Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Chair Dorsey]: So we're gonna spend the rest of the morning getting a bill introduction and walk through for h seven thirty nine, which is an act relating to prohibiting the use and sale of the herbicide paraquat. And with us is representative Cole, who's the bill sponsor, one of the bill's sponsor. And then alleged counsel Bradley Sheldon will pull the bill up in a few minutes and show us what we've got in language. And it is a short form bill, so there isn't a whole lot there to look at. So I think we have plenty of time really to hear in the sponsor's own words what this bill is about. So with that, I'll turn it over to you, Representative Cole.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Hey, thank you. Good morning. I guess we're still morning. For the record, my name is Esme Cole, a representative from Hartford and member emeritus of this committee, which I miss. Great. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on H seven thirty nine, a bill which would ban the use and sale of Paraquat in Vermont. So what is it? It's not a pear, it's not a kumquat, it's not a hybrid of the two. Paraquat is one of the most acutely toxic herbicides still in use in American agriculture. The EPA describes it as a synthetic, non selective contact herbicide. So it kills everything it touches, in other words. Paraquat is useful because it is a desiccant, so a drying agent. It creates free radicals and oxidative stress in plant tissue, which causes rapid drying and destruction. It has a half life in soil ranging from sixteen months to over six years, but can also be transported through dust and residue on crops that people consume. It is primarily used on corn, grain, grapes, apples, strawberries, soy, and other things. So what's the harm? Unfortunately, its effects on human health is similarly destructive to that of plants. It targets mitochondria, which can cause a range of harms, including oxidative stress and apoptosis or cell death, and importantly can lead to neuronal degeneration. When people consume paraquat treated food, the chemical can bind to a naturally occurring protein in food called lectin. This I found very interesting with my biology brain. So lectin is especially prevalent in corn, but it is in many different, produced in legumes. But lectin provides a vehicle for the chemical to move through the gastrointestinal system to the vagus nerve to reach the brain. It specifically targets the region of the brain affecting motor function among others. And this is the mechanism behind its connection with Parkinson's disease. So decades of research indicate that people who live or work near fields where Perricot has been sprayed are two point five times more likely to develop Parkinson's disease. PeriCot is also connected to other health risks, including non Hodgkin's lymphoma, which are blood cancers that affect lymphocytes, kidney cancer, thyroid cancer, other thyroid issues. These risks are borne disproportionately by farm workers, pesticide operators, and rural families who live and work closest to its use. New evidence in 2025 found that paraquat could travel further than was previously understood, potentially exposing more people. In the EPA's own words, Paraquat has life threatening effects on the gastrointestinal tract, kidney, liver, heart, and other organs. Despite this, a federal ban has not been implemented. So moving along to policy history. So more than 70 countries have banned the use of paraquat, including major agricultural producers like China, Brazil, and the EU, and Turkey. It is important to note that countries behind paraquat synthesis and production do not allow the herbicide to be used on their own land, including China, Switzerland, and The UK. Data have consistently failed to show any negative impact of banning paraquat on agricultural productivity. In terms of profitability, our allowance for paraquat is actually hurting us. Several major destinations for our farm products have set very low maximum residue limits, including Thailand, South Korea, Brazil, The UK, and India. Banning paraquat would make it easier for our farm workers to, or our farmers to export to these markets. Paraquat has been a restricted use pesticide in The United States for decades, limiting it to certified applicators. The EPA significantly strengthened these restrictions in 2016, 2019, and 2021. This trend would appear to be moving slowly toward outright restriction based on the EPA review process. But looking ahead, it is important to consider that in 2025, the Trump administration cut nearly a quarter of EPA research positions. Therefore, while we would have expected this review process to be slow already, we may need to remove our expectations for progress altogether for the time being. The burden of protecting public health for farmers, rural communities, and consumers is now more heavily on our shoulders. States do have the power to intervene. Missouri, Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania legislatures have stepped up to introduce similar efforts to ban Paraquat. The question before us is, do the benefits of continuing with the status quo justify the extraordinary human costs? Thank you again for your time and partnership on this important issue, and I look forward to continuing the conversation.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: Great. Thank you. Let's take some questions. Go ahead, Richard. Paraquat is seeing limited use in the state of Vermont in the last ten years or so. Matter of fact, when I called up my suppliers, I'm I'm a licensed applicator. When I called up my suppliers or sent them messages to talk to about later, late at night. I just sent them bear claw question mark.

