Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How Rapa Nui Lost a Tree, Only to Have It Sprout Up Elsewhere

News Feed
Tuesday, March 26, 2024

The tree that goes by toromiro has been a fragile expat for more than a half-century. Little Sophora toromiro, is far from home, no longer present on Rapa Nui, the Pacific island where it evolved. Also known as Easter Island, or Isla de Pascua in Spanish, Rapa Nui is a speck of land in the Pacific, 2,200 miles from the west coast of Chile. The tiny island encompasses just 63 square miles, and it is quite flat, with a maximum elevation of less than 1,700 feet. The last date of the toromiro’s tenure on Rapa Nui is uncertain. Some accounts say it went extinct in the wild in 1960. Others say that it was gone by 1962, when Karl Schanz, a German meteorologist, clambered down to see the tree in the crater where it had last been spotted, and it was gone. Was it removed? Did it die, tip over and return to the earth? We will never know. Although the toromiro is gone from Rapa Nui, it survives elsewhere through luck—and pluck. Over the past century, the intermittent collecting of the toromiro’s seeds and their replanting in mainland locations have given the species purchase elsewhere. Each tree is a member of a small diaspora, with only a handful surviving in about a dozen different public and private botanical gardens around the world. This is a story of survival, persistence and, perhaps in some ways, dumb luck—a tree in decline that was rescued and whose seeds were sent to other places. Mention Easter Island to almost anyone, and if they’ve heard of it, they’ve likely heard of its statues. Imprinted in the popular imagination are its enigmatic, massive stone sculptures, or moai. Curious investigators have speculated for more than two centuries about how more than 900 of these mysterious statues—the largest being more than 30 feet tall and weighing over 80 tons—might have been moved to locations around the island, traveling miles from the site where they were quarried. The toromiro, though, is an invisible tree on the island, its story known to very few, and its existence marked more by its absence than its presence. The tree does have many close relatives. The Sophora genus is speciose, as biologists say—a crowded taxon consisting of some 60 different species, including a dozen closely related oceanic ones scattered across the Pacific. The toromiro is more of a shrub than a tree, and none of its close relatives is large—at least from descriptions recorded over the past century. The northernmost outpost for the Sophora genus is in Hawaiʻi, where Sophora chrysophylla is the primary food source for the palila, a critically endangered honeycreeper. Without S. chrysophylla, known as mamane in Hawaiian, the palila would not have survived the last century as its range dwindled. The subterranean pollen record reveals that the toromiro was abundant across much of Rapa Nui, where many other now-extinct plants also thrived. Paleobotanical evidence shows that the tree’s presence on the island dates back at least 35,000 years. Its seeds are both buoyant and salt-resistant, and they probably first arrived by water, floating onto the island, probably from another Pacific island, and then it did what species do: continued its evolutionary journey in a new place to become the tree we know today. But even before the toromiro disappeared from the island, it had been without a lot of endemic companions. Fewer than 30 indigenous seed-bearing plant species have survived on Rapa Nui to the present day, and weeds, along with naturalized, cultivated shrubs, are now the main plants growing there. The toromiro did not disappear precipitously but experienced a protracted decline. Humans arrived in Rapa Nui around the 12th century, probably not long after Polynesians reached the Hawaiian archipelago. Some hundreds of years after humans’ arrival, the island experienced a painful drop in biodiversity, and its carrying capacity plummeted as the native palm forests disappeared, replaced by grasslands. Food grew scarce, and occupants fled, thinning down to around 100 Rapa Nui at one point in the 19th century. In his deterministic 2005 book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jared Diamond claimed the occupants were lousy land managers. His analysis of why Rapa Nui became denuded of its plant life is now out of date, as later studies have revealed the island’s complexities. To sketch the story of the weakening grip of native plant life on Rapa Nui as a predictable story of human arrogance intersecting with a small, remote and evolutionarily vulnerable spit of land is tempting, but the tale is more nuanced than that. Natives there recorded centuries-old histories of careful but intermittent conservation strategies. Some scholars have asserted that the Little Ice Age stressed resources on the island between the 16th and 19th centuries, leading to the disappearance of palms and other important contributors to the islanders’ activities and well-being. Others have pointed to prolonged droughts, while still others have continued to argue that humans were highly complicit in the island’s declining biodiversity. Were groves of palm trees decimated to create systems for rolling the giant stone carvings from quarry to coastline, where most of them have sat for many hundreds of years? Perhaps. However the palms disappeared, their loss seems to have been a factor in the tumbling downturn of the island’s other trees, including the toromiro. The palms had made up the great majority of Rapa Nui’s tree cover, some 16 million trees that blanketed about 70 percent of the island. Some controversy remains about what particular species of palm flourished, but many believe it was Paschalococos disperta, the Rapa Nui palm. Jaime Espejo, a Chilean botanist who’s written extensively about the toromiro, noted that it probably lived in the undergrowth of the palm, lodged in an ancient ecosystem that no longer exists. Paleobotanists and archaeologists studying the island spotted the widespread loss of the palms in their investigations. At the same time, they found that the number of fish bones found in waste middens around the island dropped as fishing boats could no longer be constructed in large numbers from trees. The loss of access to fish must have been a devastating turn, because the human residents’ main proteins came from the sea. Soil erosion, likely exacerbated by deforestation and agriculture, led to further losses of the tree. Hooved animals, arriving with European explorers in the 18th century, were also certain culprits in the toromiro’s decline and disappearance. In Hawaiʻi, sheep consume that archipelago’s species of Sophora. Another creature implicated in the destruction of much of both Rapa Nui’s and Hawaiʻi’s plant life was the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans), as well as the bigger ship rat (Rattus rattus) and Norwegian rat (Rattus norvegicus). These rats, landing on new island homes and able to reproduce quickly, found abundant food in the form of native seeds, plants and invertebrates—and no predators. They laid waste to plant life with shocking speed. An aerial view of a toromiro in Barcelona, Spain Daderot via Wikimedia CC0 Early European accounts and pollen records tell us that by about 1600, forests in the island’s craters had disappeared, and, with that, the toromiro declined into long-term scarcity and then extirpation. The New Zealand anthropologist Steven Fischer has noted that the last forest was probably cut for firewood around 1640, making wood the most valuable commodity on the island. Driftwood became precious. So scarce was wood, Fischer observes, that the pan-Polynesian word rakau, meaning “tree,” “timber” or “wood,” came to mean “riches” or “wealth” in the old Rapa Nui language—a meaning not present in any other use of the word elsewhere in Polynesia, including in Tahiti, Tonga, Hawaiʻi and New Zealand. It’s ironic that after the deforestation of the island’s trees, new linguistic meanings sprouted out of the island’s impending botanical doom. Amid these centuries-long difficulties, but long before the toromiro disappeared, a wood-based culture thrived. The Rapa Nui had a particular passion for carving; beyond their giant stone statues, they favored the toromiro for its durable and fine-grained wood and reddish hue. Although primarily used for ritual objects, the toromiro was also serviceable for building material in houses, household utensils, statuettes and paddles. These artifacts survive in museums around the world. Some of them are hundreds of years old, and they might provide unexpected addenda to our understandings of the tree’s deeper history, offered up through dendrochronological analysis. Studying the annual growth rings in the wood could provide details we lack: the pace of growth of the wood, environmental pressures acting on the tree, its ultimate size and many of the other clues revealed through laboratory work with wood specimens. Part of our lack of knowledge about the tree’s wood is because it has always been uncommon on the island, at least since Western contact. Rapa Nui came with inherent geographic disadvantages for plant survival, including few sheltered habitats with steep hillsides or deep ravines in which toromiro could remain hidden away from humans. The three volcanic craters on the island are the only such hiding places. In 1911, the Chilean botanist Francisco Fuentes noted that the toromiro was rare, only to be found in Rano Kau, the largest of the craters. The Swedish botanist Carl Skottsberg, who also worked on Hawaiian flora, visited Rano Kau in 1917 and found only a single specimen. A compelling global exploration of nature and survival as seen through a dozen species of trees. The final contact with the tree on its native soil occurred when the Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl collected seeds from the last surviving example. This was likely the same tree that Skottsberg had found in the shelter of Rano Kau. The egg-shaped crater is about a mile across and has its own microclimate, largely out of the winds and weather, and protected from grazing ungulates by a rock formation. Foot traffic remained down in the last century, as little else lives in the crater that can be harvested or cut down. Innumerable swampy pockets of water make the area difficult to traverse. A beautiful, multicolored, shallow lake of open water and floating mats of peat cover much of the bottom of the crater. There, the tiny toromiro held on. Heyerdahl, who had already been traveling around the Pacific Ocean in the 1940s, became famous, or infamous, for floating a radical new theory: that the islands in the Pacific had been populated initially by American Indians from the mainland of South America, rather than by people from Asia or from other Polynesian islands. In 1947, he launched an expedition with a primitive raft named Kon-Tiki and made a 5,000-mile journey, heading west from Peru. What’s often lost in the voluminous writings about Heyerdahl and his oceanfaring obsessions was his interest in Rapa Nui. Björn Aldén, a Swedish botanist with the Gothenburg Botanical Garden, became friends with Heyerdahl and has worked to return the toromiro to its native land. In a letter to Björn, Heyerdahl decried the “tankelöse treskjaerere,” or “thoughtless woodcutters.” He noted how good it felt to have helped to save the species by collecting a handful of seeds that hung from the tree’s sole remaining branch. Heyerdahl couldn’t recount the exact date, or even the year, but thought it was sometime in late 1955 or early 1956. Heyerdahl handed the seeds off to paleobotanist Olaf Selling in Stockholm. They went to Gothenburg from there. Locals have a strain of national pride in Gothenburg for their role in the tree’s cultivation and survival. But recently, researchers in Chile discovered that another botanist preceded Heyerdahl in getting seeds off the island. Efraín Volosky Yadlin, an Argentinian-born immigrant, participated in the first agronomic studies on Rapa Nui. Sent there by the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture in the early 1950s, Volosky Yadlin collected seeds, apparently from the same tree that Heyerdahl would come upon a few years later, and proceeded to carry out his own propagation tests on the toromiro. Now the tree remains far afield, surviving in about a dozen locations around the world, mostly in botanical gardens including in Chile, in London and in southern France. Ultimately, researchers want to return the toromiro to Rapa Nui. But the tree still confronts challenges to surviving on its native ground, including a lack of genetic diversity and degraded soil on Rapa Nui. Past efforts to reestablish the tree have failed, but botanists are doing their best to overcome these hurdles. More studies will help researchers understand just what it will take to help the tree take root back on Rapa Nui and successfully end a long and difficult voyage. Excerpted from Twelve Trees: The Deep Roots of Our Future by Daniel Lewis. Published by Avid Reader Press / Simon & Schuster. Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. Get the latest Science stories in your inbox. A Note to our Readers Smithsonian magazine participates in affiliate link advertising programs. If you purchase an item through these links, we receive a commission.

