As countries across Europe, Asia and Latin America move decisively to restrict or ban highly toxic weedkillers, questions are intensifying over why Ghana continues to allow the widespread use of chemicals that have been linked to serious health and environmental risks.
Paraquat, one of the most controversial herbicides globally, has been banned across the European Union and in countries including China, Thailand, Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Peru and Taiwan. The chemical is known for its extreme toxicity, frequent involvement in fatal poisonings and the absence of an effective antidote. Glyphosate, while not universally prohibited, has faced restrictions or phased reductions in countries such as France, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands and Vietnam amid ongoing concerns over possible links to cancer and environmental degradation.
International regulators say their decisions are driven by mounting scientific evidence and public health considerations. Studies have linked paraquat exposure to severe neurological damage, while glyphosate has been associated with long-term ecosystem harm, including soil degradation, water contamination and risks to pollinators. Many governments have adopted the precautionary principle, acting to reduce exposure even as research continues.
In Ghana, however, both chemicals remain widely used, particularly in agriculture. Supporters argue that herbicides offer an affordable and efficient way for farmers to control weeds in a labor-intensive sector. Yet critics say this practicality does not outweigh the risks, especially as concerns are increasingly raised by health experts, environmental advocates and even officials within the Ministry of Food and Agriculture about excessive and poorly regulated use.
Environmental analysts warn that Ghana’s ecosystems face the same vulnerabilities as those elsewhere. Rivers, farmlands and rural communities are exposed to chemical runoff and long-term soil damage, raising fears about food safety, water quality and public health. Observers question why substances considered too dangerous in Europe or Asia are still treated as acceptable locally.
Other countries have shown that restrictions do not have to mean abrupt bans. Integrated Weed Management, which combines mechanical weeding, crop rotation, mulching and reduced chemical use, has been adopted successfully in several regions. Some governments have phased out the most dangerous products first, restricted herbicide use near water bodies and public spaces, and invested in farmer training and alternative technologies before implementing broader controls.
Policy advocates say Ghana could follow a similar path by immediately banning the most hazardous weedkillers for household and public use, piloting non-chemical weed control methods in key farming areas, subsidizing safer alternatives and strengthening extension services. A gradual, well-planned transition, they argue, would protect farmers’ livelihoods while reducing long-term harm.
As global standards shift, the debate in Ghana is increasingly framed as a choice between proactive reform and costly inaction. Critics warn that failing to respond to clear international trends and scientific warnings risks undermining public health, environmental sustainability and agricultural resilience.
For many observers, the issue is no longer whether alternatives exist, but whether Ghana is willing to act on evidence already acknowledged elsewhere.
