Settle First, Ask No Questions: The Syngenta Model

It happened again. Another courtroom, another jury left waiting, and another global agrochemical giant quietly permitted to pay to make the truth disappear. In this case, just as the first major US jury trial over paraquat—a highly toxic herbicide long suspected of causing Parkinson’s disease—was set to begin, Syngenta reached a confidential settlement with the plaintiff. To be clear, the timing was no accident. It never is.

Paraquat, which has been used in the US since 1964, remains a popular choice for weed control with farmers growing soybeans, corn, and cotton, as well as growing pistachios, grapes, peanuts, and many other crops. It is known to be extremely dangerous to anyone who ingests even a small amount, which has led regulators to issue warnings and place restrictions on its use because of poisoning. But whether or not it causes Parkinson’s disease has remained a matter of fierce debate. As expected, Syngenta insists there is no credible evidence of a connection between the two.

This bellwether case, which was set in a Philadelphia courtroom, could have cracked the corporate shell wide open. It was supposed to be the moment that Syngenta was finally forced to defend its product, its policies, and its pattern of delay, denial, and obfuscation. Instead, the company opted for its usual exit strategy: cut a check, seal the files, and move on—nothing to see here.

For those living under a rock, Paraquat is not some maybe-safe chemical. It is banned in over 60 countries, including China. Yet here in the United States, over 10 million pounds of the destructive chemical are used each year, on everything from soybeans to golf courses to cotton. Syngenta’s paraquat brand, Gramoxone, is still sprayed across American farmland by workers often given little more than thin gloves and regulatory assumptions to shield them from harm.

There are now over 8,000 cases alleging that paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease consolidated in multidistrict litigation (MDL). And yet, despite mounting scientific evidence, thousands of farmers, landscapers, and applicators state they were never warned of the risk associated with paraquat. They certainly weren’t warned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which, as usual, is late to the party.

And now, it is worth stating again that the bellwether trial—the one that might have finally set a precedent, opened the evidentiary floodgates, and let a jury weigh the facts—has vanished into a private settlement with undisclosed terms. Same old playbook, page one. Settle just before trial. Avoid depositions hitting open record. Keep internal emails and toxicology reports out of the public eye. Insulate the brand. Protect the shareholders.

Yes, this is page one of the playbook. Plaintiffs are left to speculate, and journalists are left to chase shadows. And the public? Well, they are intentionally manipulated to remain largely unaware that one of the most dangerous herbicides on the market is consistently sprayed on the crops that feed our nation.

Concern over this unsettling turn of events goes far beyond the health crisis behind it. The outcome here is akin to a test case for whether multinational corporations can be held accountable in a system that is designed to bend under pressure. So far, the system is bending perfectly to protect those at fault.

The settlement robs the plaintiffs and the public of answers they deserve. Such as, what did Syngenta know and when did they know it? What testing was buried along the way, and what warnings were sugarcoated or delayed? Likewise, what internal discussions took place about acceptable collateral damage?

Why is this important? The few documents that have leaked from earlier proceedings suggest that Syngenta knew far more about the dangers of paraquat than it ever disclosed to regulators or the public. But, until a jury hears that evidence—and the media can report on it freely—the truth remains quarantined. And to make matters worse, the government continues to stall as well. While the EPA has signaled a review of paraquat safety again in light of new data, that review is slow-moving and, of course, politicized.

Plaintiffs in various lawsuits have argued that the manufacturers of paraquat were aware of its dangers but failed to adequately warn users. Rightly so, these cases have highlighted the need for stricter regulations and more rigorous testing of chemicals before they are approved for widespread use. Yet, the regulatory failures by the EPA have remained a focal point in the legal challenges against paraquat. Critics argue that the agency underestimated the risks associated with the herbicide and failed to take timely action to protect public health.

The international bans on paraquat serve as a stark reminder of the importance of precautionary principles in pesticide regulation. The bans underscore the need for a more proactive approach to assessing and mitigating the risks of agricultural chemicals.

Settlement histories across other cases involving paraquat have shown a pattern of companies attempting to minimize their liabilities by reaching out-of-court settlements. These settlements often include confidentiality agreements, which can limit the information available to the public and regulators about the full extent of the risks associated with paraquat.

The legal and regulatory challenges surrounding paraquat highlight the complex interplay between scientific evidence, regulatory oversight, and corporate responsibility in ensuring the safety of chemicals used in agriculture. It is time for this type of manipulation at the expense of the health of an unknowing consumer to end. Instead, for now, there is no class action. No sweeping recall. No federal ban. Just 8,000 individual plaintiffs trudging through an MDL that may or may not produce another public trial.

Thankfully, the toxic chemical movement is waking up, but late. Advocacy groups have been ringing the alarm bell for years, but the legal system’s ambiguity—combined with settlements like this one—ensures that the broader public remains largely in the dark. And this is how public poisoning has become normalized.

If Syngenta had gone to trial, the ripple effect could have been enormous. Regulatory reforms. Product recalls. Stock tremors. Congressional hearings. That’s why the settlement happened. It didn’t end a trial. It prevented one. And until a trial actually occurs—until a jury sees the evidence and the public hears the story—paraquat will continue to be a silent killer on American fields, shielded by corporate lawyers and bureaucratic delay.

Let the record show: Syngenta paid to keep the curtain closed. Again.