Before the toromiro disappeared from the island, at least two men grabbed seeds from the last remaining plant and brought them home

The tree that goes by toromiro has been a fragile expat for more than a half-century. Little Sophora toromiro, is far from home, no longer present on Rapa Nui, the Pacific island where it evolved. Also known as Easter Island, or Isla de Pascua in Spanish, Rapa Nui is a speck of land in the Pacific, 2,200 miles from the west coast of Chile. The tiny island encompasses just 63 square miles, and it is quite flat, with a maximum elevation of less than 1,700 feet.

The last date of the toromiro’s tenure on Rapa Nui is uncertain. Some accounts say it went extinct in the wild in 1960. Others say that it was gone by 1962, when Karl Schanz, a German meteorologist, clambered down to see the tree in the crater where it had last been spotted, and it was gone. Was it removed? Did it die, tip over and return to the earth? We will never know. Although the toromiro is gone from Rapa Nui, it survives elsewhere through luck—and pluck. Over the past century, the intermittent collecting of the toromiro’s seeds and their replanting in mainland locations have given the species purchase elsewhere. Each tree is a member of a small diaspora, with only a handful surviving in about a dozen different public and private botanical gardens around the world. This is a story of survival, persistence and, perhaps in some ways, dumb luck—a tree in decline that was rescued and whose seeds were sent to other places.


Mention Easter Island to almost anyone, and if they’ve heard of it, they’ve likely heard of its statues. Imprinted in the popular imagination are its enigmatic, massive stone sculptures, or moai. Curious investigators have speculated for more than two centuries about how more than 900 of these mysterious statues—the largest being more than 30 feet tall and weighing over 80 tons—might have been moved to locations around the island, traveling miles from the site where they were quarried. The toromiro, though, is an invisible tree on the island, its story known to very few, and its existence marked more by its absence than its presence.

The tree does have many close relatives. The Sophora genus is speciose, as biologists say—a crowded taxon consisting of some 60 different species, including a dozen closely related oceanic ones scattered across the Pacific. The toromiro is more of a shrub than a tree, and none of its close relatives is large—at least from descriptions recorded over the past century. The northernmost outpost for the Sophora genus is in Hawaiʻi, where Sophora chrysophylla is the primary food source for the palila, a critically endangered honeycreeper. Without S. chrysophylla, known as mamane in Hawaiian, the palila would not have survived the last century as its range dwindled.

The subterranean pollen record reveals that the toromiro was abundant across much of Rapa Nui, where many other now-extinct plants also thrived. Paleobotanical evidence shows that the tree’s presence on the island dates back at least 35,000 years. Its seeds are both buoyant and salt-resistant, and they probably first arrived by water, floating onto the island, probably from another Pacific island, and then it did what species do: continued its evolutionary journey in a new place to become the tree we know today. But even before the toromiro disappeared from the island, it had been without a lot of endemic companions. Fewer than 30 indigenous seed-bearing plant species have survived on Rapa Nui to the present day, and weeds, along with naturalized, cultivated shrubs, are now the main plants growing there.

The toromiro did not disappear precipitously but experienced a protracted decline. Humans arrived in Rapa Nui around the 12th century, probably not long after Polynesians reached the Hawaiian archipelago. Some hundreds of years after humans’ arrival, the island experienced a painful drop in biodiversity, and its carrying capacity plummeted as the native palm forests disappeared, replaced by grasslands. Food grew scarce, and occupants fled, thinning down to around 100 Rapa Nui at one point in the 19th century. In his deterministic 2005 book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jared Diamond claimed the occupants were lousy land managers. His analysis of why Rapa Nui became denuded of its plant life is now out of date, as later studies have revealed the island’s complexities. To sketch the story of the weakening grip of native plant life on Rapa Nui as a predictable story of human arrogance intersecting with a small, remote and evolutionarily vulnerable spit of land is tempting, but the tale is more nuanced than that. Natives there recorded centuries-old histories of careful but intermittent conservation strategies. Some scholars have asserted that the Little Ice Age stressed resources on the island between the 16th and 19th centuries, leading to the disappearance of palms and other important contributors to the islanders’ activities and well-being. Others have pointed to prolonged droughts, while still others have continued to argue that humans were highly complicit in the island’s declining biodiversity. Were groves of palm trees decimated to create systems for rolling the giant stone carvings from quarry to coastline, where most of them have sat for many hundreds of years? Perhaps.

However the palms disappeared, their loss seems to have been a factor in the tumbling downturn of the island’s other trees, including the toromiro. The palms had made up the great majority of Rapa Nui’s tree cover, some 16 million trees that blanketed about 70 percent of the island. Some controversy remains about what particular species of palm flourished, but many believe it was Paschalococos disperta, the Rapa Nui palm. Jaime Espejo, a Chilean botanist who’s written extensively about the toromiro, noted that it probably lived in the undergrowth of the palm, lodged in an ancient ecosystem that no longer exists. Paleobotanists and archaeologists studying the island spotted the widespread loss of the palms in their investigations. At the same time, they found that the number of fish bones found in waste middens around the island dropped as fishing boats could no longer be constructed in large numbers from trees. The loss of access to fish must have been a devastating turn, because the human residents’ main proteins came from the sea.

Soil erosion, likely exacerbated by deforestation and agriculture, led to further losses of the tree. Hooved animals, arriving with European explorers in the 18th century, were also certain culprits in the toromiro’s decline and disappearance. In Hawaiʻi, sheep consume that archipelago’s species of Sophora. Another creature implicated in the destruction of much of both Rapa Nui’s and Hawaiʻi’s plant life was the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans), as well as the bigger ship rat (Rattus rattus) and Norwegian rat (Rattus norvegicus). These rats, landing on new island homes and able to reproduce quickly, found abundant food in the form of native seeds, plants and invertebrates—and no predators. They laid waste to plant life with shocking speed.

Aerial of Sophora Toromiro
An aerial view of a toromiro in Barcelona, Spain Daderot via Wikimedia CC0

Early European accounts and pollen records tell us that by about 1600, forests in the island’s craters had disappeared, and, with that, the toromiro declined into long-term scarcity and then extirpation. The New Zealand anthropologist Steven Fischer has noted that the last forest was probably cut for firewood around 1640, making wood the most valuable commodity on the island. Driftwood became precious. So scarce was wood, Fischer observes, that the pan-Polynesian word rakau, meaning “tree,” “timber” or “wood,” came to mean “riches” or “wealth” in the old Rapa Nui language—a meaning not present in any other use of the word elsewhere in Polynesia, including in Tahiti, Tonga, Hawaiʻi and New Zealand. It’s ironic that after the deforestation of the island’s trees, new linguistic meanings sprouted out of the island’s impending botanical doom.

Amid these centuries-long difficulties, but long before the toromiro disappeared, a wood-based culture thrived. The Rapa Nui had a particular passion for carving; beyond their giant stone statues, they favored the toromiro for its durable and fine-grained wood and reddish hue. Although primarily used for ritual objects, the toromiro was also serviceable for building material in houses, household utensils, statuettes and paddles. These artifacts survive in museums around the world. Some of them are hundreds of years old, and they might provide unexpected addenda to our understandings of the tree’s deeper history, offered up through dendrochronological analysis. Studying the annual growth rings in the wood could provide details we lack: the pace of growth of the wood, environmental pressures acting on the tree, its ultimate size and many of the other clues revealed through laboratory work with wood specimens.

Part of our lack of knowledge about the tree’s wood is because it has always been uncommon on the island, at least since Western contact. Rapa Nui came with inherent geographic disadvantages for plant survival, including few sheltered habitats with steep hillsides or deep ravines in which toromiro could remain hidden away from humans. The three volcanic craters on the island are the only such hiding places. In 1911, the Chilean botanist Francisco Fuentes noted that the toromiro was rare, only to be found in Rano Kau, the largest of the craters. The Swedish botanist Carl Skottsberg, who also worked on Hawaiian flora, visited Rano Kau in 1917 and found only a single specimen.

A compelling global exploration of nature and survival as seen through a dozen species of trees.

The final contact with the tree on its native soil occurred when the Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl collected seeds from the last surviving example. This was likely the same tree that Skottsberg had found in the shelter of Rano Kau. The egg-shaped crater is about a mile across and has its own microclimate, largely out of the winds and weather, and protected from grazing ungulates by a rock formation. Foot traffic remained down in the last century, as little else lives in the crater that can be harvested or cut down. Innumerable swampy pockets of water make the area difficult to traverse. A beautiful, multicolored, shallow lake of open water and floating mats of peat cover much of the bottom of the crater. There, the tiny toromiro held on.

Heyerdahl, who had already been traveling around the Pacific Ocean in the 1940s, became famous, or infamous, for floating a radical new theory: that the islands in the Pacific had been populated initially by American Indians from the mainland of South America, rather than by people from Asia or from other Polynesian islands. In 1947, he launched an expedition with a primitive raft named Kon-Tiki and made a 5,000-mile journey, heading west from Peru.

What’s often lost in the voluminous writings about Heyerdahl and his oceanfaring obsessions was his interest in Rapa Nui. Björn Aldén, a Swedish botanist with the Gothenburg Botanical Garden, became friends with Heyerdahl and has worked to return the toromiro to its native land. In a letter to Björn, Heyerdahl decried the “tankelöse treskjaerere,” or “thoughtless woodcutters.” He noted how good it felt to have helped to save the species by collecting a handful of seeds that hung from the tree’s sole remaining branch. Heyerdahl couldn’t recount the exact date, or even the year, but thought it was sometime in late 1955 or early 1956. Heyerdahl handed the seeds off to paleobotanist Olaf Selling in Stockholm. They went to Gothenburg from there.

Locals have a strain of national pride in Gothenburg for their role in the tree’s cultivation and survival. But recently, researchers in Chile discovered that another botanist preceded Heyerdahl in getting seeds off the island. Efraín Volosky Yadlin, an Argentinian-born immigrant, participated in the first agronomic studies on Rapa Nui. Sent there by the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture in the early 1950s, Volosky Yadlin collected seeds, apparently from the same tree that Heyerdahl would come upon a few years later, and proceeded to carry out his own propagation tests on the toromiro.

Now the tree remains far afield, surviving in about a dozen locations around the world, mostly in botanical gardens including in Chile, in London and in southern France. Ultimately, researchers want to return the toromiro to Rapa Nui. But the tree still confronts challenges to surviving on its native ground, including a lack of genetic diversity and degraded soil on Rapa Nui. Past efforts to reestablish the tree have failed, but botanists are doing their best to overcome these hurdles. More studies will help researchers understand just what it will take to help the tree take root back on Rapa Nui and successfully end a long and difficult voyage.

Excerpted from Twelve Trees: The Deep Roots of Our Future by Daniel Lewis. Published by Avid Reader Press / Simon & Schuster. Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.

Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

A Note to our Readers
Smithsonian magazine participates in affiliate link advertising programs. If you purchase an item through these links, we receive a commission.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Help in trying times: See how the 2025 Season of Sharing campaign is assisting Oregonians in need

The Oregonian/OregonLive’s annual fundraising campaign is making a different to seniors, at-risk youth and people experiencing homelessness.

This has been a year of financial uncertainty for many Oregonians. Consumers have continued to face challenging prices due to inflation and tariffs, and many nonprofit organizations have had to pinch pennies after seeing federal funds cut significantly or eliminated altogether in many cases.That reality makes it particularly gratifying to see Oregonians come together to support our annual Season of Sharing holiday fundraising campaign.This year’s campaign tells the stories of 14 nonprofits working to make Oregonians’ lives better in a variety of ways, ranging from groups helping seniors experiencing food insecurity and isolation to organizations helping people experiencing homelessness find stability and a way forward.Donations to the campaign, administered by The Oregonian/OregonLive’s charitable arm, Oregonian Public Benefits Inc., will be divided among the nonprofits as unrestricted grants. The Season of Sharing campaign is accepting donations, which are tax deductible, through Dec. 31. The more that comes in, the more each nonprofit will receive.Online donations can be made at oregonlive.com/sharing or the 2025 Season of Sharing Give Lively page. You can also Text the code Season2025 to 44-321.Donations can also be made by mail: Make a check out to Oregonian Media Group Season of Sharing and send it to Oregonian Season of Sharing, c/o Oregonians Credit Union, 336 N.E. 20th Ave., Portland, OR 97232.Related: Editorial: In tough times, the community is our safety net.These are the 14 nonprofit organizations featured in the 2025 Season of Sharing campaign.Kira Akito, a former foster youth, formed a long-time connection with Court Appointed Special Advocate Dick Ross, who helped Akito navigate foster placements and find independent living resources.Sami EdgeCASA of Central OregonCASA of Central Oregon advocates for children in the foster care system. They recruit and train volunteers to become Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) who work directly with kids, ensuring their voices are heard in court and that their needs are met. With many children waiting for advocates, CASA plays a crucial role in providing stability and support during a challenging time in children’s lives. The volunteers build meaningful relationships with these kids, helping them navigate the complexities of the foster care system and ultimately aiming to improve their futures.“Every child deserves someone who is in their court and rooting for them and getting to know them, and (to) have a consistent figure in their life during that process,” said Debbie Ross, 69 and a CASA volunteer for the last five years.Read the story.From Left: Community Supported Shelters board member Ken Beeson, co-executive director Heather Quaas-Annsa, development director Jennifer Yeh, former resident D.J. Williams and service navigation manager Mellinda Poor pose for a photograph in October 2025.Zane Sparling/The OregonianCommunity Supported SheltersCommunity Supported Shelters addresses homelessness in the Eugene area by providing innovative and supportive housing solutions. The nonprofit works to create a safe and welcoming environment for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, offering not just shelter but also resources to help them get back on their feet. Through a model that emphasizes community involvement and support, the organization engages residents in the process, helping those in need find stability and a path to a brighter future.“It’s like a stepping stool, and it makes you feel like a human,” said 45-year-old Zechariah Boesman, who lived in one of the shelters’ innovative “Conestoga Huts” at one time and now is a maintenance technician for the nonprofit. “It’s just refreshing to know that this organization takes the time and cares the way they do.”Read the story.Hezekiah Franklin was once a guest of the Daytime Drop-In Center, but now works there as a staff member.Tatum Todd/The OregonianCorvallis Drop-in CenterThe Corvallis Daytime Drop-in Center has been a vital resource for homeless individuals in Benton County and surrounding areas for over 20 years, providing essential services during the day when many shelters are closed. Welcoming 60-100 guests daily, the center also reaches out to those living in tents, cars and RVs, offering support that includes mental health services, housing assistance and addiction recovery resources. The center aims to combat social exclusion and stigma, treating everyone with dignity and respect.Hezekiah Franklin, 48, knows what the center does from experience: He’s experienced homelessness in the past, and first came to the center two decades ago. Now, as part of the center’s staff, he spends his days using his own experience to help others navigate similar situations.“I’ve been on both sides of the fence,” he told The Oregonian/OregonLive. “I don’t get burned out on compassion and stuff like that because like I’ve been there before.”Read the story.Kayli Duprest is the Director of Operations for the Domestic Violence Resource Center in Beaverton, Oregon.Allison Barr/The OregonianDomestic Violence Resource CenterThe Domestic Violence Resource Center is dedicated to supporting and empowering survivors of domestic violence and their children through three key programs: Advocacy & Empowerment, Counseling Services, and Housing/Shelter Services. The center offers free individual and group counseling for all ages, including specialized trauma treatment methods like art therapy. DVRC provides a confidential emergency shelter, a transitional home, and an independent housing program with rental support and case management.“To have people out there advocating for you to be safe is really special,” said Alicia, a survivor of abuse who asked that her last name not be used. “You’re not stuck. There’s a brighter light on the other side if you just take that chance.”Read the story.Profile photo of Tia Topley, of Kindred Matters, in Northeast Portland on Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2025. Kindred Matters is a Northwest organization that funds and hosts camp opportunities for children who are in foster/state care and separated from siblingsSean Meagher/The OregonianKindred MattersKindred Matters has been reuniting foster siblings for the past 20 years through summer camps designed to strengthen their bonds. Founded by Karyn and Charley Schimmels, the organization has helped around 3,700 children in state care reconnect with their siblings, offering them a chance to share experiences and create lasting memories together. With three camp locations and activities tailored to foster those important sibling relationships, Kindred Matters makes a difference in the lives of children who often face the challenges of separation in the foster care system.Tia Topley and her brother attended one of the camps each summer for eight years, starting when she was 8. Now 29, she says the camps were a refuge from the tumult of the rest of the year and a cherished chance to see her brother, who was living in another state with relatives. “It was the most magical experience anyone could go through,” she said. “I was so happy and loved.”Read the story.Barbara Johnson in her apartment in Union Manor.Lizzy Acker/The OregonianMeals on Wheels PeopleMeals on Wheels People delivers nutritious meals to seniors and individuals in need, ensuring they have access to healthy food right at their doorstep. Beyond just providing meals, the service also offers a friendly visit from volunteers, which helps combat loneliness and fosters a sense of community among older adults. Meals on Wheels People nourishes both the body and the spirit by connecting people and creating lasting relationships. Their work is vital in helping seniors maintain their independence and quality of life.“It’s friends helping friends,” said Barbara Johnson, 75, who is one of the 11,500 people the group helped in the past year. “I don’t know where I’d be if they didn’t have such a system. I really don’t.”Read the story.Each puppet in “¡Alebrijes!” was handmade by Yosmel López Ortiz, who honed his puppetry craft over many years in Cuba before joining Milagro Theatre.Chiara ProfennaMilagro TheatreMilagro Theatre celebrates and promotes Latino arts and culture through a variety of engaging programs and performances. The group focuses on providing a platform for Latino artists, showcasing their work in theater, music and visual arts, while also offering educational opportunities for the community. Milagro aims to foster a deeper understanding and appreciation of Latino heritage, creating a space where diverse voices can be heard and celebrated.“We’re looking at how we continue to develop creativity in all aspects,” said Milagro’s founder, José Eduardo González y Salazar. “Exploring the lives and stories of Latinos, and what kind of contributions and traditions that they hold to hopefully expand the picture of what being a Latino is.”Read the story.Lauren Eads, Director of Development and Communication, and Kirsten Willis, Community Based Housing Program Coordinator, revisit a playful memory outside the New Avenues for Youth headquarters in Northwest Portland.Sean SterlingNew Avenues for YouthNew Avenues for Youth empowers homeless and at-risk youth to achieve self-sufficiency. They provide a range of services, including housing support, job training and educational programs, all designed to help young people build the skills and confidence they need to thrive.“New Avenues helps these 9- to 25-year-olds get to a next stage in life,” says Kirsten Willis, the organization’s Community Based Housing Program coordinator. “They can become survivors instead of just victims of houselessness.”Read the story.Julia Stults is swarmed with puppies as part of a visit organized by nonprofit Pile of Puppies. The then-10 year old received a puppy visit in 2019.Courtesy of Dina StultsPile of PuppiesPile of Puppies brings joy and comfort to children facing serious illnesses through the therapeutic power of puppies. By organizing visits where friendly puppies interact with these young patients, the agency creates moments of pure happiness. These furry companions not only provide emotional support but also help reduce stress and anxiety, allowing children to momentarily forget their worries and focus on the joy of play. Each wagging tail and playful bark fosters a sense of connection and love, reminding these kids that they are not alone in their journey.“Having chronic illness as a kid, there are so many downsides,” said Julia Stults, 16, who got a Pile of Puppies visit when she was 10. “It’s those little, tiny special things that are like, ‘Yeah, having (ulcerative colitis) sucks, but then I wouldn’t get all the puppies.’”Read the story.Paid interns stock merchandise inside Project Lemonade at the Lloyd Center mall. The store provides a free shopping experience for youth in foster care.Samantha Swindler/ The OregonianProject LemonadeProject Lemonade provides support and resources to youth in foster care, helping them navigate the challenges they face. One of the nonprofit’s standout initiatives is an unusual store at Lloyd Center where foster kids can shop for new clothes and school supplies, all at no cost to them. Project Lemonade not only ensures that these kids have the essentials they need for school but also helps them feel valued and supported.“So much of their life is doing something that makes them feel different,” said Lindsey McDonnell, Project Lemonade’s executive director. “It’s a very isolating experience to be in foster care, so we want this to feel like the kind of thing that any other kid would do.”Read the story.Chelsey Passon, Safety Compass Manager of Communications, poses for a portrait outside of the organization’s office at the Family Resource Center in Woodburn.Abigail Landwehr/The OregonianSafety CompassSafety Compass promotes safety and well-being for survivors of human trafficking. The organization provides comprehensive training and resources that emphasize personal safety, emergency preparedness and self-advocacy, empowering individuals to navigate their environments with confidence. By addressing the unique vulnerabilities survivors face, Safety Compass offers support and education that helps them build a safer future.“It’s such a beautiful thing to watch this survivor go from like … ‘There’s nothing out there’ to like that spark of ‘Actually maybe there’s another option’ to five to 10 years down the road where their life is completely changed,” said Chelsey Passon, a trafficking survivor who is now the communications manager for the organization. “It’s truly a privilege to be able to hear someone’s story and witness it and to be able to sit there and say, ‘Hey … you don’t have to navigate this alone.’”Read the story.Kassandra Ball, walking in Ashland's Lithia Park on Nov. 9, is an English and Spanish speaker from Laredo, Texas, with a master's degree from Oregon Health & Science University, who sees patients at La Clinica's Central Point Health Center.Bob Palermini, www.palermini.comSouthern Oregon Alliance of PhysiciansThe Southern Oregon Alliance of Physicians is a dedicated group of healthcare professionals committed to improving the health and well-being of communities in southern Oregon. The alliance focuses on fostering collaboration among physicians and healthcare providers to enhance patient care and address local health challenges. By working together, they aim to share resources, knowledge and best practices, ensuring that everyone in the region has access to quality healthcare.Dan Weiner, a family medicine physician and chief medical officer of Rogue Community Health’s five clinics, helped found SOAPP and continues to volunteer. “We believe access to high quality healthcare is a big component of a thriving community,” Weiner said, “and SOAPP allows us to partner with others who share that vision.”Read the story.Students from four different elementary schools in the Canby School District partake in the High Dose Tutoring offered by Todos Juntos.Yesenia Amaro | The Oregonian/OregonLiveTodos JuntosTodos Juntos strengthens families and communities by offering a variety of support programs aimed at empowering youth and families. The nonprofit’s mission focuses on creating connections that inspire and educate, like the new initiative High Dose Tutoring, offered free of charge for students recommended by four schools in the Canby School District.“Our focus is to increase their reading comprehension because a lot of them are struggling,” said Fatima López, community liaison for Todos Juntos at the Canby School District, where programming is focused on children in second and third grade. “Those two grades just make more sense because those are the ones that need a little bit more support.”Read the story.Deborah Marion picks up her CSA share at Zenger Farm in southeast Portland with her three kids, who enjoy the fall bounty from the nonprofit urban farm. Jamie Hale/The OregonianZenger FarmZenger Farm is an urban farm dedicated to making good food accessible to everyone while promoting sustainable practices and community development. The farm’s mission revolves around educating the public about food systems and environmental stewardship. And the farm offers a community-supported agriculture program the allows people to buy produce directly from farms with monthly payments for “shares” of the crop.“It’s not just my kids taking their space,” said Deborah Marion, who has been a member of the farm’s CSA for about a decade. “The farmers are so kind and welcoming to them and make them feel this sense of home and belonging here.”Read the story.

