After nearly 30 years of review, APVMA announces delayed decision on paraquat & diquat

Australia’s pesticide regulator, the APVMA, announced it has delayed the timeframe for the publication of the regulatory decision on paraquat and diquat from the second quarter of 2025, to the fourth quarter of 2025.

Banned in 72 countries worldwide, paraquat has remained under review by APVMA since 1997.

Lengthy reviews: a tactic benefiting industry

Lengthy reviews are a tactic used to benefit industry at the expense of our health and environment. The length of reviews has been criticised in the 2023 Clayton Utz independent report, stating these ‘delays are not an acceptable regulatory outcome.’

The reason why delays are of such concern to the integrity of the APVMA is because they protract the use of these hazardous chemicals, favouring industry and revenue generation for APVMA over the health of Australians and our environment. APVMA has not suspended use of paraquat while the near 30 year review has been underway.

APVMA is the only pesticide regulator in the OECD to be majority-funded by industry (87% industry-funded in 2023-2024, 95% industry-funded in 2022-23). Therefore, the longer hazardous pesticides are used and reviews delayed, the more revenue the APVMA receives from these products. APVMA staff the departments accordingly: the Chemical Review program (reviewing the most hazardous, dangerous and harmful chemicals) was recently run by 8 staff, while the Registration Management Team (bringing new hazardous chemicals onto the Australian market for APVMA receive revenue) comprised 89 staff.

This model puts a systemic conflict of interest at the heart of Australia’s pesticide regulator. Both major political parties have endorsed this ‘cost recovery’ model.

International comparisons

APVMA cited the high volume of submissions as the reason for their delay.

Paraquat entered the market in 1961, and by 1983 Sweden had banned paraquat for use as a pesticide due to its acute toxicity and irreversible toxic effects.

Switzerland banned paraquat in 1989 due to its known harm. A Swiss-owned producer of paraquat continued to export the pesticide and profit from sales to countries like Australia, despite the product being prohibited in their own country.

The EU and UK banned paraquat in 2007 due to the evidence of harm it causes. The UK produces and exports paraquat and profits from its sales, yet will not allow it to be used in the UK. In fact, UK authorities are now debating whether it should even be legal to export paraquat given its harm to the planet and occupants.

China produces and exports paraquat and profits from the sales, yet will not allow it to be used in China.

South Korea banned paraquat in 2011, resulting in a decrease in the country’s suicide rates. Given pesticide ingestion is a leading cause of suicide, the reduction in pesticide suicides in South Korea contributed to a 56% decline in overall suicides that occurred between 2011 and 2013. There was no demonstrated impact of the new regulation on crop yield in South Korea.

Diquat, close chemical cousin of paraquat, is banned in 35 countries, including all of the EU and UK. Diquat was banned in the EU and UK in 2018. See here for a detailed report into the harm caused by diquat:

Diquat was ultimately banned in the EU and the UK because of the “high risk” it posed to residents and passersby near the fields where it was sprayed. But EU safety officials also cited concerns about the risks posed to farmers working with the chemical. In one modelled scenario using tractor-mounted equipment, the European Food Safety Agency concluded that worker exposure would exceed the maximum acceptable level by more than 4000% – even if the farmworker was wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).

The dangers of delay

Despite nearly 50 years of independent science outlining the harm caused by paraquat and diquat, APVMA continues to delay and avoid making a science-based decision to protect human and environmental health, defying international norms.

The decision to prolong the use of paraquat and diquat endangers farmers, their families and communities, in particular. For decades, paraquat has been directly associated with increased risk of developing Parkinsion’s Disease, and during the near 30 year APVMA review of paraquat, generations of Australian farmers have been unnecessarily exposed to this hazardous pesticide, and their health harmed as a result. Paraquat exposure is also associated with depression, respiratory illness, leukaemia, lymphoma, skin and brain cancers, or other endocrine or neurotoxic effects.

International research has established that diquat and many other pesticides are also associated with higher risk of developing Parkinson’s Disease. These include atrazine and simazine, which are widely used in Australia. UCLA found that two insecticides used in Australia: dichlorvos aka naled, and prophasargite are linked with Parkinson’s Disease, as well as three herbicides (diquat, endothal, trifluralin) and three fungicides: copper sulfate [basic and pentahydrate] and folpet.

Pesticide Action Australia calls for:

APVMA to immediately ban the use of paraquat and diquat in Australia for all usage, with no further delay
Ending the export of paraquat by exporting countries and companies;
The listing of paraquat under Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention;
Reform of the APVMA, for it to be majority publicly-funded and publicly accountable, implementing the hazard-based approach and precautionary principle;
The avoidance of chemical substitution and targeting single chemicals in isolation, and implementing holistic and sustainable social and political reform regarding the production, distribution, and use of pesticides;
Community action to reduce pesticide use, as we have no time to lose.

Thanks for reading, and if you like this please donate to Pesticide Action Australia and get involved.