Dear Members of the House Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake, and Natural Resources: I am writing in opposition of HB1375 regarding the ban of the herbicide paraquat. I am a 5th generation peanut farmer and the chair of the Virginia Peanut Board. Paraquat is a valuable herbicide in the fight against herbicide resistant weeds in our area. Not only is it a valuable herbicide, for certain weeds in peanuts, it is our only effective herbicide. The ban of this herbicide would be a huge blow to our industry where our farmers are already struggling with low commodity prices and high input costs. The lack of herbicides to control weeds can cause significant yield reductions in peanuts which would cost farmers income they can’t stand to lose with the current state of the farm economy. Many farmers are only one bad crop year away from going out of business. We surely don’t need anything else to make things even worse. The EPA already has strict regulations in place on how paraquat has to be handled and applied by farmers. Farmers are the best stewards of the land. They understand if they neglect the environment in which their crops are produced, their livelihoods are at risk. We only use certain tools when absolutely necessary and paraquat is one of those tools. The ban of certain chemistries with no regard for sound science to back it up sets a dangerous precedent of what could be next. I urge the committee to use some common sense and vote no on HB1375. The hard working farm families that painstakingly bring billions of dollars to Virginia’s economy each year are counting on you. Sincerely, Andrew Darden

I am writing as a full time farmer in the Commonwealth of Virginia to respectfully urge you to oppose HB1375, which would prohibit the use, manufacture, or sale of pesticides containing paraquat. This bill, while well intentioned, would create significant and unnecessary burdens for farmers like me without providing additional safety benefits beyond those already established through rigorous federal oversight. Farmers are deeply committed stewards of the land and environment. Our livelihoods depend on healthy soil, clean water, and sustainable production practices. We take that responsibility seriously, and we rely on science based tools and regulations to help us protect both our crops and the natural resources we care for. Paraquat is one of those tools—used carefully, responsibly, and only when necessary. Paraquat is already among the most tightly regulated crop protection products in the United States. Before any pesticide can be used in Virginia, it must first undergo the extensive federal review process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which typically spans 10 to 12 years. Only after federal approval does the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services register the product for use in our state. In 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a comprehensive re evaluation of paraquat and approved its continued use with strengthened safety measures. After additional petitions, EPA conducted another thorough scientific review, analyzing more than 200 studies related to potential links between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease. In its January 30, 2024 report, EPA concluded that the weight of evidence does not support a causal connection between labeled paraquat use and Parkinson’s disease. Most of the studies cited by petitioners involved direct injection into test animals—an exposure pathway that does not reflect real world agricultural use. EPA has already implemented some of the strictest safeguards in the world, including: • Closed system packaging to prevent spills or accidental ingestion • Mandatory paraquat specific training • Certified applicator requirements • Closed cab application to eliminate inhalation and skin exposure • Enhanced label warnings and PPE requirements These measures ensure that paraquat is used safely, responsibly, and with minimal risk. Importantly, no other U.S. state has banned paraquat. If HB1375 were enacted, Virginia would stand alone—placing our farmers at a competitive disadvantage and forcing us to rely on less effective combinations of herbicides. This would ultimately increase total chemical use, not reduce it. Paraquat plays a vital role in managing herbicide resistant weeds and is especially valuable in crops such as cotton, peanuts, corn, and soybeans. It works quickly, performs well in cooler weather, and remains effective even after rainfall—advantages that alternative products cannot fully replicate. As a farmer who depends on responsible land management and science based regulation, I urge you to continue relying on the established federal review process that has guided pesticide oversight for more than fifty years. Banning a tool that EPA has repeatedly reviewed and deemed acceptable under strict regulation would harm Virginia agriculture without improving public safety.