Brown bears in central Italy are becoming less aggressive

As Apennine brown bears learned to co-exist with humans in central Italy, they evolved to become smaller and less aggressive, according to a new DNA study. The post Brown bears in central Italy are becoming less aggressive first appeared on EarthSky.

According to a new study, Apennine brown bears have become less aggressive and smaller in size after a long history of close proximity to humans. Image via Marco Tersigni/ Wikipedia (CC BY 2.0). Brown bears in central Italy are becoming less aggressive For generations, brown bears in central Italy have adjusted their behavior to survive in a landscape increasingly dominated by humans. Now, an international team of researchers led by the University of Ferrara has revealed that living in close quarters with villages and human activity has led to genetic changes in the bears. They said on December 15, 2025, that the brown bears today are less aggressive and physically smaller than their ancestors. The DNA studies also show that this isolated and endangered population of bears has less diversity in its genetic makeup and higher rates of inbreeding. The scientists published their peer-reviewed study in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution on December 15, 2025. The research focuses on Apennine brown bears (Ursus arctos marsicanus), which live exclusively in central Italy. Apennine brown bears shaped by history The Apennine brown bears form a small and isolated population with a long history of close proximity to human communities. Previous research indicates this population split from other European brown bears between 2,000 and 3,000 years ago. And it has remained isolated since Roman times. Over the centuries, human presence has had a direct impact on the habitat of these bears. The expansion of agriculture, forest clearing and the growth of settlements reduced and fragmented forests. This limited the available space for bears, affecting their ability to find food and reproduce. According to the authors, these landscape transformations were decisive in shaping the population’s history of isolation. Co-lead author Andrea Benazzo of the University of Ferrara said: One of the main factors driving isolation and decline was probably deforestation associated with the expansion of agriculture and increasing human density in central Italy. Apennine brown bears became isolated following human expansion. Consequently, their genetic diversity has reduced and rate of inbreeding has increased. Image via Bruno D’Amicis/ Molecular Biology and Evolution/ EurekAlert! A look at the bears’ DNA To understand how the bears changed over time, researchers analyzed their DNA: the set of genetic instructions that influence body development and certain behaviors. To do this, the team created a high-quality “reference genome” for the Apennine brown bear. It serves as a detailed map of its genetic material. Plus, it allows researchers to detect differences between individuals and populations. So scientists sequenced the DNA of several bears from this population and compared it with DNA from a much larger population of brown bears in Slovakia. They also compared the Italian bears’ DNA with previously published genomes from North American bears. This comparison made it possible to identify recent genetic changes and distinguish which traits are unique to Apennine brown bears. Genomic analyses show that – due to their isolation and small population size – Apennine brown bears exhibit high levels of inbreeding. Consequently, they have less genetic diversity, in contrast to other brown bear populations. Inbreeding occurs when related individuals reproduce with one another, a common situation in small and isolated populations. Unfortunately, inbreeding can increase the risk of health problems and reduce the ability to adapt to environmental changes. Human pressure as an adaptive force For generations, human presence in the Apennine forests exerted lethal pressure on the bear population. Larger and more aggressive individuals were more likely to come into conflict with people. So they were more frequently hunted or eliminated. Over time, this selective hunting drastically reduced the presence of such bears, favoring the survival and reproduction of smaller, less aggressive individuals. And so it resulted in a population with distinctive physical and behavioral traits. The study detected clear signs of selection in genes related to behavior, indicating that this systematic removal left a genetic imprint. According to co-lead author Giulia Fabbri of the University of Ferrara: The removal or displacement of more aggressive bears by humans likely drove the emergence of less conflict-prone individuals, reflecting how human interaction can shape the behavior of a species. Throughout their history, the larger, more aggressive bears were the targets of hunters. Thus, these bears evolved to be smaller and less aggressive. And over time, the Apennine bear population has exhibited distinctive physical and behavioral traits. Image via Mykola Pokalyuk/ Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). Conserving a genetically unique population The study shows human presence had contrasting effects on Apennine bears. On the one hand, human pressure favored traits that reduce conflict with people, such as less aggressive behavior and smaller body size. On the other hand, the population experienced a demographic decline and genetic erosion, increasing its vulnerability to extinction. The researchers emphasize that populations heavily affected by human activities still harbor unique genetic variants that deserve protection. Giorgio Bertorelle, professor of genetics at the University of Ferrara, explained: Even populations that have been strongly affected by human activities may harbor unique genetic variants that should be protected, for example by avoiding their dilution through the introduction of individuals from other regions. These genetic adaptations are valuable and should be taken into account when planning conservation strategies to preserve the population’s genetic identity. Apennine brown bears at risk of isolation and inbreeding At the same time, the population also faces risks stemming from its isolation and small size, particularly inbreeding. Reproduction between related individuals can increase the expression of harmful recessive genes. And that reduces the overall health and adaptive capacity in Apennine brown bears. In this sense, inbreeding is an important factor to consider when assessing the population’s long-term viability. However, the authors note that in populations that have remained small for long periods, some highly deleterious mutations might have been eliminated by natural selection, which does not remove the risk but does moderate its impact. This case illustrates one of the classic dilemmas of conservation biology: whether to intervene to increase genetic variability and reduce the risks of inbreeding, or to preserve a genetically singular population that has developed unique adaptations to its environment. Neither option is risk-free, and conservation decisions must balance long-term genetic health with the preservation of an irreplaceable evolutionary identity. Isolation increases inbreeding risk in Apennine brown bears, potentially reducing population health. This presents conservationists a difficult choice between genetic rescue and preserving a unique lineage. Image via Leonio/ Wikipedia (CC BY 3.0). Bottom line: As Apennine brown bears learned to co-exist with humans in central Italy, they evolved to become smaller and less aggressive, according to a new DNA study. Source: Molecular Biology and Evolution: Coexisting With Humans: Genomic and Behavioral Consequences in a Small and Isolated Bear Population Via EurekAlert! Read more: Polar bears have unique ice-repelling furThe post Brown bears in central Italy are becoming less aggressive first appeared on EarthSky.

Mass Layoffs Overshadow Guinea's Simandou Mega Mine as Output Accelerates

By Clara Denina and Maxwell Akalaare AdombilaSIMANDOU, Guinea, Dec 18 (Reuters) - Guinea's Simandou mega mining project, promoted by the military...

