Where the World Draws the Line: A Country-by-Country Look at Herbicide Bans and Restrictions

A Global Agriculture Research Report

25 August 2026, New Delhi: For decades, a handful of chemical weed-killers have quietly underpinned modern farming, clearing fields before planting, keeping row crops weed-free, and enabling the no-till systems that many growers rely on to conserve soil. But two of them in particular, glyphosate and paraquat, have become the most contested agrochemicals on earth. Regulators on almost every continent have spent the last decade tightening the rules around their use, and in dozens of countries the answer has been an outright ban.

This report maps where things stand as of mid-2026: which countries have banned these herbicides outright, which have restricted them to licensed applicators or specific uses (as India has done), and what phase-out timelines are actually in motion versus merely proposed. The picture is more fluid than most summaries suggest. Bans get announced, then delayed, then partially reversed, then reinstated, so the emphasis here is on verified regulatory status rather than headlines.

Why these two herbicides, specifically

Glyphosate and paraquat dominate global weed control by volume, but they draw scrutiny for different reasons. Glyphosate was classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015, a finding that triggered years of litigation, particularly in the United States, and pushed several governments to reassess it, even though food-safety bodies like the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) have concluded the evidence does not support a cancer classification. Paraquat’s problem is more acute and less disputed: it is extremely toxic if swallowed, a single sip can be fatal, and it has been linked in a substantial body of research to an elevated risk of Parkinson’s disease among long-term users. That toxicity profile is why paraquat has drawn a broader global consensus against it than glyphosate has.

Paraquat: the closest thing to a global consensus ban

Paraquat is now banned or severely restricted in more than 70 countries, according to global trade and regulatory analyses, making it one of the most widely prohibited pesticides in the world despite remaining legal in the United States.

Banned outright:

• The European Union: every member state, following a 2007 ruling by the EU’s Court of First Instance that annulled paraquat’s EU-wide authorisation.
• United Kingdom and Switzerland: banned domestically even though Syngenta, paraquat’s largest manufacturer, is headquartered in Switzerland and continues to manufacture the chemical in the UK for export.
• China: banned domestic sale and use in 2017, though Chinese manufacturers remain among the largest exporters of paraquat to countries where it is still legal, including the US.
• South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam: all have banned paraquat over the past decade, largely on poisoning-prevention grounds after clusters of accidental and self-harm-related deaths.
• Brazil: banned in 2020, one of the most significant bans given Brazil’s status as one of the world’s largest agrochemical markets.
• Kuwait, Syria, El Salvador, and a number of other countries across the Middle East and Latin America have also prohibited it.

Restricted rather than banned:

• United States: paraquat is not banned but is classified a federal Restricted Use Pesticide. Since 2019 to 2020, the EPA has required all handlers to hold a restricted-use certification and complete specific paraquat safety training; unsupervised or uncertified use is prohibited, and residential/homeowner use has long been barred. California has gone further procedurally, ordering the state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation to complete a fresh reevaluation of paraquat by January 1, 2029, which could result in new restrictions, suspension, or cancellation.
• India: paraquat is not nationally banned, but several state governments have imposed temporary or seasonal restrictions; Telangana, for instance, has periodically imposed short-term bans (around 60 days) during high-risk periods, citing poisoning and misuse concerns, without a permanent nationwide prohibition.

Phase-out timeline to watch: Syngenta itself announced it will cease manufacturing paraquat entirely by June 2026, a striking development given the company is the world’s largest producer. The company has attributed the decision primarily to competition from generic manufacturers rather than to health concerns, and it does not by itself end global supply: several Chinese chemical producers continue to manufacture and export paraquat to markets, including the US, where it remains legal.

Glyphosate: banned in some places, restricted in far more, contested almost everywhere

Glyphosate’s regulatory picture is messier than paraquat’s because the underlying science is more disputed and because it is the world’s most widely used herbicide by volume, giving governments a much bigger economic incentive to avoid an outright ban.

Countries and jurisdictions with full or near-full bans (current or recently in force):

• Sri Lanka: introduced a nationwide ban in 2015 that has since been lifted and reinstated multiple times; as of recent reporting, use requires a specific permit rather than being fully unrestricted.
• Austria: enacted what was reported as a full ban in 2019, though its implementation has faced EU-law challenges given glyphosate’s EU-wide approval.
• Luxembourg: a full ban from 2020, also contested in court on EU-law grounds.
• Vietnam: banned glyphosate imports and use in 2019.
• Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (the Gulf Cooperation Council states): banned glyphosate-based herbicides beginning around 2015 to 2016, following the IARC classification.
• Malawi and Togo: suspended import licences and prohibited import, marketing and use from 2019.
• Bermuda, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Costa Rica have also imposed restrictions or bans, according to pesticide-policy trackers.

Bans announced, then reversed or paused, a recurring pattern:

• Mexico was set to become the largest jurisdiction to fully outlaw glyphosate, with a 2024 target date, but the government paused implementation before the ban took effect, following pressure over potential trade and supply disruptions.
• Germany passed legislation in 2021 to end glyphosate use entirely from January 1, 2024. When the EU renewed glyphosate’s approval for ten years (to December 15, 2033) in late 2023, Germany issued emergency regulations suspending its own ban from January to June 2024 to avoid conflicting with EU law; that suspension has since expired, and glyphosate remains available in Germany today, though the country still prohibits its use in public spaces and water-conservation areas.
• Colombia and El Salvador previously enacted full bans that were later overturned.