[Chair Dorsey]: Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: And the answer was don't be dumb. Use Roundup. Like I say. So it it it sees very limited use in the state of Vermont. Last year, I think about a 107 gallons were sold in the whole state. And a lot of it's used by clearing where they use it to clear right of ways. So if we were to ban this, how do you propose we economically keep, right of ways clear?

[Rep. Esme Cole]: So yeah. Thank you for some of the context on the Vermont piece because I didn't speak to that in this testimony. So it's good to hear you got more recent data because I was only able to acquire 2022 and below that last in 2022.

[Chair Dorsey]: Like, what was it? I told strengths.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: All right. That's what we need, right? But yeah, in 2022, the last number I saw was seven fifty pounds in Addison County for corn forage, But inside scoop on very specific uses for clearing ways is important. I guess what I would say to that is that rather than me providing a direct answer, I think there's tons of precedent, we are an outlier here. So other countries have been quite successful without this chemical. So I think if there are other ways to create that clearing, which there are, I think the benefits versus the costs of using this specific chemical, we'd really wanna consider that.

[Chair Dorsey]: Representative Bartholomew.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew]: Yeah, my question was a little bit more, I guess, somewhat along the lines of Representative Nelson's. But I was wondering, what are the items that we actually use it on? I mean, you mentioned corn, you mentioned right of way.

[Chair Dorsey]: Right Yeah. Of

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew]: So in terms of countries that would ban the import of the products, are we talking about big products that we grow in Vermont or not as big of products? I I don't think we're considered a big corn export state.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Yeah, I think I'd have to look into more data, but I just, you know, right now we don't have the opportunity basically because, you know, this residue exists in higher quantities than any other nation. So I don't know what opportunities could open up if that weren't a factor, but I'd be very interested in to see where profitability could come into play there, because right now it's not really a consideration because we can't.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew]: But do you know what type of products we use it on? I mean, is it is it edible agricultural products or?

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Yes, and non edible. So even like lawn in Vermont, historically, it's been used. And it had been used in golf courses prior to 2021, I believe. And you might wanna fact check me on that, but I'm pretty sure that that's the accurate date. So it's not just food, but corn and grains and fruit, especially like apples. Hear I see a lot of research on that and grapes.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: Presenter Nelson. Yeah. But you can't spray it on corn because you'll kill the corn. You can't can't spray it on strawberries because you'll kill the strawberries. I mean, it's a it it it kills everything that is sprayed off, essentially, the way I understand it. It's

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Thank you, Yeah. That's my understanding as well. So it wouldn't be a direct application on the product that you're intending to grow, but rather, you know, everything in proximity. No.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: You know, they don't they don't use it to dry down potatoes.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Of course.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: No. It it banned for that.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: You know, it it is highly regulated. Matter of fact, you have to take a three hour online course before you can use it.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: So I think the the argument with, you know, no matter what you do, as many regulations as you know, even if you're completely protecting yourself as an individual and also, you know, combined with very precise application, the harms based a couple of decades of research, if not more, point to like, no matter how careful you are, the harms are incredible to human health. But of course, we're not directly applying it to the food product itself, you pointed out, which is helpful for understanding.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Go ahead, Representative O'Brien. I just wondered, it was saying that it's often used when Roundup is not effective. So do you know Roundup not effective in some certain cases?

[Chair Dorsey]: Are we asking if they

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Well, right.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: Whoever That'll be for permitting a discussion.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: I think the farmers would be the most equipped to speak on that. But I will say the biggest, yeah, the one where I've seen Roundup and Paraquat placed in similar literature side by side, mostly has to do with litigation. And unfortunately, the millions and millions that are being settled in lawsuits because of the proven harm, the science is there too, but it's just, clearly they are feeling the need to settle because there's a lot of ground for these lawsuits based in fact.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: I wonder, whoever limited use it is in Vermont, was that used because the custom applicators were like, oh, roundup, let's say, not working on whatever in that one. That means not we either cover crop, so we'll try Paraquat. I didn't know if that was used as an alternative or they just went straight to Paraquat because they

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Yeah, I'm not entirely sure. I think our farmers are the most informed here and are making very strategic decisions, but we have to take into account the whole picture. Obviously we wanna be effective in our productivity and reducing growth of things that we don't want there. But in that cost benefit analysis, whether it's glyphosate, whether it's PeriPod, whether it's whatever, Also,

[Rep. John O'Brien]: since you were in here during neonic debates, it getting into pollinators or just macro invertebrates?