By Clara Denina and Maxwell Akalaare AdombilaSIMANDOU, Guinea, Dec 18 (Reuters) - Guinea's Simandou mega mining project, promoted by the military government as a symbol of the country's economic transformation, ‌is laying ​off thousands of workers just as it begins exporting iron ore after decades of delays ‌and corruption scandals.Simandou was officially launched with pomp and a public holiday in November, ahead of elections on December 28, the first since the military coup in 2021 that brought Mamady Doumbouya to power.The junta leader is standing ​for president and political analysts say he is the favourite to win, meaning he could be in power for another seven years.Even without Simandou, the world's largest untapped reserve of iron ore, Guinea is the world's biggest exporter of bauxite, used to make aluminium. Its mining wealth, however, has failed to transform for the better the lives of many of ‍its people.World Bank data published in 2025 showed more than half the population lived ​in poverty.Reuters interviewed a dozen workers and former employees, as well as some senior company sources. Asking not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, they said the process of sacking thousands of workers had begun and that the impact was likely to be more severe than in the case of comparable mining projects.It is a bitter ​disappointment for those who hoped their lives ⁠would be improved for the long term by Simandou's ambitions to produce around 120 million metric tons of iron ore annually, or around 7% of global demand.EMPLOYMENT PEAKED AT MORE THAN 60,000Employment from Simandou peaked at over 60,000 jobs in 2024 and 2025, companies and government sources told Reuters, as contractors raced to meet deadlines set by Guinea's military rulers to try to fast-track iron ore exports after nearly three decades of delay. Fewer than 15,000 people will be needed to run the mines, the ports, and the 670 kilometre (416-mile) railway specially built to allow export from the landlocked project.The project is run by two consortia – one led by Rio Tinto and the other by the Winning Consortium Simandou, or WCS, comprising mostly Chinese companies. The way the work has been organised means the workforce reduction is extreme.One executive involved said the railway was "a simultaneous spread project," meaning every section was built at the same time, the labour ‌force was ramped up to peak construction, "then falls off a cliff because everything finishes".WCS, which manages almost all of the railway via more than a dozen subcontractors, did not respond to requests for comment on its workforce.Rio Tinto, through a joint venture Rio Tinto-Simfer, is in charge of ​two ‌mine blocks, 78 kilometres of rail connecting them to the main ‍rail network and transshipment facilities at the new port on Guinea's Atlantic coast. ⁠In all, it has provided employment for around 25,000 workers, 82% of them Guinean, over the construction phase.For the operational phase, a spokesperson for Rio Tinto said the Simfer venture was expected to require a workforce of about 6,000 to work in the mine and at a transshipment vessel terminal at the port. The mine and rail construction is scheduled to be completed next year, while work at the port will continue through 2027, the spokesperson said.Chris Aitchison, managing director at Rio Tinto-Simfer, said he was concerned about the risks raised by sudden job losses, which the industry refers to as demobilisation."It's the what's next?" he said. "In other jurisdictions when we demobilise there's a pathway for employees or people that have been engaged in execution to move to other projects."In comparable projects, such as Mongolia's Oyu Tolgoi copper mine, for example, more diversified economies meant former mining employees had other job options.RISK OF SOCIAL UNREST AND ACCIDENTSThe workforce sources said the job-cutting had begun. In Dantilia, a hub in the Faranah region near Sierra Leone's border, 8,000 of 10,000 workers have lost their jobs the last three months. The other 2,000 have been told their jobs will end in the coming months. In Kamara, part of the same district, around 1,500 workers have already been dismissed, the workers said.   "We are waiting in hope but for now they don't have any solutions, and they haven't promised anything yet," a pick-up ​driver for the Winning Consortium Simandou told Reuters, asking not to be named. "There is no other job."Three Western company sources said concern was mounting that reduced staffing could increase the risk of accidents, as well as of social unrest. They said they were worried about the likelihood of community protests that could take the form of blockades along the Simandou railway, where trains have already killed cattle, angering local residents who depend on their livestock.Risk assessments carried out by the consortia in the last six months flagged the places where people or livestock could stray onto tracks and derail trains, prompting the construction of fencing that the original design did not provide for, company sources said.In March, Reuters reported that a dozen workers had died in accidents during Simandou's railway construction between June 2023 and November 2024. In addition, at least five local residents were killed in traffic accidents involving vehicles from the works.Rio Tinto and WCS reported a further five worker deaths. Mines minister Bouna Sylla said the government was strict with the partners on safety and environmental safeguards.GOVERNMENT'S PROMISES OF FUTURE EMPLOYMENTGuinea's limited infrastructure, narrow skill base, and lack of income buffers magnify the impact of the sudden loss of jobs.Speaking to media in the days ahead of Simandou's official launch on November 11, Sylla acknowledged the layoffs would be painful."It's not easy for people who've been earning a salary, waking up early for work every day, to suddenly lose it," Sylla said. He outlined government plans for new infrastructure projects, including roads, refineries and power plants, but he did not give any timing.The official launch at the new export port at Morebaya on Guinea's Atlantic coast was resolutely upbeat, with brass bands, honour guards, traditional dancers and visiting dignitaries. Doumbouya looked on, dressed in a white Guinean boubou tunic.In an attempt to provide thousands of future jobs, Guinea's military government has touted "Simandou 2040" as a 15-year strategy to transform the country into a diversified economy, based on investment in agriculture, education, transport, technology, ​finance and health for the entire population.The government holds a 15% stake in Simandou and the plan's estimated $200 billion cost would be partly funded by mining revenues, although it has said the bulk should come from private capital.Sylla said Guinea's infrastructure agency the Administration et Contrôle des Grands Projets was working on feasibility studies. The government also commissioned a KPMG report on re-employment programmes, which will be published after the elections, two sources said.KPMG did not respond to a request for comment. The infrastructure agency said the plans included 3,000 kilometres of new highways to be developed over 15 years.THE LONG WAIT FOR PROSPERITYBut nearly 30 years after Rio started exploring the deposit, the question of whether Simandou can deliver prosperity for most of Guinea is unanswered.The IMF in its "Selected issues" paper on Guinea's economy, published in May  2024, modelled the macroeconomic effects of Simandou.It ​found it could boost the country's real GDP by 26% by 2030, but it also said the reduction in poverty could be minimal at just 0.6 percentage points without active policies to manage the transition.The project's impact in increasing the number of skilled workers could even lead "to worsening of inequality, especially in rural areas," it said.(Reporting by Clara Denina and Maxwell Adombila Akalaare; editing by Barbara Lewis)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – December 2025

America is richer than ever. Why is it so unhappy?

Ordinary Americans today enjoy a living standard that would have awed kings for most of human history.  We live in homes conditioned to our ideal temperature in any season; drive vehicles that pack the power of 250 horses into a 100-square-foot metal frame; carry six-ounce rectangles that offer instant access to virtually any loved one, […]

