a categorical ban is preferable to tighter labeling or use restrictions. No specific objections were recorded in the provided materials, so the disagreement is inferred from the policy choice itself rather than from documented testimony.