SB 6330
In CommitteeSenate
Paraquat herbicide
Prohibiting the use of paraquat unless authorized for research conducted under strict safety and reporting protocols.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill bans the use, sale, and handling of the herbicide paraquat in Washington to reduce exposure linked to Parkinson’s disease, especially among agricultural workers and rural communities. It allows only tightly controlled research use and requires the state to develop rules for enforcement.
- Prohibits the use, sale, distribution, application, or handling of any herbicide containing paraquat (including paraquat dichloride) in Washington State.
- Allows the Washington State Department of Agriculture director to authorize limited paraquat use for research only—if strict safety and reporting protocols are followed.
- Authorizes the Department of Agriculture to create rules to enforce the ban and ensure compliance.
Who is affected
- Agricultural workers and handlers — Farmworkers, pesticide applicators, and rural residents who may be exposed to paraquat during agricultural work or living near treated fields; the bill aims to reduce their risk of Parkinson's disease by eliminating routine exposure.
- Farmers and agricultural businesses — Farm owners and operators who currently use paraquat for weed control; they must transition to alternative herbicides or weed management practices by the effective date.
- Rural residents — People living in rural areas of Washington who may be exposed to paraquat through drift, contaminated water, or proximity to treated fields; the bill supports long-term public health protection for these communities.
- Scientific researchers — Researchers at universities or state labs who need paraquat for controlled scientific studies; they may still use it under strict safety and reporting protocols authorized by the Department of Agriculture.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Eliminating routine paraquat exposure significantly reduces the risk of Parkinson’s disease among agricultural workers and rural residents—populations already experiencing higher exposure and worse health outcomes—potentially preventing dozens of new cases per year and reducing long-term disability and caregiving burdens.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)By removing a known high-risk pesticide from general use, the bill reduces acute poisoning risks for farmworkers, applicators, and rural communities—especially during mixing, loading, and application—where paraquat has caused numerous fatalities globally and in the U.S.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)Paraquat is highly toxic to aquatic life and persists in soil and water; eliminating its use reduces contamination of streams, rivers, and groundwater in agricultural regions like the Yakima Valley and Puget Sound lowlands, benefiting ecosystems and drinking water quality.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)The bill’s findings and rulemaking process create opportunities for public education about pesticide risks and safer alternatives, potentially strengthening worker training programs and school curricula around environmental health in agricultural communities.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)The ban may incentivize innovation in regenerative and low-chemical weed management, supporting long-term resilience for Washington agriculture and potentially creating new markets for local biocontrol agents, precision tools, and technical services—though benefits may accrue more to larger agribusinesses than small farms.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
Farmers and agricultural businesses—especially medium- and large-scale operations—may face significant transition costs to replace paraquat with alternative herbicides, which may be more expensive, less effective, or require labor-intensive changes in weed management practices, potentially reducing yields or increasing production costs in the short to medium term.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)The ban may increase risks to farmworkers during the transition period if alternative herbicides are more acutely toxic or require different handling protocols, and if training and PPE access are not scaled up in parallel with the ban—especially for low-wage, non-English-speaking workers who may receive inadequate safety information.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)While long-term healthcare savings are plausible, the bill provides no funding mechanism to support early-stage Parkinson’s screening, diagnosis, or care for individuals already exposed—meaning low-income and rural residents who develop Parkinson’s before the ban’s full impact may not benefit from improved health outcomes in the near term.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)Local governments and extension offices may face added responsibilities supporting farmer outreach and technical assistance during the transition, but the bill does not allocate dedicated funding for these efforts, potentially straining local resources.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)Small-scale organic or specialty crop farms may struggle to absorb increased input costs if alternatives (e.g., glufosinate, manual weeding, cover cropping) are not readily available or affordable in their region—potentially accelerating consolidation in favor of larger farms with greater risk-buffering capacity.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)
Who Is Most Affected
Agricultural workers and handlers face the greatest immediate health benefit from reduced Parkinson’s risk and acute poisoning, but may face job insecurity or wage pressure if farms cut costs during transition—especially if replacement herbicides require more labor or if yields drop.
Medium- and large-scale farms may absorb transition costs more easily than small farms, but still face upfront expenses for new equipment, training, and alternative inputs. Some may benefit from premium markets for paraquat-free crops, while others may lose competitiveness if alternatives underperform.
Rural residents benefit from reduced environmental exposure (air, water, drift) and long-term public health gains, but may face higher food prices if farm costs rise significantly—especially if the state lacks robust food assistance programs to offset inflationary pressure.
Researchers gain continued access to paraquat under strict protocols, preserving scientific capacity—but face added administrative burdens (e.g., permit applications, reporting) that may deter some studies or shift research out of state.
The Washington State Department of Agriculture gains new rulemaking authority but faces increased enforcement and outreach responsibilities without dedicated new funding—potentially diverting resources from other priorities like invasive species or plant pest response.