Paraquat review: APVMA to hand down decision on proposed herbicide restrictions in mid-2025

Australian grain growers face a seven-month wait to find out whether major restrictions will be imposed on two “essential” herbicides that farmers warn will “set broadacre cropping back 30 years”. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority is conducting a review to potentially restrict high applications of paraquat and diquat, including banning their use in automated spot-spraying systems. Three months of public consultation closed this week after the APVMA received a flood of submissions from grain industry groups rallying against the proposed changes. APVMA chief executive Scott Hansen said the regulator also received submissions — more than 100 in total — from the medical and health public sectors. “The APVMA is committed to completing a rigorous scientific assessment and will take the necessary time to consider all the evidence provided to us during the public consultation,” he said. “We expect to publish a final regulatory decision on paraquat in mid-2025.” Paraquat is banned in European Union countries and is classed as a schedule seven poison, meaning a licence is needed to buy it. A report by ABC Landline in August caused uproar after it linked paraquat to Parkinson’s disease, with Croplife Australia accusing the broadcaster of “cherry-picking isolated case studies” to support a “sensationalised narrative”. At the time, Mr Hansen said there was no evidence paraquat caused undue risk if used in accordance with warning labels. But while the APVMA review is not related to any concerns regarding connections to neurological diseases, Mr Hansen acknowledged those fears on Wednesday. “We recognise that there is heightened interest in paraquat, both from those who rely on it as a key tool in farm management, as well as those who have concerns of a possible link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease,” he said. “We take human health risks seriously, and should new evidence emerge out of this consultation process that shows an imminent risk to human health, then we have the power to take quick action.” Grain Producers Australia interim CEO Pete Arkle said the changes would expose growers to increased soil erosion, yield loss, and weed and pest infestation. He said the methodology and risk assessment processes used in the review were “short-sighted” and would “detrimentally impact” the industry. “The assessments and data relied on demonstrates a highly conservative approach that may not fully account for Australia’s unique agricultural landscapes,” Mr Arkle said. WAFarmers grains section president Mic Fels said the proposed changes would have “far-reaching” consequences for farmers and the environment. “Our minimum tillage system depends on paraquat. Without that system, we see a return to older practices involving cultivation and burning,” he said. “In that scenario, many parts of the WA cropping belt would no longer be viable to farm, and soils would be exposed to wind and water erosion, resulting in significant damage to our environment.” WA Grains Group secretary and Pingrup grower Doug Smith said paraquat and diquat were essential to weed control in minimum-till farming systems. “Farming in sandplain soils presents a number of constraints for growers that can affect productivity, but by reducing soil turnover and retaining structure, WA growers successfully farm these soils with increasing productivity,” he said. “Some of the APVMA’s proposed changes . . . have been tied to wildlife impacts, however these decisions haven’t been made in an Australian context.” Mr Smith said WAGG had submitted local wildlife population studies “clearly showing” the use of chemicals in a broadacre setting had had “no obvious impact” on bird numbers. “They need to take more time to review this in detail,” he said. AgForce grains president Brendan Taylor, a grower at Warra in Queensland’s Western Downs region, said the removal of paraquat and diquat from farming systems would “set broadacre cropping back 30 years”.