Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Start by introducing yourselves and the work of the foundation any thoughts you might have on July.

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: Yeah, absolutely. Well, thank you so much, chair Durfee, vice chair Bartholomew, members of the committee. Very excited to be here today, thank you for making the time for me to talk about h seven three nine, which would prohibit the use and the sale of the herbicide paraquat in Vermont. My name is Zach Hardy. I'm a senior state government relations manager for the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research. Founded in 2000, the foundation is the world's largest nonprofit funder of Parkinson's research, having funded over $2,500,000,000 in research research programs worldwide. Our goal is to accelerate breakthroughs in diagnostics and treatments and ultimately find a cure for this disease. Parkinson's is a progressive disease that impacts movement and can cause tremor, slowness and stiffness, walking, and balance problems. Other non movement symptoms such as depression and issues with memory can also be part of a person's experience with Parkinson's disease. More than one million Americans are currently living with Parkinson's with approximately ninety thousand new diagnoses each year, making this disease the fastest growing neurological condition in our country and globally. While Parkinson's has genetic components, environmental exposures play a significant role in disease risk. And among those environmental factors, the science linking the use of power pot to a significantly increased risk of developing Parkinson's disease is some of the most concerning and well established. Power quad is a toxic chemical that is used often as an herbicide. Decades of research has shown that people who work with or live near areas where Parkinson's supply where, excuse me, Power Quot is applied have a higher risk of developing Parkinson's disease. Research has also shown that individuals who handled Power Quot were about twice as likely to develop the disease compared to those using other pesticides. This is not an abstract risk. It affects farmers, farm workers, and families in rural communities across Vermont. While paraquat continues to be used in The United States, much of the world has responded to the known public health risks that this pesticide poses. More than 70 countries, including the European Union, Brazil, and Germany, have banned the use of powerquat. Many of these countries, though, such as China, manufacture powerquat and export it to The United States, all while banning it for use in its own backyard. This reveals a stark reality. Other governments protect their citizens from Power Quad while profiting from its use here. In Vermont, over twenty six hundred people are currently living with Parkinson's. The direct and indirect costs such as lost productivity, caregiving, disability, and household expenses are estimated to be over $120,000,000 per year. An increase in Parkinson's prevalence represents a substantial public health and economic risk to the state. Failure to curb known environmental risk factors of Parkinson's will only allow for further exposure and an increase in the number of people inflicted with this disease. With this legislation, Vermont has the opportunity to lead the nation by becoming the very first state to prohibit the use and sale of paraquat. The scientific evidence is strong, and the risks are well documented while the human cost of inaction continues to grow. On behalf of the Michael J. Fox Foundation and the resilient Parkinson's community that we are proud to work with, I strongly urge the members of this committee to act on this legislation that we believe will protect the health Vermonters. Thank you very much for the time today, and I am happy to answer any questions that the committee may have at this time.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Could you start by explaining, and I only know this because somebody who's roughly my age has fairly recently been diagnosed with what they call Parkinsonism. Could you just explain the distinction? Sure.

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: So Parkinson's disease is a very complex disease. There is no cure, but there's also no one diagnostic tool. There's no one experience that a person with Parkinson's or Parkinsonisms lives with. That is often referred to, this is a neurological disease. So there are those symptoms related to tremor, related to stiffness and gait that can affect folks with Parkinson's, but also since that journey to really get that diagnosis is so challenging, sometimes there are these umbrella terms that are used as well. And often, you know, there are a lot of tests that need to be run to rule out other neurological disorders before getting to a Parkinson's diagnosis. Oftentimes that can also be linked to the fact that getting neurological care can be very difficult in certain areas of the country and rural communities. So all to say, the journey of getting a diagnosis is challenging enough for folks living with Parkinson's. It could take several years, and it also is closely linked to their access of care as well in their given community. So that is why some of those umbrella terms are used, but it all relates to the symptoms that folks living with Parkinson's or Parkinson's related neurological conditions experience most commonly.