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Excellent question. I think I would point to experts. But I do know that just like with Munich, dust is a factor and that it's traveling in particulate matter like that. Like water, right? Oh my gosh, yes. And topic I wasn't sure whether to approach today was also one of the major substitutes in addition to glycosate is a dipot, which is slightly less harmful, but it's used in usually more aquatic settings like Connecticut uses quite a bit. And I don't know, it's just something I think maybe the committee could be along the same thread be interested in looking into how we regulate that because there are less regulations for diquad than there are paraquat, and that's considered a substitute.

[Chair Dorsey]: Representative So Nelson.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: I won't you know, I'll share this job. I am philosophically opposed to banning things in this state that are allowed in another state because there could affect our ability of being competitive in commerce. I don't know of any business, you know, our our ag chemical businesses that sell paraquat right now, like, they've all gotten cleared it off their shelves, and and they're not actively looking to sell it. They're not recommending it. I would prefer more of the approach of reaching out to the companies that sell it and asking them to remove it, remove us from their list of states that would they would sell to as opposed to an outright ban, and I've been working trying to get that ball rolling. Sagenta being the big one. It's just saying, hey, you know, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. And then if something were to happen down the road and we had an outbreak of you know, I didn't realize Paraquat worked as good as it did because when I had to consume some Japanese knotweed, I'd use that, but maybe not. But, anyway, you know, there could be an invasive invasive species threat that is really harmful, and maybe that would be the best tool to use in, you know, a really restricted manner. But I appreciate, you know, I was numb to the effects of Paraquat until we had that conversation, and I've looked into it since then.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Thank you. Yeah, it means a lot, and I, yeah, I know you care deeply about this issue and the health of

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: we all we all care about the health of our our families because our families play where we work, and we all care about the environment, and we just gotta figure out the best the best way and not set precedents. I mean, if you'll give me back neonics

[Rep. Esme Cole]: You got it.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: I will I will jump the band Fairclaw hard.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Unfortunately, I already lost a battle.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: Oh, all you gotta do is get another 25 people in the house or agree to get me back in mix, and I'll I'll push hard. I'll be the I'll be the loudest voice down there to

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Yeah. Well, also, before we move into other subjects too quickly, I do wanna, you know, acknowledge some of the points that you made earlier, especially, you know, I I do completely understand the fear of being the first to do anything. It makes a whole lot of sense. Although, in the back of my mind, maybe it's aspirational, but to my point about opening new markets for us through exports, I could see it as providing the exact opposite opportunity in terms of profitability. And others, we're not alone in this fight. And it's the research points, this is the only thing holding us up from, if the concern is public health, human health, then this would have been banned forever ago. Which it was elsewhere, but we're just trying to catch up.

[Chair Dorsey]: Let's take a couple more questions and then maybe we'll ask Legg Council to show us the language. Go ahead, representative Lipsky. Rep. Cole, thank you

[Rep. Jed Lipsky]: for your compelling introduction to the bill.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Thank you.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky]: Very disturbing.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Oh, no. I like to disturb. That's So

[Rep. Jed Lipsky]: I my main question's gonna have to do more with lifespan. But being an aviator, I know that under octane, avgas weighs about seven point pounds per gallon. Mhmm. You allowed it 700 some pounds, which would have been similar to what Richard said about a 100 and some gallons, but that was only in Addison County? Yes. Whereas Richard implied that that's what was purchased or used statewide. So there's a vast discrepancy at Barry. I don't but that's some of the gist from a factual, I think it's important to know. But, you know, when we were licensing Vermont Yankee fifty years ago, embarrassed to say I was at the table there, radioactive isotopes lifespans were at the meat of the challenge for that technology at that time. But so the lifespan within the environment, whether it's in the soil or water or air for Paraquat, I think would be important for us and the public to understand how the the length of the toxicity. And the last question, when you referred to right of ways, are you talking about electric transmission line clearing for application? So what what do you mean by right of ways? Because, you know, if it's cost effective, doesn't mean it's the best thing. There aren't people with weed whackers or chainsaws that can with less deleterious or environment that can do right away clearing. Been doing it for a long time. So the clarification on right of ways and lifespan actually

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Sure.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky]: Would be helpful.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Yeah. And the yeah. Clarification too on use in the state of Vermont too. So maybe Rep. Nelson and I can tag team getting that, or the committee can tag team with the agency of Ag to have those numbers right in front of you so that it's easy to see. And I think also, Rhett Nelson would have better information about the right of way piece and what the context of what he was describing there.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky]: The science of life's fact. Just real quick, Jed,

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: a paraquat weighs half a pound per pint, and the figure I gave 107 gallons was from 2024.