Ordinary Americans today enjoy a living standard that would have awed kings for most of human history.  We live in homes conditioned to our ideal temperature in any season; drive vehicles that pack the power of 250 horses into a 100-square-foot metal frame; carry six-ounce rectangles that offer instant access to virtually any loved one, book, song, fact, or pornography; inhale gases that take the pain out of any surgery; replace our worn-out hips with titanium; glide 40,000 feet above the Earth in pressurized aluminum tubes; and eat ground beef wrapped in tacos made of Doritos.  But we don’t seem that jazzed about it. Key takeaways • Wealthy nations have been getting richer — without getting happier — for decades, according to some studies. • Consumerism often functions like a zero-sum status competition, in which people must buy more stuff just to retain their social rank (aka “keep up with the Joneses”). • Given this, some environmentalists argue that we can shrink wealthy economies without sacrificing human well-being. But this is mistaken. Since 1996, America’s median household income (adjusted for inflation) has risen by 26 percent, enabling us to afford more flights, smartphones, and Gordita Supremes than ever before. And yet, over that same period, the share of Americans who described themselves as “not too happy” in the General Social Survey rose by 9 percentage points, while the segment calling themselves “very happy” shrank by more than 9.4 points. Meanwhile, measures of Americans’ economic confidence and consumer sentiment both declined. And in 2025, the percentage of Americans who were “very satisfied” with their personal lives hit an all-time low in Gallup’s polling. This disconnect between America’s rising prosperity and sagging spirits has grown more conspicuous in recent years. Since the middle of 2023 — when inflation returned to normal levels following the post-pandemic price spike — Americans’ real wages and net worths have ticked up. But the public’s mood has scarcely improved.   Pundits dubbed this development “the vibecession” and proffered myriad plausible explanations for its emergence (people still haven’t adjusted psychologically to the new price level; housing remains unaffordable; living through a mass death event is a real bummer; Covid-19 turned too many of us into hermits; the kids need to get off their dang phones, and so on).  Yet to some economists and social theorists, the “vibecession” is less a new phenomenon than the wealthy world’s default condition. In their account, people in developed countries have been getting richer — without getting happier — for more than half a century.  That might seem bleak. For anti-growth environmentalists, however, it is actually a source of hope.  The “degrowth” movement believes that humanity is rapidly exhausting the Earth’s resources. Thus, to prevent ecological collapse — without condemning the global poor to permanent penury — the movement has called on rich countries to throttle their use of energy and material resources.  If economic growth had been making wealthy nations happier over the past 50 years, this would be a tall order. In that scenario, there would be a tragic conflict between the near-term well-being of the “first world” and the sustainability of the planet’s ecosystems. But this conflict is illusory, according to degrowth proponents like the philosopher Tim Jackson and the anthropologist Jason Hickel. In their view, the wealthy world has been burning vast resources on a zero-sum status competition — in which workers must perpetually increase their consumption just to “keep up with the Joneses.” By abandoning such spiritually corrosive consumerism — and embracing more egalitarian and communal ways of life — rich countries can downsize their economies and uplift their people simultaneously. Some aspects of this narrative are plausible. Growth may yield diminishing returns to well-being, and status concerns do loom larger in rich societies. But it does not follow that wealthy nations can dramatically reduce economic production without harming their residents’ welfare. Optimizing the American economy for human happiness will require changing what we produce — but it almost certainly won’t entail producing less. Can money buy happiness — or only rent it? At first brush, the research on money and happiness can look puzzling. On the one hand, within countries, income and well-being are highly correlated: The larger a person’s paycheck, the happier they tend to be. And this same relationship holds between countries as well — nations with higher incomes report greater well-being than those with lower ones. When one looks at happiness trends in rich countries over time, however, the correlation between income and happiness weakens — or, in some studies, disappears.  There is a popular explanation for these paradoxical findings: Once people are already affluent, their sense of material well-being is determined less by their absolute living standard than by their relative position in a country’s economic hierarchy.  After all, status is a zero-sum game: One person can’t be in the “upper” middle-class unless someone else is in the lower one. In this account, there are some things that humans strongly desire for their own sake, such as food, shelter, clothing, water, medical care, sanitation, and a little entertainment. When a person ceases to be too poor to afford these goods, she tends to become happier as a direct result of her higher living standard: A well-fed person is typically more content than a malnourished one, irrespective of their society’s prevailing norms or their own degree of social status.  By contrast, the desire to upgrade from a 55-inch TV to a 75-inch one, or from a Toyota to a Lexus, or from an iPhone 16 to an iPhone 17 isn’t etched that deeply into the human heart. An affluent American’s longing for the latter objects is socially contingent. His current TV would not seem small if he had not seen his brother-in-law’s 75-inch, 8K smart TV at Thanksgiving.  When this hypothetical American — let’s call him Tim — gets a raise and buys a new home theater, car, and smartphone, his sense of well-being might increase. But this gain in happiness will have less to do with the intrinsic qualities of his new consumer items than with the shrinking gap between his living standard and that of his wealthier peers. It’s the alleviation of relative deprivation — rather than the absolute variety — that accounts for the bulk of his newfound contentment. That’s the theory, anyway. And some studies lend it credence. For example, in a 2023 paper, researchers at the University of California Riverside examined surveys that asked the same Americans about their incomes and self-reported well-being at multiple points in time. They found that respondents tended to report greater happiness when their relative income increased — which is to say, when they ascended to a higher percentile of the income distribution — even if their absolute income had barely changed.  By contrast, when a respondent saw their earnings rise while their position in the socioeconomic hierarchy stagnated or fell, they typically became no happier. If money can buy Americans happiness — but only by purchasing them higher status — then the data on growth and well-being makes sense: In a rich society, we’d expect people with higher incomes to be happier than those with low ones, since the former enjoy greater relative status. But as that nation gets wealthier over time, we wouldn’t expect its average happiness to budge.  After all, status is a zero-sum game: One person can’t be in the “upper” middle-class unless someone else is in the lower one. Tim’s new TV might make him feel better about his social rank. But when his cousin Rick comes over to watch the Super Bowl, that giant Samsung could make him feel worse about his economic position, as now his own 42-inch Roku TV may seem pathetically small.  The case for degrowth It isn’t hard to see why this theory appeals to many environmentalists. If Americans are consuming more and more resources — just to keep up in a zero-sum status game — then the human costs of degrowth are negligible.  From this vantage point, the rich world’s middle classes are effectively locked in a fruitless arms race: Tim works a little harder to buy nicer things than his cousin Rick, in order to improve his relative status and sense of well-being. Then Rick works a little harder so that he can buy the same things as Tim. Now, both are back to the same status position they started with — but had to perform more labor just to get there. Degrowthers see this basic process playing out at a national scale. And they insist that it isn’t inevitable; humans aren’t innately programmed to jockey endlessly for position. Rather, degrowthers contend that corporate and political elites perpetuate this culture of competitive consumption. In Jackson’s telling, it requires the combined propagandizing of “politicians and policy-makers and bankers and financiers and advertisers” just to sustain the public’s appetite for more stuff. If we embraced a less materialistic politics and more egalitarian economic system, the thinking goes, then we could end this lose-lose cycle of competitive consumption. In such a world, people could enjoy more leisure time without worrying about falling behind “the Joneses.” And rich countries could produce more of the things that actually improve well-being — such as health care, education, and clean energy — while consuming fewer material resources overall, thereby remaining within ecological limits.  In a well-planned, post-capitalist economy, in other words, less could truly be more.  This might be all wrong It’s possible, however, that the foundational assumption of this entire narrative — and, to an extent, this article — is wrong: Some studies suggest that higher economic growth is associated with greater happiness over time, even when looking at rich countries.  Meanwhile, many analysts question whether well-being surveys are a reliable gauge of national happiness. An American in 1980 — and an equally happy American in 2025 — may answer poll questions differently, simply as a result of shifting cultural norms. (We have arguably seen this phenomenon in survey research about mental illness, where destigmatization and broadening conceptions of “anxiety” and “depression” may have boosted rates of self-reported psychological distress in recent years).  If these were the only problems with degrowthers’ argument, it might be salvageable. Some studies cut against their interpretation of well-being trends. But some support it. One can therefore reasonably believe that rich countries haven’t been getting happier as their economies have grown.  But it does not follow that wealthy nations can dramatically shrink their economies, at no cost to their people’s well-being. When it comes to growth, size matters For one thing, this conclusion requires wildly overreading what the well-being data actually tell us. America is plausibly no happier today than it was in 1996, despite significant economic growth. But a lot of bad things have happened in the United States over the past 30 years, many of which aren’t obviously a function of rising GDP — including the opioid epidemic, 9/11, deepening political polarization, a world-historic pandemic, and rising rates of social isolation, among many other things.  It’s possible then that economic growth increased Americans’ well-being over the past three decades — but that this benefit was simply outweighed by other, adverse social trends.  Indeed, one interpretation of the data on national happiness is that the magnitude of growth matters. The typical American household earns about 26 percent more today than it did in 1996. By contrast, that modern US household earns over 2,000 percent more than a typical family in Bangladesh. And while today’s median American isn’t much happier than her slightly poorer predecessor was in the 1990s, the former has much higher life satisfaction than her dramatically poorer Bangladeshi counterpart, according to the World Values Survey. Perhaps, modest GDP gains don’t reliably increase well-being in rich countries. But it doesn’t follow that no amount of economic growth can make an already-rich country happier.  A dollar lost is a dollar mourned For the sake of argument, however, let’s stipulate that increasing a wealthy nation’s income doesn’t improve its well-being. That still would not mean that you can shrink a rich country’s income without diminishing its happiness.  As decades of behavioral research has shown, people are “loss-averse” — which means they react more strongly to losses than to equivalent gains. For this reason, even if Americans derived little well-being from recent economic growth, they might still become unhappier were their incomes to abruptly drop. And, in fact, this is exactly what happened amid the post-Covid surge in inflation. During that period, Americans suddenly found themselves unable to afford as many goods and services as they used to, since their real wages declined. At the same time, income inequality actually fell. Thus, by one metric, the median US worker’s relative position actually improved. Yet Americans’ economic confidence and life satisfaction plunged, anyway. This suggests that losing absolute income makes Americans unhappier, even if they don’t simultaneously fall down the economic ladder.  Further, the public’s discontent on this front can scarcely be attributed to political elites’ consumerist propaganda. To the contrary, the Biden administration tried to persuade Americans that the inflationary economy was fine. Three years later, when Americans remained dissatisfied with how much stuff they could afford to buy, the Trump White House actually implored them to care less about consumption. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared in March that “access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream,” while Trump has told Americans, “You don’t need 37 dolls for your daughter. Two or three is nice, but you don’t need 37 dolls.”  Nevertheless, Americans’ desire for cheaper goods persisted. To be sure, this does not prove that Americans wouldn’t be happier under degrowth socialism. Hickel and Jackson never argued that people could enjoy greater well-being on lower incomes in the existing economic system, only that this would be true in an egalitarian, post-growth economic order.  My point is that this argument rests on pure speculation; data on happiness and growth in non-imaginary nations doesn’t actually validate degrowthers’ intuition. It’s impossible to know with certainty how people would think and feel in economic circumstances that humanity has never witnessed. But we do know that, to date, no country has ever grown happier while enduring a large and sustained decline in material consumption. There are no MRIs without mineral mines The most fundamental problem with the degrowth narrative, however, is that it does not work on its own terms. An economy tailored to Americans’ true needs would produce more things that extend life, reduce suffering, and mitigate loneliness — and fewer that induce addiction and status anxiety. Hickel and Jackson recognize that increasing some forms of production improves well-being, even in rich societies. No one thinks that Americans purchase cancer screenings or defibrillators or dialysis merely to “keep up with the Joneses.” As long as illness exists, boosting medical output and innovation is likely to make people better off. And much the same can be said of other goods and services that save lives or alleviate physical suffering, such as clean energy technologies that curb air pollution or self-driving cars that reduce traffic deaths. This undercuts the notion that rich countries can abandon growth without sacrificing well-being. Perhaps, America’s specific approach to expanding GDP hasn’t been making people happier. But if we produced fewer things that plausibly reduce welfare (such as social media platforms and sports betting apps) and more that increase it (such as solar panels or Ozempic), surely we could make ourselves better off than we would be in a drastically smaller economy. Hickel tries to preempt this objection. In his book, Less Is More, he suggests that degrowth really just means deciding “what kinds of things we want to grow (sectors like clean energy, public health care, essential services, regenerative agriculture — you name it), and what sectors need to radically degrow (things like fossil fuels, private jets, arms and SUVs).”  This proposal raises some obvious political challenges (by all appearances, the American public wants the SUV sector to grow). But bracketing the whole “how do we get everyone on-board with eco-communism?” question, the more basic issue is that Hickel’s vision almost certainly cannot work, purely as a technical matter. In his view, the United States must reduce its use of material resources — metals, minerals, land, fossil fuels, timber, crops, cement, and the like — by 75 percent.  This is plainly incompatible with maximizing Americans’ welfare, even if one went further than Hickel — and stipulated that only the health care sector enhances well-being.  Degrowthers often refer to the medical industry as though it were a resource-light, service sector composed mostly of people, buildings, and a few machines. And this is how doctors’ offices can sometimes appear. Yet every encounter with a clinician is the tip of a vast industrial iceberg.  A single MRI machine requires superconducting magnets made of niobium-titanium alloys, liquid helium produced through natural gas extraction, high-purity copper wiring, cryogenic refrigeration systems, rare earth elements, and massive amounts of electricity, among other inputs.  Drug production, meanwhile, frequently demands starter molecules extracted from oil or natural gas, large volumes of chemical solvents, climate-controlled reactors, drying ovens, and myriad other energy-intensive spaces and components. Dialysis consumes hundreds of liters of ultrapure water per session and myriad single-use plastics. Thus, the idea that we can grow the health care sector — while slashing our economy’s resource use by 50 percent — is far-fetched on its face. And it becomes all the more implausible when one considers the basic mechanics of industrial innovation and supply chains. In his book, Hickel suggests that gutting frivolous consumer industries will free up enough resources to simultaneously grow the healthcare sector and shrink America’s material footprint.  But this ignores medical technology’s dependence on ordinary consumer markets. To appreciate that dependence, consider chipmaking. Developing advanced semiconductors entailed the construction of hundreds of fabrication facilities worldwide, each costing up to $20 billion; the formation of dense networks of suppliers for tools, chemicals, and ultrapure materials; and many years of learning by doing.  Hospitals need chips to power various devices. But the medical sector still accounts for a tiny fraction of semiconductor sales. It was demand for smartphones, personal computers, and other consumer electronics that enabled the chip industry to absorb the exorbitant costs of its growth and innovation. And absent that innovation, modern medical imaging would be less accurate and more people would perish from undetected infirmities.  One can tell a similar story about lithium-ion batteries, which corporate labs perfected to power camcorders and cellphones — but which are now indispensable to both modern medicine and the green energy transition.  In other words, without large and diverse markets for consumer novelties, the supply chains and technical know-how required for more essential products would not exist.  It’s therefore implausible that rich countries could radically contract consumer markets — to the point that resource use falls by 75 percent — and still sustain the health care and energy technologies that Hickel admires, much less, improve upon them.  More is more Of course, none of this would matter much if degrowthers’ apocalyptic environmental assumptions were correct. If economic growth is physically unsustainable — and humanity must choose between gradually degrowing the global economy or having it chaotically contract amid ecological collapse — then the former is clearly preferable. I think degrowthers’ catastrophism is unfounded (although the perils of climate change are quite real). But even if we are indeed racing toward oblivion, that still would not make Hickel and Jackson’s claims about growth and happiness correct. Perhaps, rich countries need to slash their production and consumption. But there is no good reason to believe that they can do this without undermining their people’s well-being. The degrowth vision is therefore much bleaker than its proponents wish to acknowledge.  This isn’t to say that critics of consumerism are wrong on all counts. There’s little question that increasing GDP doesn’t automatically enhance well-being. And competitive consumption is surely a real phenomenon, which can be collectively self-defeating. Many Americans would be happier if they traded a bit of purchasing power for more time with their friends and family. And policymakers could help workers avail themselves of more leisure time — without worrying about falling behind — by mandating paid vacation days, as many European nations do.  It’s clear that money isn’t buying the United States as much happiness as it should. An economy tailored to Americans’ true needs would produce more things that extend life, reduce suffering, and mitigate loneliness — and fewer that induce addiction and status anxiety. But such an economy would not be smaller than our current one. So long disease and drudgery exist, less will always be less.  This series was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Vox had full discretion over the content of this reporting.

Thousands of U.S. farmers have Parkinson’s. They blame a deadly pesticide.

Paraquat is banned in more than 70 countries, but still legal in the United States. Now, a growing number of U.S. farmers are blaming the toxic pesticide for their Parkinson's disease in a large lawsuit.