[Speaker 0]: Are there age factors related? So tend to think of

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: it as something that older people. Yes, that's very common. Folks do consider Parkinson's to be a disease that largely affects elderly populations, but contrary to that popular belief, young onset Parkinson's is a very big risk. We see people as young as their 30s, 40s, 50s commonly diagnosed with Parkinson's. They make up a very large contingent of people living with Parkinson's today, And that is something that isn't widely understood. I think that folks really do, you know, as we age, we certainly are more susceptible and more likely to develop neurological conditions. Also, you know, most disease states, I think, have higher incidence rates and prevalence rates, cancers as you age, but Parkinson's really can affect anyone at any age. And as I said earlier, while we do believe that genetics play a role in that and focuses natural predisposition to developing Parkinson's. We also know that there are other external factors that really increase someone's risk. And we do believe that direct exposure to certain environmental risk factors are one of those risks that increases someone's likelihood for developing Parkinson's.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, Representative Bos-Lun.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: So, I mean, the reason that people want paraquat potentially is for support in certain agricultural type So of I guess I'm wondering in terms of, it seems like there's a lot of clarity that paraprocate can cause Parkinson's. Is there evidence like what level of exposure puts people at risk? So for example, is there a higher rate of Parkinson's among farm workers that we're putting on the pesticides? Can you talk about that a little bit?

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: Sure. No, that's a great question. I'll start off by saying the EPA has designated parapod as what they call a highly acutely toxic chemical. If someone was directly exposed to parapot, whether no one would really willingly do this, but if you were to take a sip of parapot, it's deadly. So it is highly toxic. And when it comes to its use in agriculture, it has been used for many decades because its use is permitted in The United States. What we have often heard from folks is really its use also is passed down. A lot of farm workers have family farms and their grandfather used power pot, their father used power pot, so we're using Power Quot. But what we have seen is, yes, farm workers have a very highly increased risk for developing Parkinson's disease. What we've seen, and there has been some federal action about this in terms of limiting its use, has been the use on golf courses. There's been a lot of linkage between folks who live near golf courses or frequent golf courses have an increased risk as well, and that's because parapaut was commonly used in golf courses up until 2021 is when the EPA changed certain regulations related to that. So there have been many studies specifically looking into proximity to power pot usage, whether it's residents who live within a certain square mileage to power pot and or where it is used and the increased likelihood there, but also the folks that we really are very concerned about in terms of direct exposure very much so are agricultural workers because they are the ones who are directly on that land, directly dealing with this pesticide spraying and those practices. So we'd be happy to certainly share some of the scientific backed research on those different studies, but it is something that as part of this conversation about environmental risk has been studied for several years now and with a keen focus on those agricultural workers and the health risks that they have.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Bartholomew? A couple of questions. One is you mentioned an increased incidence. Is that based on real increased incidence or is it better recognition and better

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: diagnostics? So what I would say currently in the Parkinson's space is that although there have been certain breakthroughs that have led to certainly better care, certainly better diagnostic practices, it still is very challenging to reach a firm diagnosis. So what we have seen in terms of the studies and in terms of our numbers of prevalence and the increase in that, it has steadily been rising. And there have been multiple studies done just over the past decade, comparing numbers in the mid 2010s to where we are now and those projections into 2030 and 2040, the numbers are set to continue to increase. And we think again, can we drill down on a specific reason or one reason alone as to why that's happening? Not necessarily, because we mentioned earlier, yes, as people age, their risk of Parkinson's does increase, but what we are seeing, particularly with young onset Parkinson's, is that there is something else that causes this higher likelihood to develop Parkinson's. So when folks are looking deeper into that, what folks may be exposed to, you know, it's a very similar conversation to what we've seen veterans face overseas and the exposures that they see to certain chemicals in war. That is something that we're looking into closer to home, where there is usage of certain chemicals and pesticides, herbicides that study after study have began to show, you know, really has a direct correlation to this increase in, you know, these neurotoxic chemicals leading to neurological disorders. So, you know, while the science, it reminds me of back in the seventies when the EPA canceled nearly all uses of DDT, at that time, there was a really, you know, I would say a very similar thought process to where we are now with paraquat and Parkinson's, where there were studies, there were, you know, links that people, some thought were more clear than others, but they canceled usage out of, you could call an abundance of caution. But then several years later when they went back and looked at additional science and additional studies that were done, you know, it it showed that that call made several years earlier was the right one because the science just became more clear as the years went on. So there is something very strongly to be said about I wouldn't classify it as early research because it does stretch decades, but the research into the links that is available to us today, we think is a strong and compelling case, but it is also something that we believe we will see, and the EPA has called for additional studies from certain manufacturers of Powerpuff in The United States, that those studies will continue to show an increased link to Parkinson's disease and other neurological conditions. So we think there will be continued science to come out to connect it to that, but we also believe what we're sitting on today is a very compelling case as well.