[Chair Dorsey]: That's the most recent data in a couple

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: of different years. Yeah, so it's a couple of different years, but it is dense heavy product. It's, you know, a gallon of water is eight pounds, and know, this, you know, so they're applying any legal rate of application is half a pound, half a pound up to a pound and a half, one to three points per acre.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: While we're on the topic of measurements and pounds and metrics, so one of the headliner comments about PeriPod is that a teaspoon will kill you. Consuming a teaspoon. Less? Yeah, less probably. So it's like, when we're talking about seven fifty pounds, I think that's an interesting way to visualize and compare how toxic this thing really is. I also didn't want to forget to respond to your comment too about negotiations with Syngenta, or I'm sorry, how do say

[Rep. Jed Lipsky]: that? Syngenta.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Syngenta, yes. Which, you know, they've put a lot of money into this, and I don't think it's in their interest to take it off.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: Oh, it might be.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Yeah, I mean, they've True. So, I mean, no matter how we get there, I'm concerned that the weight of that kind of negotiation, if that were to be successful, would be too late. I mean, it's already too late because I think hopefully you'll get the chance to hear from folks who have been directly impacted, of which there are thousands, unfortunately, both farmers and people affected nearby, especially those living with Parkinson's today. And it sounds like they do want to share their support, the folks I've been in contact with different groups around the country. So urgency and timeliness is definitely important here because this is pretty serious stuff. But I'm so glad that we don't use it prolifically in Vermont, you know, but we do have some use here.

[Chair Dorsey]: One more question, I think representative Balson, yeah, you've been waiting.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Yeah. It's more of

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: a it's more of a comment actually. So but just I I think that this bill is important to consider. I mean, I have a different perspective than representative Nelson on this. I mean, it may be that banning something is gonna take a tool out of the box. But I think if we look at the world, there's a lot of regions of the world that have already decided this is really dangerous. And our job as representatives in serving in this body is to protect human health and the environment in Vermont.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: And farmers. Who are humans? Right. All of those things, I think

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: we have to think about, is that the only way we can solve that problem? And is solving the problem in that way worth the cost? And I say, as a person whose father-in-law died of Parkinson's, it's not a pretty way to go. Actually, I have no idea if he used this particular chemical, but he applied a lot of chemicals for about forty years in his garden as a home gardener and probably not that wisely. But if we can avoid people having these kinds of outcomes by taking this out of the range of possibilities, it feels to me like we might be doing a service and then we can figure out other ways to clear our right of ways or get the whatever we don't want around our corn to be there.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew]: So I hope we will take more testimony on this because I do think it's important.

[Chair Dorsey]: Representative Cole, thank you very much for

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Thank you.

[Chair Dorsey]: Me in this morning. And if you wanna stay, of course, you can. Bradley, if you wanna come up and

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Thank you.