I am a resident of Surry County, 5th generation farmer, producing corn, soybeans, peanuts and cotton with my son on our family farm in Surry and Southampton Counties. I am contacting you asking you to oppose HB 1375 which bans the use of paraquat in Virginia. Paraquat is the active ingredient in several chemicals used to control weeds in many crops grown in Virginia and around the nation. It is used as a burn down herbicide (used to kill weeds and cover crops in the spring before planting) and also used to control weeds in peanuts. It is an effective alternative to Round Up, which is often used as a burn down prior to planting crops. There are several weeds that have developed resistance to Round up, so Paraquat is an effective alternative with no resistant weeds that I am aware of. If we lose the use of Paraquat, we would have to rely on tillage to control resistant weeds, which would require more time, money and equipment. Tillage to control weeds leaves the soil more susceptible to erosion and would undo years of progress Virginia agriculture has made in no till soil management and sustainability. This is especially important in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Paraquat is also very effective at controlling small weeds in peanuts. Without paraquat, we would have to use several other chemicals at a higher cost to control the same weeds that paraquat will control alone. This would put Virginia peanut growers at a disadvantage to neighboring states. Paraquat is a dangerous chemical compound, but is safe and effective when used as intended. It has been safely used for over 50 years. Use of Paraquat is highly regulated. It can only be purchased, handled and applied by Certified Pesticide Applicators. In addition to the required training to become a Certified Pesticide Applicator, there is specific training on the handling and application of products containing paraquat. Paraquat is only sold in special closed container systems that further reduces the chances of accidental exposure to the handler/applicator. I urge you to oppose this bill which would have a negative impact on many of your constituents.

Chair and Members of the Committee, I respectfully urge you to support HB1375 to end the sale and use of paraquat in Virginia. The Virginia Pest Management Association argues this decision should be left to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. But EPA registration is not a “proven safe” determination - it is a risk-management judgment under FIFRA’s “unreasonable adverse effects” standard, which explicitly weighs economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits. Just as importantly, FIFRA preserves state authority to regulate the sale and use of pesticides (so long as states do not permit what federal law prohibits). The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that FIFRA does not preempt local regulation of pesticide use. HB1375 is therefore fully consistent with the federal framework. VPMA also portrays the federal oversight system as comprehensive and self-correcting because of “mandatory adverse effect reporting.” EPA’s own Incident Data System cautions that it has limited confidence in incident report accuracy, and EPA does not guarantee completeness or adequacy of those data. This is not a reliable substitute for prevention—especially for chronic diseases with long latency. On the science: high-quality epidemiology has repeatedly raised concern that paraquat exposure is associated with higher Parkinson’s risk. One widely cited peer-reviewed study reported that Parkinson’s disease was positively associated with paraquat use (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.4–4.7). Even if EPA states it has not found a “clear link” from labeled use, that is not the same as “no credible evidence,” and it is not the same as “safe.” Finally, “restricted use” controls do not eliminate community exposure. In November 2025, the EPA announced it is updating its analysis of paraquat’s potential to volatilize and increase bystander inhalation risk, and it will issue a data call-in to resolve key uncertainties. (EPA’s own action underscores that real-world exposure questions remain unsettled.) Internationally, many governments have concluded paraquat’s risks are not manageable: a systematic review found that at least 74 countries do not authorize paraquat, and that bans/phase-outs reduced poisonings and deaths more effectively than partial restrictions. Brazil’s Anvisa maintained a national ban effective September 2020, and Canada’s federal registry lists major paraquat products (e.g., Gramoxone 200 SL) as cancelled. For these reasons - credible disease risk signals, enforceability limits, EPA’s ongoing uncertainty on inhalation exposure, and strong international precedent - HB1375 is a prudent, science-based step to protect Virginians’ health. Respectfully, Lynnhaven River NOW

Hello Delegates, I am writing in opposition of HB1396. This bill had been brought fourth by landowners groups that falsely claim to represent and maximize property owners rights when in fact they are property owners that want to end the tradition of hound hunting. This is proven by these groups comments on their own social media pages. These groups have made claim that only 8 states allow the use of hounds to hunt, a stat quoted by delegates in the subcommittee, that is simply a false statement, currently only 9 states allow hounds to be used to hunt deer but nearly every state allows the utilization of dogs to hunt other game species many not requiring an special license to do so. I ask the delegates to understand that the vast majority of the members of the hound hunting organizations are land owners as well in addition to all of the landowners who lease or allow hound hunting on their land support the tradition of hound hunting. This bill creates a permit allowing the DWR create and issue permits on a may issue criteria with visual permit requirements for hounds and vehicles. If Additional funding is needed to police game laws the bill should be amended to a license just like an archery or muzzleloading license that is a shall issue. Additionally the cost for said license should be reduced and required for all that utilize or partcipate in any type of hunting that utilizes a dog. Dogs are already required to have owner contact info on their collar and their vehicles have state issued license plates therefore marking is not necessary. Lastly the only ones who should be exempt from license purchase are those that utilize dogs to hunt on their own land. This simplifies the requirements and makes it fair for all parties. Basically if big game is harvested and checked in and the use of dogs is checked as a part of big game license registering process they should be required to have a dog hunting license or be exempt as a land owner. I hope that you find this as a reasonable comprise. Additionally there needs to be some sort of recourse for false complaints or accusations. If this bill continues as is it will create more tensions between those who utilize dogs to hunt and those who don't like the use of hunting dogs. False complaints will continue to increase cause additional hunter harassment and tension between hunters and those that oppose it. Thank you for your time. V/R, B. C. Bunch