[Speaker 0]: Has anyone worked out the pathogenesis for how paraprot would cause Parkinson's or is it sounds like not.

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: Yeah, so there is, this is what it stretches deeper into science of it all, you know, and I do believe that, you know, it's my understanding the committee may hear from additional subject matter experts in the coming weeks on this, but really at its core, you know, it really has to do with neurotoxicity of paraquat in particular, and why it is, while its exposure, as I said earlier, if it's incredibly direct and acute, it could be immediately deadly, but in terms of its exposure risk over time, it specifically targets neurons in the brain. And that is why it leads to that increased risk for brain disease in general. But then the link to Parkinson's, would say, is the most clear one in terms of that umbrella term of neurological disorders. You know, there could be links to others. Parkinson's is the one that is the most commonly connected to it at this time. And I would certainly think the research and certainly other subject matter experts and information we can share with this committee as well can kind of explain deeper as to why it's Parkinson's that is the one that is most closely linked to it versus other neurological conditions, but it does have something to do with those neurotoxic elements of the herbicide itself.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Doctor. Burtt? Yeah. You for coming into that.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Member)]: I was just curious if there are other chemicals too that come beyond paracloth that your foundation is looking at as well.

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: So we have, for the foundation itself, think, and certainly in policy realm, we've heard from the Parkinson's community. They have a lot of concerns about, you know, environmental risk factors. Obviously, folks come with their own anecdotal stories that, you know, are valuable and valid, but then also we do at the foundation come from a place of following the science. So over the years, you know, power pot is certainly one that we are focused in right now. I will say we do have similar legislation in multiple neighboring states from outside of Vermont, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey that we are working on as well as other states across the country for power pot specifically. But in the past, you know, TCE was one that we worked on closely and had many conversations with the EPA about, and there have certainly been additional movements there. PFAS and chemicals of that like have certainly been of concern to the community and to researchers specifically into Parkinson's. So there are several, I would say, I'm sure, you know, there may be more over time, but I think what's important and specifically about paraquat and some of those other chemicals and pesticides that I just mentioned is that we really do follow the science and follow the research, and it has to show a continued link, you know, to an increased risk of Parkinson's disease. And there can be one off study that shows a linkage to a certain illness or disorder that could certainly show something worth looking into further. But when it comes to Power Quot, when it comes to some of those other chemicals and pesticides that I had mentioned, that is where we've seen the bulk of the scientific data support that. So that is why Power Quot is our current focus that we're speaking to lawmakers about in terms of limiting environmental risk exposure for folks.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Bass.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah, we heard testimony last, I think it was last week about a number of nations that had eliminated parapodilegal. Could you just remind me, I feel like it was the European Union and then a whole bunch.

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: Yeah, the number is north of 70 countries. And, yes, the European Union, it is banned there. Brazil, Germany, China. And what's interesting about that is that fact that many of these countries, China being one of the main countries that that engage in this, is they still manufacture paraguat. It is banned for use in their country, but they export it to The United States. So we can use it. They can profit from it, but it is banned for use for their the the people of those countries, and they are protected from public use of that pesticide. So, you know, we can certainly share the links in terms of the full list of countries, but it is north of 70 at this time. And as recently, I think China's ban came into effect, I believe in 2020, so, you know, relatively recently. So there, you know, my guess is that there there is a potential that more countries will be added to that list, and we would hope The United States as well at some point.

[Speaker 0]: You know who the major producers are?

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: China is one of the is one of the major exporters to us as well as Germany, but there are certainly, I'm sure the source of Paraquad coming into The United States is several. There are other major manufacturers here in The United States as well. There have been, you know, numerous lawsuits related to Parkinson's and the manufacturers of those that many of them have been settled before they go to trial. And those are also, some of those manufacturers are the ones that the EPA as recently as last month. I will note that the administrator of the EPA sent a social media post about the agency requesting further studies from those manufacturers here in The United States. So when we talk about the federal response, you know, there are tea leaves that they, you know, continue to look into it, continue to make adjustments to their, you know, their formal stance on the use of paraquat. But unfortunately, those studies that they're asking for will take time. They will take years. There are many things that can delay those. And we know that the longer that this pesticide is used, the more potential exposures to individuals here in Vermont and elsewhere will continue to occur. So that is why we feel time is of the essence and waiting for that federal response, you know, has been something we've been waiting on for decades now and we think we may continue to have to wait many years for.