The European Union, broadly: No EU member state currently bans glyphosate outright at the EU-approval level. The European Commission renewed the active substance’s authorisation for ten years in November 2023, based on assessments by EFSA, ECHA and a joint Assessment Group of four member states, over the objections of several countries that had pushed for a phase-out. But EU member states retain the right to restrict specific products and use categories nationally, and several have done so: France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg restrict or ban amateur/non-professional use; France and Italy restrict use in public green spaces and, in Italy’s case, as a pre-harvest desiccant; Denmark restricts post-emergent use. Six EU member states, including Austria and Slovenia, formally petitioned Brussels for a glyphosate exit plan as far back as 2018.

Restricted to licensed or specific use (the India model): This is where India’s regulatory approach is genuinely distinctive on the world stage. Rather than banning glyphosate outright, India’s central government issued the Restriction on Use of Glyphosate Order, 2022, which applies nationwide and states plainly that “no person shall use glyphosate except through Pest Control Operators” (PCOs), licensed applicators certified for pesticide handling. The order followed years of state-level action: Punjab banned glyphosate sale in 2018, Kerala banned its sale, distribution and use in 2019 after a state expert-committee report found health and animal-safety hazards, and Telangana and Andhra Pradesh imposed their own restrictions before the national order arrived. Registration certificate holders were required to relabel products with a bold warning that glyphosate use is permitted only through PCOs. Notably, and tellingly, India’s own regulators have since had to revisit the policy: in April 2026, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, acting on Delhi High Court directions, convened a fresh review after pesticide-industry and grower groups reported there simply aren’t enough licensed PCOs nationwide to meet demand under the restricted framework, particularly flagged by the tea sector.

United States: Glyphosate is not banned or federally restricted for the general agricultural market. The EPA has been conducting its mandated 15-year registration review, and in 2024 it rejected a petition from environmental groups seeking a ban, citing a lack of new toxicity evidence. Legal exposure remains a live issue, however, through ongoing product-liability litigation over alleged links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Some US cities and counties, including Portland, Oregon and Austin and Denton, Texas, restrict or prohibit glyphosate use on municipal land, but there is no statewide US ban anywhere.

Other herbicides worth watching

• Atrazine: Widely described as “banned in the EU,” which is a slight oversimplification. The European Commission declined to renew atrazine’s approval in 2004 after monitoring data could not confirm it would stay below the EU’s strict 0.1 microgram-per-litre groundwater threshold for any pesticide residue, a procedural/precautionary bar rather than a specific toxicity finding, and its manufacturer disputes the “banned” framing. The practical effect is the same, though: atrazine has not been sold or used in the EU since 2004, while it remains the second most widely used herbicide in the United States. Canada’s federal regulator has atrazine under periodic re-evaluation following provincial pressure, notably from Quebec environmental groups.
• 2,4-D and other older phenoxy herbicides face patchwork restrictions in various jurisdictions, generally around residential/amateur use and buffer zones near water bodies, rather than the kind of outright national bans seen with paraquat.

Phase-out and review timelines at a glance

Herbicide / Jurisdiction	Status	Key date
Paraquat, Syngenta global production	Manufacturer-led phase-out	Production ceasing by June 2026
Paraquat, California	Mandatory re-evaluation, outcome undecided	Review due by January 1, 2029
Glyphosate, EU-wide approval	Renewed, not phasing out	Approved through December 15, 2033
Glyphosate, Germany	National ban legislated, then suspended	Suspension ran Jan to June 2024; ban not currently in force
Glyphosate, Mexico	Ban paused before taking effect	No confirmed new date
Glyphosate, India (PCO restriction)	In force nationally, under fresh review	National order since October 2022; review opened April 2026
Glyphosate, Sri Lanka	Permit-based, repeatedly reversed historically	Ongoing

The bigger picture for growers and industry

The regulatory direction of travel is clearly tightening for paraquat, even its own manufacturer is walking away from production, while glyphosate’s story is one of a global tug-of-war rather than a one-way march toward prohibition. Announced bans on glyphosate are disproportionately likely to be delayed, watered down into partial/professional-use restrictions, or reversed once the economic and food-security trade-offs become clear to policymakers, as seen in Germany and Mexico. India’s PCO-licensing model, restriction through controlled, certified application rather than prohibition, is increasingly cited internationally as a middle path, though India’s own April 2026 review shows that model runs into a practical bottleneck: there simply are not enough certified applicators to service the country’s farmland at scale.

For agrochemical companies, exporters and growers operating across multiple geographies, the operative reality is that “banned” and “restricted” cover a wide range of actual on-the-ground rules, and status can change within a single growing season. Global Agriculture will continue tracking these developments as regulatory reviews in India, the EU and North America progress through 2026 and beyond.

This report is based on Global Agriculture’s research and analysis of regulatory notifications, court and government filings, and data compiled by international research and monitoring organisations including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), the Environmental Working Group (EWG), and Sustainable Pulse, alongside official notifications from India’s Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, the US EPA, and the European Commission. Regulatory status is subject to change; readers relying on this information for compliance purposes should verify current rules with the relevant national authority.

Also Read: ASSOCHAM to Host 4th Agritech Summit 2026 in New Delhi on October 26

Global Agriculture is an independent international media platform covering agri-business, policy, technology, and sustainability. For editorial collaborations, thought leadership, and strategic communications, write to pr@global-agriculture.com