Paul Friday remembers when his hand started flopping in the cold weather – the first sign nerve cells in his brain were dying.He was eventually diagnosed with Parkinson’s, a brain disease that gets worse over time. His limbs got stiffer. He struggled to walk. He couldn’t keep living on his family farm. Shortly afterward, Friday came to believe that decades of spraying a pesticide called paraquat at his peach orchard in southwestern Michigan may be the culprit.“It explained to me why I have Parkinson’s disease,” said Friday, who is now 83, and makes that claim in a pending lawsuit.The pesticide, a weed killer, is extremely toxic.With evidence of its harms stacking up, it’s already been banned in dozens of countries all over the world, including the United Kingdom and China, where it’s made. Yet last year, its manufacturer Syngenta, a subsidiary of a company owned by the Chinese government, continued selling paraquat in the United States and other nations that haven’t banned it. Health statistics are limited. Critics point to research linking paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s, while the manufacturer pushes back, saying none of it is peer-reviewed. But the lawsuits are mounting across the United States, as farmers confront Parkinson’s after a lifetime of use, and much of the globe is turning away from paraquat. It has many critics wrestling with the question: What will it take to ban paraquat in the United States? “What we’ve seen over the course of decades is a systemic failure to protect farmworkers and the agricultural community from pesticides,” said Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental law organization that advocates against paraquat.Paul Friday was a lifelong peach farmer in Coloma, Michigan until he developed Parkinson's Disease in 2017. Photo provided by Luiba FridayThousands of lawsuits pile upIt was hard for Ruth Anne Krause to watch her husband of 58 years struggle to move his hands. He was an avid woodcarver, shaving intricate details into his creations, before it became too difficult for him to hold the tools.Jim Krause was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2019, after he spent decades operating a 20-acre stone fruit farm in central California. His wife says he often donned a mask and yellow rubber boots to spray paraquat on the fields.Krause, who had no family history of neurological disease as is typical, died in 2024.“I want people to know what happened,” said Ruth Anne Krause, who is worried that paraquat is still being sold to American farmers. Krause is one of thousands of people who have sued Syngenta, a manufacturer, and Chevron USA, a seller, over paraquat exposure. They’re alleging the chemical companies failed to warn of the dangers of paraquat despite knowing it could damage human nerve cells and studies showing it’s linked to Parkinson’s disease. Between 11 million and 17 million pounds of paraquat are sprayed annually on American farms, according to the latest data from the U.S. Geological Survey. The pesticide is used as a burn down, meaning farmers spray it to quickly clear a field or kill weeds. It's effective, but highly toxic. (Julie Bennett | preps@al.com) Julie Bennett | preps@al.comChevron, which never manufactured paraquat and hasn’t sold it since 1986, has “long maintained that it should not be liable in any paraquat litigation.”“And despite hundreds of studies conducted over the past 60 years, the scientific consensus is that paraquat has not been shown to be a cause of Parkinson’s disease,” the company said in a statement.Syngenta has emphasized there is no evidence that paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease.“We have great sympathy for those suffering from the debilitating effects of Parkinson’s disease,” a Syngenta spokesperson said in a statement. “However, it is important to note that the scientific evidence simply does not support a causal link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease, and that paraquat is safe when used as directed.”More than 6,400 lawsuits against Syngenta and Chevron that allege a link between paraquat and Parkinson’s are pending in the U.S. District Court of Southern Illinois. Another 1,300 cases have been brought in Pennsylvania, 450 in California and more are scattered throughout state courts.“I do think it’s important to be clear that number is probably not even close to representative of how many people have been impacted by this,” said Christian Simmons, a legal expert for Drugwatch. Syngenta told its shareholders in March that an additional 1,600 cases have been voluntarily dismissed or resolved. In 2021, the company settled an unspecified number in California and Illinois for $187.5 million, according to a company financial report. Some others have been dismissed for missing court deadlines. None have gone to trial yet. Behind these thousands of lawsuits, a list growing nearly every day, is a person suffering from Parkinson’s disease.In Ohio, there’s Dave Jilbert a winemaker who sprayed the pesticide on his vineyard south of Cleveland. He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2020 and now he is suing and working to get paraquat banned. Terri McGrath believes years of exposure to paraquat at her family farm in rural Southwest Michigan likely contributed to her Parkinson’s. Six other family members also have the disease. And in south Alabama, Mac Barlow is suing after receiving a similar diagnosis following years of relying on paraquat.“For about 40 years off and on, I’ve been using that stuff,” Barlow said. “I’ll be honest with you, if I knew it was going to be that bad, I would have tried to figure out something else.”In Alabama, farmer Mac Barlow was diagnosed with Parkinson's after years of spraying paraquat. Teri McGrath believes years of exposure to paraquat at her family farm in rural Southwest Michigan contributed to her Parkinson’s. In Ohio, there’s Dave Jilbert a winemaker who sprayed the pesticide on his vineyard. He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2020. Like Barlow, Jilbert is now suing. Photos by Julie Bennett, Isaac Ritchey and David PetkiewiczParaquat in the United StatesSince hitting the market in the 1960s, paraquat has been used in farming to quickly “burn” weeds before planting crops. The pesticide, originally developed by Syngenta and sold by Chevron, rips tissue apart, destroying plants on a molecular level within hours.“It’s used because it’s effective at what it does. It’s highly toxic. It’s very good at killing things,” said Geoff Horsfield, policy director at the Environmental Working Group. “And unfortunately, when a pesticide like this is so effective that also means there’s usually human health impacts as well.”By the 1970s, it became a tool in the war on drugs, sprayed to kill Mexican marijuana plants. In 1998, that history landed it in Hollywood when the Dude in “The Big Lebowski” calls someone a “human paraquat,” a buzzkill.Today, between 11 million and 17 million pounds of paraquat are sprayed annually to help grow cotton, soybean and corn fields, among other crops, throughout the country, the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, reports. And despite the alleged known risks, its use is increasing, according to the most current federal data, more than doubling from 2012 to 2018. The USGS says on its website new pesticide use data will be released in 2025. It hasn’t been published yet. Because paraquat kills any growth it touches, it’s typically used to clear a field before any crops are planted. Low levels of paraquat residue can linger on food crops, but the foremost threat is direct exposure. Pesticides are among the most common means of suicide worldwide, according to the World Health Organization, and paraquat is frequently used because of its lethality. After some nations, like South Korea and Sri Lanka, banned it, they saw a significant drop in suicides, research shows.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency already restricts paraquat, labeling it as “registered use,” with a skull and crossbones, meaning it can only be used by people who have a license. Because of its toxicity, the federal government requires it to have blue dye, a sharp smell and a vomiting agent, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, CDC. Sprayers are also told to wear protective gear. Despite those safety measures, U.S. poison centers have gotten hundreds of paraquat-related calls in the past decade, their annual reports show.Swallowing is the most likely way to be poisoned by paraquat, according to the CDC, but skin exposure can also be deadly. In fact, if it spills on someone, health officials say they should wash it off immediately and quickly cut off their clothes. That way they don’t risk spreading more deadly pesticide on their body as they pull their shirt over their head. In one 2023 case documented by America’s Poison Centers, a 50-year-old man accidentally sipped blue liquid from a Gatorade bottle that turned out to be paraquat. After trying to throw it up, he went to the emergency room, struggling to breathe, nauseous and vomiting.Doctors rushed to treat the man, but he turned blue from a lack of oxygen and his organs failed. He died within three days.In another poison center report, a 65-year-old man spilled paraquat on his clothes and kept working. Ten days later, he went to the emergency room with second-degree burns on his stomach. Dizzy and nauseous, he was admitted for two days before going home.A week later, he went back to the ICU as his kidney, lungs and heart stopped working. He died 34 days after the spill.These annual poison center case summaries provide insight into paraquat’s toxicity, but it’s unclear exactly how many people in the U.S. have been injured or killed by the weed killer, because there’s only a patchwork of data creating an uneven and incomplete picture.The latest annual National Poison Data System report logged 114 reports and one death caused by paraquat in 2023. Over a decade, from 2014 to 2023, this system documented 1,151 paraquat calls. And a separate database shows the EPA has investigated 82 human exposure cases since 2014.Even secondary exposure can be dangerous. One case published in the Rhode Island Medical Journal described an instance where a 50-year-old man accidentally ingested paraquat, and the nurse treating him was burned by his urine that splashed onto her forearms. Within a day, her skin blistered and sloughed off.And a former Michigan State horticulture student is suing the university for $100 million, claiming that she developed thyroid cancer from her exposure to pesticides including paraquat, glyphosate and oxyfluorfen.Meanwhile, a much more widespread threat looms large in the background: long-term, low-level exposure.Parkinson’s on the riseParkinson’s disease is the fastest growing neurological disorder in the world, with cases projected to double by 2050, partly due to an aging population, according to a study published in The BMJ, a peer-reviewed medical journal. It occurs when the brain cells that make dopamine, a chemical that controls movement, stop working or die.The exact cause is unknown, likely a mix of genetic and, largely, environmental factors. A Parkinson’s Foundation study found that 87% of those with the disease do not have any genetic risk factors. That means, “for the vast majority of Americans, the cause of Parkinson’s disease lies not within us, but outside of us, in our environment,” said neurologist and researcher Ray Dorsey.That’s why Dorsey, who literally wrote the book on Parkinson’s, calls the disease “largely preventable.”There’s a long list of environmental factors linked to Parkinson’s, but pesticides are one of the biggest threats, according to Dorsey.“If we clean up our environment, we get rid of Parkinson’s disease,” he said. Paul Friday dedicated his life to growing peaches on his 50-acre farm in Coloma, Michigan. After buying 50 acres of land in 1962, he started experimenting with crossbreeding to develop the perfect peach. He is now one of thousands of farmers who have filed lawsuits claiming a toxic pesticide called paraquat is to blame for their Parkinson's, a neurological disease. Photo courtesy of Paul FridayResearch, dating back decades, has explored this link.An early 1987 case report published in Neurology discusses the case of a 32-year-old citrus farmer who started experiencing tremors, stiffness and clumsiness after 15 years of spraying paraquat. But “a cause-and-effect relationship is difficult to establish,” a doctor wrote at the time.A decade later, an animal study from Parkinson’s researcher Deborah Cory-Slechta found that paraquat absorbed by mice destroys the specific type of dopamine neuron that dies in Parkinson’s disease. More recently, her research has found paraquat that’s inhaled can also bypass the blood-brain barrier, threatening neurons. “It’s quite clear that it gets into the brain from inhalation models,” Cory-Slechta said. Critics point to other epidemiological studies being more definitive.In 2011, researchers studied farmworkers exposed to two pesticides, rotenone and paraquat, and determined those exposures increased the risk of developing Parkinson’s by 150%. Another study, published last year, looked at 829 Parkinson’s patients in central California. It found people who live or work near farmland where paraquat is used have a higher risk of developing the disease. “It’s kind of like secondhand smoke,” Dorsey said. “You can just live or work near where it’s sprayed and be at risk.”This is a growing concern in American suburbs where new houses press up against well-maintained golf courses. A study published in JAMA this year found that living within a mile of a golf course increased the risk of Parkinson’s disease by 126%. It didn’t name specific chemicals but did point to pesticides.The EPA in 2021 banned paraquat from golf courses “to prevent severe injury and/or death” from ingestion.Despite all that, it’s difficult to prove whether paraquat directly causes Parkinson’s because it develops years after exposure.