The VPMA strongly opposes HB1375 because it usurps the existing robust, scientific, & effective process of approving & regulating the use of pesticides by the EPA in partnership with VDACS. The process is comprehensive; it takes over a decade to test & review each new chemistry. It includes regular re-evaluation of each pesticide, using new data & mandatory adverse effect reporting. This process is governed by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the VA Pesticide Control Act, & the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The EPA is the only US government agency with the technical & scientific capability to independently integrate the data developed through mandatory scientific testing & conduct a comprehensive risk assessment that takes account of risk to the environment & to members of the public, with a particular focus on vulnerable sub-populations, such as infants, children, the elderly, & pregnant women. By process, the EPA works to identify each pesticide’s “safety threshold”, which is the dose that has been shown to cause no observable adverse effects (NOAEL) in the most sensitive species at the most sensitive development stage. The FQPA stipulates that the regulated dose must be 10-1000 times lower than the NOAEL to account for the fact that pesticides are tested on animals, that people across a population may vary in their response, & to address any potential risk to children. The EPA also accounts for situations where people who work with the pesticide will contact it, such as during manufacture, mixing, applying, or working in areas where pesticides have been applied. Only after this will the EPA decide whether the pesticide can be approved, and, if so, how it should be used. Paraquat is a Restricted Use Pesticide, a designation that provides additional protection on top of those already described. Members of the public cannot access this pesticide. In addition, it may only be applied by a licensed certified pesticide applicator. In 2021, after an extensive review of the most current scientific data, the EPA under the Biden administration re-approved the use of paraquat in the U.S., but with further safety measures & restrictions on how & by whom it may be used. Specific to Parkinson’s Disease, the EPA found insufficient scientific evidence to establish a direct causal link to the disease from paraquat. The EPA adapts as new evidence is provided, thus in late 2025, the EPA reversed portions of the 2021 re-approval decision due to heightened concerns with volatilization & is now reconsidering risks related to inhalation. The system being used for such assessment & regulation of pesticide use has been in place for decades. It is constantly under review, & pesticides are regularly reassessed based on new scientific evidence & mandatory adverse effect reporting. It is effectively protecting the general public, PMPs, & the environment from harmful chemistries while allowing the legitimate & necessary use of appropriate pesticides to continue. It’s the same system that banned DDT in the U.S. in 1972. It’s working right now to reassess the risks associated with paraquat. The EPA is an objective & highly competent assessor of pesticide risks & regulations. It collaborates with VDACS to ensure regulations reflect the needs of Virginians & the conditions in the Commonwealth. The VPMA urges the Committee to let the current system function as designed, & not to undermine it by adopting HB1375.

If you’re tired of the 9-to-5 grind or just want a way to put some extra cash in your pocket every week, I have something for you. Companies are currently looking for remote writers to handle: Article Writing Blog Posts Social Media Content Live Chat Support No experience is necessary and full training is provided. But before you apply, you need to see which role you’re best suited for. Go here to take the Writing Job Quiz. ---> http://PaidToWrite.Online/ Once you finish the quiz, you’ll get a breakdown of the best opportunities available for you right now. Visit -----> http://PaidToWrite.Online/

Invasives should be pulled or killed by herbicide and not be permitted to be sold in nurseries

Please support HB402. It will allow small cottage foods producers to grow reach a larger consumer base, without the need to upgrade to a commercial kitchen, which is exceedingly expensive and lots of red tape for permitting. This is also a way to make it less restrictive for anyone wanting to get started with home produced uninspected foods which will support independence and community food resilience and keep revenue cycling within the local economy.