[Speaker 0]: I'm not sure you're the right person to ask. Thing we often hear when we talk about prohibiting a use of a pesticide is that the alternative is not much better or maybe even worse leaving costs aside and effectiveness. But just in terms of its possible side effects, harm that have been caused, do you have anything that you're able to share with us on what alternatives there might be? What somebody who's currently using Verified as a pesticide would turn to as something that's just as effective or nearly as effective?

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: Yeah, no, that is a great question. And I'm sure there are others who could speak better to it than I. But what I will say is that here in The United States, are a variety of crops that use non using synthetic herb, not using synthetic herbicides that still are able to produce those crops in question. I will say there are other country, you know, pesticides, United States in some crops that are also produced here. What I will say is, I think it is always tricky when we're talking about pesticides and chemicals and its effect on human health. I think where we are at right now in terms of paraquat, specifically compared to other pesticides that may also be used in its place, is that the science is more clear that paraquat has a direct link to harm for human health. Do other alternatives potentially have harm to human health? I am not sure of that, but what I can say is that Paraquat is the one where the science is most clear and that we do believe at this time that there are other non synthetic toxins that can be used in agriculture that will pose a smaller risk to human health than Paraquat is currently shown to pose?

[Speaker 0]: Thank you for that. Representative, I'm

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: not sure who was first. Representative Oh, excuse me. Question was my question. Thank you.

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: Better name

[Speaker 0]: than representative Nelson. Thank you.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: So a pair of cloths are burned down, and very effective in what it does. I'm not gonna deny it. It's very dangerous. Would would your foundation my concern is if you ban if you ban a herbicide, pesticide, and something shows up down the road that's environmentally an environmentally dangerous invasive species that perhaps bear quap would be the antidote for. Would your foundation be alright to give the secretary of agriculture emergency powers to allow it to be used in a very restricted manner. I I hold a pesticide license. I won't use paraquat, k, because of the safety of myself and those around me. Mhmm. I'd hate to have a spill and somebody get in it not knowing that Right. Everything else that go along with it. It does have a spelling crossbowl label, But I I worry about something down the road, and and I worry about setting precedents Mhmm. Banning useful tools. So, you know, like but I can understand the reasoning with this one. Well,

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: no, that is that is a great point, I appreciate your unique perspective on this as well. I will say to answer your question directly, yes. And and in fact, the senate language for the companion bill here does include a provision where the secretary of agriculture would be able to permit use on an individual basis. So in terms of your question related to, you know, if there is a certain situation where, you know, there is an invasive species that is being dealt with, or there is a use and a pause and a case to be made, there would be, at least in the Senate language, there is that provision that would allow that usage. And I think that that is something where, yes, when we talk about banning pesticide use, it's complicated. There's gonna be folks from all different sides that have points and valid ones as well. And I think it's important to be open about the realistic, how we can be realistic about this while also protecting public health or at least limiting the exposure. And I think that the way that the Senate bill is written is a path to do that.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Thank you. We've got time

[Speaker 0]: for one more anyway, Representative Brian.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Member)]: Just to cover quick ones, road knowns mentioned also, it's a compound that's illegal. I remember it from childhood.

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: I would have to check. I would have to check, but I could definitely get back to you on that.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Member)]: And the other was that we're talking about human health a lot, but are certain mammals, do they suffer from Parkinson's type?

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: I will say, and again, not being a scientist myself, but there have been, in some of these studies, there have been laboratory experiments where mice are exposed to paraquat and they begin exhibiting signs of Parkinson's disease and movement issues as well. So I would say yes, but we can definitely follow-up with specific instances and studies as well to back that up.

[Speaker 0]: Any other questions? All right, well, you for making the time this morning. We will I think we've reached out to a scientist who can come in, maybe answer some of the more technical questions, but I think it's given us a good introduction and overview. Did you say earlier that or maybe say something, maybe wonder whether there were other uses for Ferroqua commercial uses besides as a herbicide? That

[Zach Hardy (Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research)]: is the primary use that we have particularly in most of the states that we're running these bills. It's focused on agricultural uses. I would have to follow-up in terms of if it is used in any other instances, it is a its effectiveness as an herbicide is what has brought it to its usage in most instances. So it's possible, but but we focus on it most in in the agricultural space. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Alright. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Much appreciated.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Let's just pause the