New York Worker Sues 3 Pesticide Makers Over Chlorpyrifos-Parkinson's Link
Updated
Updated · The New Lede · Jun 22
New York Worker Sues 3 Pesticide Makers Over Chlorpyrifos-Parkinson's Link
1 articles · Updated · The New Lede · Jun 22
Summary
Alexander Ramos, a former pest control worker from Selden, New York, sued Dow Chemical, Corteva and FMC in Philadelphia court, alleging chlorpyrifos exposure caused his Parkinson's disease and that the companies concealed the risk.
Aimee Wagstaff, Ramos's lawyer, called it the first lawsuit tying chlorpyrifos to Parkinson's and said more are likely as mass-tort firms already recruit similar plaintiffs.
December research cited in the case found people in California farm communities with long-term chlorpyrifos exposure were more than twice as likely to later develop Parkinson's disease; UCLA neurologist Jeff Bronstein said the evidence is strong.
Chlorpyrifos was widely used for decades before most home uses were phased out in the early 2000s, and the EPA now allows only limited agricultural use after courts overturned a broader food-crop ban.
The suit adds to widening pesticide litigation that already includes more than 100,000 glyphosate claims against Bayer and over 8,000 paraquat-Parkinson's cases against Syngenta.
This landmark lawsuit targets one pesticide. Could thousands of similar legal challenges against other chemicals follow?
Science links a common pesticide to Parkinson's. Why is it still approved for use on some American foods?
Chlorpyrifos and Parkinson’s: The 2026 Alexander Ramos Lawsuit, Scientific Breakthroughs, and the Battle for Pesticide Accountability
Overview
In 2026, Alexander Ramos filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against Dow Chemical, Corteva, and FMC Corp, directly linking his Parkinson's disease to long-term exposure to chlorpyrifos. This case is the first to explicitly connect the pesticide to Parkinson's, opening a new legal front and potentially setting a precedent for future claims. Ramos alleges that the companies knew about the health risks but failed to warn the public or take action. The lawsuit highlights growing scientific evidence and increasing scrutiny of industry practices, signaling a major shift in the legal and public health battle over chlorpyrifos.