[Chair Dorsey]: Just show us the language, Great. Let's do that now. And this this again, it's h seven thirty nine. It's a short form bill as introduced. It's on our web page. I have Bradley pull it up.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Brad so I am Bradley Shulman, office of legislative council. And I will pull up this bill. This is a short form bill. This is h seven thirty nine. And so this bill would prohibit the sale the use and sale of the icide Paraquat in the state. It defines the kinds of chemicals that would be known as Paraquat, and it would authorize limited exceptions to the prohibition on the use of Paraquat only when no other less harmful pesticide would be effective in addressing the environmental or agricultural emergency. And then exemption orders would be valid up to one year and would specify that the paraquat to be used, the permitted use of the paraquat, the order and date, and duration of the use, and the order's geographic scope. So, essentially, this bill proposes to ban Paraquat in a similar way to that the state bans the unit of pesticides, authorizing exceptions in emergency situations, but that's it. Just to speak briefly, the regulatory framework we went over earlier today, this is a restricted use pesticide. As representative Cole pointed out, it is a very restricted use pesticide, which had some attention from the EPA several times in recent memory to add more safety requirements because of how harmful this could be to human health in very small doses. So, on the EPA's website, you might run across language saying one sip can kill. So, it's toxic for human consumption. And so that's why I say it's a very restricted pesticide, because it does receive a lot of attention from the EPA, in terms of regulating its safe usage. And to clarify a question I heard earlier about usage in the state of Vermont, in 2022, that was seven fifty pounds in Addison County only, according to the agency of agriculture's website. So they post how many pounds per county of any pesticide are being used. And Paraquat, only had the chance to look at the last few years, but in the year prior to that, there was no Paraquat used. In the year prior to that, there was 36 pounds in either Windsor or Windham County. So it's not very it's not a highly used product in our state. But that's the end of this bill. It's a short form bill. There is a companion not a companion bill, but there is a bill in the Senate that would a standard form bill in the Senate that would ban the use of paraquat. Mike actually drafted that. It was before my time with legislative counsel. But that is in

[Chair Dorsey]: with the senate. Senate ag? Let me pull it up. Actually, I have it up. I'm seeing nods from around the room.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And I I closed the the the window that it that gave me the information. So yes.

[Chair Dorsey]: Okay. Well, it was helpful, I think, having the conversation this morning about the other bill to refresh our memories on Class A and B. So this is Class A. This is Class A. This is something that you can't go I can't go buy it myself. And

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: if I were licensed to apply it, I could only buy it in some restricted Yes. And for the new people who might be watching, a class A or restricted use pesticide is a term of art. So that means that has a specific legal language and specific legal impact when you use that term to describe a pesticide. It means that regulatory agencies are required to very closely regulate how a pesticide is used. Given pesticides might have different types of uses depending on their toxicity and known risks to people and the environment and things of that sort. So, of the examples of Paraquat is there's a closed system to move it from one container to another and to prevent people from putting it into a bottle of soda so that they could administer it somewhere else. Regulations when when an administrative agency is making rules or regulations on how to use a pesticide, they can make things as specific as that to a given pesticide based on its toxicity and known harmfulness.

[Chair Dorsey]: I know there's not much here, but any questions about the language? And I'll just say that if we decide to take any further testimony into the bill, I think one of

[Rep. Jed Lipsky]: the first things we'll want

[Chair Dorsey]: to do is dig in more to how is it being used in Vermont? What other data do we have in Vermont about whether there is data specific to Vermont about illness and disease. But any of that, we shouldn't be asking Legis Council about, but go ahead, Director Mulvehill.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky]: Thank you, Chair Dorsey. This is a clarify my vocabulary. We're using the term pesticide, not herbicide. So I'm curious what the target is because the whatever it touches whatever plants it touches seem to experience mortality. And and that is me using the

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: word pesticide is a function of having been in earlier today. This is an herbicide. And economic poison is the general term that we use to describe pesticides, herbicides, rodenticides, things of that sort, the economic poison is the general term, herbicide would be a paraguay. Thank you. Yes. Thank you.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky]: Far as I know, being a licensed certified pesticide applicator, pesticide would be the, you know, under the term pesticide you have herbicide, fungicide and scientific term,

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: it's like a technology.

[Chair Dorsey]: And actually I've never heard of until I came into this film. I learned it from that guy right there. We have the language here says pesticides, so it's Yeah. It seems to be a blank or sort of umbrella.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It is. And when we're talking about different kinds of pesticides and things of that sort, I try to be more specific with my language and not create the confusion. But there are economic hazards, pesticides, herbicides. But this is mostly used for plants. This is used for plants and to desiccate crops like cotton prior to harvesting and things of that sort.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Thank you. All right,

[Chair Dorsey]: yeah. Then I think we can stop. Did you have another question? I can ask them offline. Okay. All right, well, let's stop. We'll take a break for lunch. We'll be back at one And then there's a couple of things on our agenda this afternoon, including another bill. We've got the American Farmland Trust coming in. We had heard last week that they would be helpful with understanding loss of farmland. I think the food somebody who we had hoped to hear from last week about the food bank who's participating in Vermont. Back today. We weren't able to see them last time, so they'll be on at one. Thank you.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Richard, how

[Chair Dorsey]: many