“The disease unfolds over decades, and the seeds of Parkinson’s disease are planted early,” Dorsey said.Where do the lawsuits stand? The legal case over paraquat inched toward a settlement earlier this year.Most of the lawsuits have been brought in Illinois under what’s known as multi-district litigation. Unlike a class-action lawsuit, this puts individual cases in front of one federal judge. A few bellwether cases are then chosen to represent the masses and streamline the legal process.Syngenta, Chevron and the plaintiffs agreed to settle in April, which would wrap up thousands of cases, but an agreement is still being hammered out, court records show. If details can’t be finalized, it will go to trial.“It’s kind of like secondhand smoke. You can just live or work near where it’s sprayed and be at risk.”Ray Dorsey, a Parkinson's disease researchSyngenta has adamantly denied the lawsuits’ allegations, saying it backs paraquat as “safe and effective” when it’s used correctly and emphasizing there has been no peer-reviewed scientific analysis that shows paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease.“Syngenta believes there is no merit to the claims, but litigation can be distracting and costly,” a spokesperson said. “Entering in the agreement in no way implies that paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease or that Syngenta has done anything wrong. We stand by the safety of paraquat.”Chevron has also denied the claims saying the “scientific consensus is that paraquat has not been shown to be a cause of Parkinson’s disease.” What company files showA trove of internal documents released during litigation, as reported by The Guardian and the New Lede, appeared to show that the manufacturers were aware of evidence that paraquat could collect in the brain.But the New Lede acknowledged the documents do not show company scientists believed that paraquat causes Parkinson’s, Syngenta officials pointed out. The trail of bread crumbs started as early as 1958 when a company scientist wrote about a study of 2.2 dipyridyl, a chemical in paraquat, saying it appears to have moderate toxicity “mainly by affecting the central nervous system, and it can be absorbed through the skin,” the internal documents said. Imperial Chemical Industries, which later became Syngenta, started selling paraquat under the brand name Gramoxone in 1962, according to research. Gramoxone contains nearly 44% paraquat. Syngenta sells paraquat under the brand name Gramaxone, as a resgistered-use pesticide. It's labeled with a skull and cross bones and the warning "one sip can kill." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also puts the regulations and rules for use on the label. It's dyed blue and has a strong odor as safety mechanisms. (Photo by Rose White | MLive) Rose White | rwhite@MLive.comThe internal documents show by 1974, the company updated safety precautions, recommending that anyone spraying the pesticide wear a mask, as there were the first reports of human poisoning and concerns about the effects of paraquat started to grow.A year later, Ken Fletcher from Imperial Chemical wrote a letter to Chevron scientist Dr. Richard Cavelli, saying the chemical company knew of “sporadic reports of CNS (central nervous system) effects in paraquat poisoning” that he believed to be coincidental.Within months, Fletcher also indicated “possible chronic effects” of paraquat exposure, calling it “quite a terrible problem” that should be studied more, the documents say.“Due possibly to good publicity on our part, very few people here believe that paraquat causes any sort of problem in the field,” he wrote in the mid 1970s. “Consequently, any allegation of illness due to spraying never reaches serious proportions.”By the 1980s, outside research started to pick at the question of paraquat and Parkinson’s.“As more researchers dug into it, it’s only been more firmly established,” said Horsfield with the Environmental Working Group. Syngenta pushes back on this, though, saying two recent reports cast doubt on these claims. A 2024 scientific report from California pesticide regulators found recent evidence was “insufficient to demonstrate a direct causal association with exposure to paraquat and the increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.” And a September analysis from Douglas Weed, an epidemiologist and independent consultant, reached a similar conclusion.Syngenta also claims on its website to be a target of a “mass tort machine” that hovers behind multi-district litigation. Why hasn’t the EPA banned it?In 1981, Norway became the first country to outlaw paraquat due to the risk of poisoning. One by one, more countries followed suit. In 2007, the European Union approved a blanket ban for all 27 member countries, according to media reports. Yet Syngenta is still allowed to manufacture paraquat in countries that have banned its use. It’s been prohibited in the United Kingdom for 18 years and China banned paraquat to “safeguard people’s life, safety and health,” in 2012, according to a government announcement. Yet about two-thirds of the paraquat imported to the U.S. between 2022 and 2024 came from companies owned by the Chinese government, SinoChem and Red Sun Group, according to a joint report published by three advocacy organizations in October.It found most of the 40 million and 156 million pounds imported annually over the past eight years comes from Chinese manufacturing facilities, in either China or Syngenta’s big factory in northern England. Although hundreds of companies sell paraquat, Syngenta says it accounts for a quarter of global sales.According to previous media reports, SinoChem, a Chinese state-owned conglomerate, acquired Syngenta in a 2020 merger. SinoChem posted $3.4 billion in profits last year, but it’s unclear how much came from paraquat sales because the company doesn’t make earnings reports public. Syngenta reported $803 million in sales of its “non-selective herbicides,” the class that includes paraquat-containing Gramoxone, according to its 2024 financial report. While Chinese companies supply paraquat to American farmers, the report points out China is also a big purchaser of crops, like soybeans, that are grown with help from the pesticide.“In these two ways, China economically benefits from the application of paraquat in the U.S., where it outsources many of its associated health hazards,” the report said.Paraquat, now prohibited in more than 70 countries, according to the Environmental Working Group, was reauthorized by the EPA in 2021 when it passed a regularly scheduled 15-year review — a move challenged by critics. “EPA has the same information that those countries have,” said Kalmuss-Katz, the attorney with EarthJustice. “EPA has just reached a fundamentally different, and what we believe is a legally and scientifically unsupported position, which is: massive amounts of paraquat can continue to be sprayed without unreasonable risk.”The federal agency determined paraquat remains “an effective, inexpensive, versatile, and widely used method of weed control,” and any risks to workers are “outweighed by the benefits” of farms using the weed killer.“It is one of the mostly highly regulated pesticides available in the United States,” the agency said in a statement.This decision allowed it to be used with “new stronger safety measures to reduce exposure,” like requiring buffer zones where pesticides can’t be sprayed. For plants like cotton, alfalfa, soybeans and peanuts, the EPA wrote in its decision “growers may need to switch to alternative (weed-killers), which could have financial impacts.” Unlike other pesticides, paraquat works well in low temperatures and early in the season, according to the agency.“What we’ve seen over the course of decades is a systemic failure to protect farmworkers and the agricultural community from pesticides.”Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz from EarthJusticeMore than 200,000 public comments have been submitted to the EPA’s docket on paraquat over the years. Industry groups, farmers, advocacy organizations and others have all chimed in, arguing for or against the weed killer.One submitted by a North Dakota farmer, Trey Fischbach, urged the EPA to continue allowing paraquat to fight resistant weeds like kochia, writing it’s the “last tool in the toolbox.” The EPA also noted there weren’t many other options. “The chemical characteristics of paraquat are also beneficial as a resistance management tool, where few alternatives are available.” But farmers can get trapped on what critics call the “pesticide treadmill,” in which broad pesticide use leads to “superweeds” that require stronger and stronger pesticides to be knocked down.A comment submitted by Kay O’Laughlin, from Massachusetts, urged instead: “Do your job and ban paraquat because it is killing people. I speak as someone who lost a brother to Parkinson’s. People should not be disposable so that big agro can make ever greater profits!”The EPA’s 2021 decision was challenged within two months by environmental and farmworker groups who sued the EPA. Kalmuss-Katz said the groups challenged the EPA over reapproving paraquat without “truly grappling” with the connection to Parkinson’s.“The EPA here failed to adequately protect farmworkers,” he said.After that, the environmental agency shifted under President Joe Biden. The EPA decided to consider the issues raised in the lawsuits and started seeking additional information last year. In early 2025, it asked the courts for more time to assess the human health risks of paraquat.But the EPA wasn’t focused on Parkinson’s, saying in its decision the “weight of evidence was insufficient” to link paraquat exposure to the neurological disease. Rather, the federal question was over how the weed killer turns into a vapor that could harm people when inhaled or touched. “Parkinson’s Disease is not an expected health outcome of pesticidal use of paraquat,” the EPA said in its review. The study could take up to four years, according to the EPA, saying it’s “complex, large scale and is conducted under real world conditions,” while paraquat remains on the market. The agency in October updated the review, saying it’s now seeking additional information from Syngenta. Meanwhile, the EPA has shifted again. The Trump administration this year put four former industry lobbyists or executives, from the agricultural, chemical and cleaning industries, in charge of regulating pesticides at the EPA. And while it’s not clear where the agency stands on paraquat, there has been an early sign of backing away from opposition to controversial pesticides. Shortly after Kyle Kunkler, a recent American Soybean Association lobbyist, was tapped to lead pesticide policy, the EPA moved to reapprove the use of a different, controversial weed killer that had previously been banned by federal courts.Growing pressure to ban itBut grassroots pressure to ban paraquat continues to mount.“This is a pivotal time for whether paraquat is going to remain active in the United States,” said Simmons, a legal expert for Drugwatch.Last year, more than 50 Democratic lawmakers, expressing “grave concern” in letters, urged the EPA to ban paraquat.“Due to their heightened exposure to paraquat, farmworkers and rural residents are hardest hit by the harmful health effects of paraquat like Parkinson’s,” said an Oct. 7, 2024, letter signed by U.S. representatives. A separate letter was signed by a small group of senators. California, a heavy user of paraquat as the top agricultural state, became the first to move toward banning paraquat last year. But the bill ended up getting pared back with Gov. Gavin Newsom signing a law to fast-track reevaluating paraquat’s safety, reporting shows. Pennsylvania lawmakers are also considering banning it under state bills introduced this year. “There are better, healthier alternatives,” said state Rep. Natalie Mihalek, a Republican who introduced the Pennsylvania legislation.On a federal level, outside the EPA, pesticides appear to be in the crosshairs. Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has criticized chemicals being used in farming. But a new Make America Healthy Again report shows Kennedy has backed away from restricting pesticides after agricultural groups pushed back on the “inaccurate story about American agriculture and our food system.”At the same time, there’s been a reported industry effort to pass state laws that would protect pesticide manufacturers from liability. Two states, North Dakota and Georgia, already passed these laws, according to the National Agricultural Law Firm. But a federal bill introduced this year would ensure the manufacturers can’t be held responsible for harming farmers in any state.“This is a pivotal time for whether paraquat is going to remain active in the United States.”Christian Simmons, legal expert for DrugWatchAs this tug of war continues, paraquat continues to be sprayed on agricultural fields throughout the United States. The EPA is still assessing its risks. And nearly 90,000 Americans are getting diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease every year. Meanwhile for critics, the evidence seems clear: it’s too dangerous. “The easiest thing to do is we should ban paraquat,” Dorsey said.AL.com reporter Margaret Kates contributed to this story.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.