An act relating to prohibiting the use and sale of the herbicide paraquat
H.739 would restrict the herbicide paraquat in Vermont by prohibiting its sale, use, and application except in narrowly defined circumstances authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets. The bill defines paraquat broadly to cover paraquat and related chemical forms, and it sets out permit conditions for limited use in certain agricultural settings. In the introduced version, those exemptions were framed as emergency-based and time-limited; in the later text, the bill narrows the permitted uses to fruit-producing tree orchards and, in a revised version, to orchards and certain berry and small fruit crops, with permits expiring no later than a specified date in 2030.
The bill also requires annual reporting by the Secretary on any paraquat use in the state, including the amount used and where and when it was applied. In addition, it directs the Agricultural Innovation Board to study and report on alternatives to paraquat, including substitute pesticides, farming practices that reduce reliance on paraquat, and transition methods for farmers if paraquat becomes unavailable before the bill’s sunset date. The measure is designed to take effect in stages, with the study/reporting provisions effective earlier and the prohibition and permit system effective later in 2026.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to add a new section to Vermont’s pesticide laws creating one of the most restrictive state-level controls on paraquat use. It would effectively ban routine commercial use and sale of paraquat, while preserving a limited permitting process for certain agricultural applications under state oversight. It would also create ongoing administrative duties for the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets and formal reporting obligations to legislative committees.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly precautionary and protective of public health. The findings emphasize paraquat’s acute toxicity, its association in studies with Parkinson’s disease and certain cancers, and the view that Vermont should act without waiting for federal action. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no additional recorded legislative debate or roll-call evidence of support or opposition in the supplied materials.
The main point of contention apparent from the bill itself is the balance between health protection and agricultural necessity. Supporters of the bill appear to prioritize reducing exposure to a highly toxic herbicide, while the limited exemption language suggests concern from agricultural users about losing a tool for weed control in orchards and specialty crops. The permit structure, training requirements, drift-mitigation conditions, and reporting provisions indicate an attempt to address those concerns while still sharply limiting paraquat’s availability.
H.739 would amend Vermont’s pesticide statutes to prohibit the sale, use, and application of paraquat except under a narrow state permit system administered by the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets. It would create new reporting requirements for any authorized use and require the Agricultural Innovation Board to study alternatives and transition strategies for farmers. The bill would primarily affect pesticide applicators, orchard and specialty crop growers, and the state agencies responsible for pesticide regulation and agricultural oversight.
The bill is framed in a strongly protective, public-health-oriented way, with findings emphasizing paraquat’s toxicity and links to serious disease. The text suggests clear support for restricting the chemical rather than waiting for federal review, and the limited exemptions indicate an effort to accommodate agriculture without undermining the overall ban. Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, there is no documented recorded opposition or bipartisan debate in the supplied materials.
The central tension is between environmental and health concerns on one side and agricultural utility on the other. Supporters appear to view paraquat as too dangerous for routine use, citing scientific studies and international bans, while the exemption provisions reflect the needs of farmers—especially orchard and specialty crop growers—who may argue that no equally effective substitute exists in some settings. The bill’s permit limits, training requirements, and drift controls suggest that any opposition would likely focus on whether the ban is too broad, whether the exemptions are too narrow, and whether the state should regulate ahead of federal action.