Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Pesticides and agrochemicals · United States · 2000–2012

Syngenta paid $105m to settle atrazine water-treatment claims

Short record: the main facts, with sources. A full case file has not been prepared.

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
What the record lacks: 1 none on record · 1 not disclosed · 1 insufficient · 1 not measured See the gaps

In 2012 Syngenta agreed to pay $105m to water utilities that had to treat atrazine in drinking water, without admitting liability. Internal communications later reported in the press show a plan to discredit a university biologist whose atrazine research the company feared; at stake is independent science on a widely used herbicide.

What?
Syngenta paid $105m in 2012 to settle claims by water utilities over atrazine in drinking water, while stating it clearly denied liability. SEC (filed by Syngenta)
Where?
Illinois (utilities' claims); United States (atrazine sales) SEC (filed by Syngenta)
When?
Communications plan from the 2000s; settlement in 2012 SEC (filed by Syngenta)
Who?
Gained
  • Syngenta — Settled while denying liability, citing an end to business uncertainty (SEC filing) SEC (filed by Syngenta)
  • Syngenta — Internal plan aimed to prevent citation of a scientist's atrazine data (The New Yorker, 2014)
Lost
Harmed
  • A university biologist who studied atrazine — Subject of a company plan to discredit his research, as reported
  • Independent scientists — Targeted in internal paraquat papers describing a “SWAT” unit, as reported Substack newsletter
Why?
The communications plan aimed to limit citation of atrazine data. The 2012 filing gave ending business uncertainty as the reason for the payment. SEC (filed by Syngenta)
How?
A court settlement with no admission of liability; a public-relations plan targeting one researcher; reported paraquat efforts against independent researchers.
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

Syngenta agreed in 2012 to pay $105m to settle claims by water utilities that had to treat atrazine in drinking water, and said in its filings that it clearly denied liability (SEC Form 6-K, 2012).

Internal communications summarised by The New Yorker in February 2014 listed discrediting a university biologist among four public-relations goals, and said that discrediting him would prevent citation of his atrazine data.

Internal paraquat documents, as reported in a 2023 Substack article, describe a “SWAT” unit set up to target independent researchers, and external scientists who wrote articles without disclosing their Syngenta ties.

The same documents describe an effort to keep a respected scientist off an EPA advisory panel (Substack article, 2023).

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    1. 2012Settled
      Water utilities' atrazine claims, Illinois
      Illinois court (name not given in sources) · Civil · Water utilities → Syngenta AG

      Syngenta agreed to pay $105m, stating in its filings that it clearly denied any liability. SEC (filed by Syngenta)

    Insurers

    No insurer decision on record.

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

    Record

    • Insufficient Reported but not verified: atrazine remains on sale in the United States.
    • Not disclosed Reported but not verified: at least $187.5m paid in paraquat cases in 2021; the 2025 paraquat settlement amount is undisclosed.
    • None on record The sources do not say whether the discrediting plan was carried out beyond the internal communications.

    Did the harm stop?

    Not stated in the sources reviewed.

    Who paid?

    Not stated in the sources reviewed.

    Sources

    Voices on record: ✓ Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers

    Company or project

    1. Form 6-K
      SEC (filed by Syngenta) · 2012

    Press and investigations

    1. Syngenta v. scientist
      Substack newsletter · 2023-09-05

    Connected cases

    Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
    Terms used on this page

    Institutions

    EPA
    The US Environmental Protection Agency.
    SEC
    The US Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates securities markets and what companies tell investors.
    Similar cases
    Pesticides and agrochemicals · Insurance, liability and compensation funds · Chemical pollution · United States · 1947–2020
    Montrose DDT insurance case
    Same type: Pesticides and agrochemicalsSame countryCourt: settled
    Pesticides and agrochemicals · Chemical pollution · United States · 2009–2026
    Roundup litigation, settlements and legal shield (Bayer/Monsanto)
    Same type: Pesticides and agrochemicalsSame countryCourt: settled
    Pesticides and agrochemicals · Chemical pollution · United States · 2015–2026
    Dicamba drift (Bader Farms) and EPA re-registration
    Same type: Pesticides and agrochemicalsSame countryHarm to nature not measured
    Pesticides and agrochemicals · United States · 2020–2022
    Jury awards $250 million punitive damages over dicamba drift, later overturned
    Same type: Pesticides and agrochemicalsSame countryHarm to nature not measured
    Pesticides and agrochemicals · United States · 2021–2025
    Stockholm Convention agrees chlorpyrifos phase-out with 22 uses exempted
    Same type: Pesticides and agrochemicalsSame countryHarm to nature not measured
    Pesticides and agrochemicals · United States · 2015–2026
    Court reverses $60 million punitive award in dicamba case
    Same type: Pesticides and agrochemicalsSame countryHarm to nature not measured