Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...111159,00.html

Ten years ago, we revealed the possible link between a fungicide and a tragic birth defect. Now a US
court has found a chemical giant guilty

Antony Barnett, public affairs editor Sunday December 21, 2003 The Observer

A group of 30 British families who blame a controversial pesticide for causing their babies to be
born without eyes have won a historic breakthrough in their quest to get justice and multi-million
pound compensation. Ten years after The Observer first revealed the possible link between the
agricultural chemical Benlate and this tragic medical condition, the Supreme Court in Florida has
ruled that the fungicide was responsible for causing the birth defects.

After fierce legal wrangles and appeals through the US courts, judges have awarded an American
family almost $7 million (£3.9m) in damages after their son was born with empty eye sockets in 1990.
The US chemical giant DuPont, which made Benlate and has spent millions of dollars fighting the
case, is understood to have already handed over the money to the family.

It is the first time in legal history that a chemical company has been found guilty of causing
birth defects. The case has echoes of Thalidomide, the drug found to cause babies to be born with
deformed limbs.

The American judges concluded that John Castillo's condition was caused as a result of the boy's
mother, Donna, being sprayed with Benlate when she was seven weeks pregnant in November 1989 as she
walked past a fruit farm in Florida. Benlate was used for years on farms and in gardens in Britain
to control fungal infections until DuPont took it off the market two years ago.

Jim Ferraro, the American lawyer who acted for the Castillos and is representing the British
families, said: 'This is a major victory and we now hope to win justice for the British families who
have suffered for years from this tragedy.'

Next year the affected British families are to sue DuPont in Delaware, the home state of the
chemical giant. Marty Griffin from Norfolk, whose son Darren was born with only one eye in 1995 and
who is suing DuPont, welcomed the development.

'This is fantastic news,' he said. 'It shows that a large corporation cannot railroad over the
terrible problems its chemicals have caused. My wife was exposed to Benlate very early on in her
pregnancy and we are absolutely convinced that it caused Darren's problems.

'When he was born, the hospital in King's Lynn had never seen anything like it before and there is
no family history of any eye defects. We are looking forward to our day in court, when we hope to
finally get justice for Darren.'

The safety of benomyl, the chemical ingredient of Benlate, has been questioned for several years. In
1991 scientists at the University of California discovered that more than 40 per cent of pregnant
rats fed high levels of benomyl produced foetuses with severe eye defects. When the dosage of
benomyl was administered to rats given a protein-deficient diet, almost two out of three pregnant
animals gave birth to babies without eyes. The study was designed to show the impact of the chemical
on those with a poor diet.

As long ago as 1972, the US official watchdog, the Environmental Protection Agency, advised that
DuPont should put a label on Benlate warning that it could 'cause birth defects ... and exposure
during pregnancy should be avoided'. But lobbying from DuPont persuaded the EPA that the warning was
misleading and unnecessary, so it never appeared.

One of the most dramatic pieces of evidence to emerge during the legal disputes has been an internal
DuPont report on research the company funded in 1997 by an independent laboratory in Yorkshire.
Scientists tested benomyl on rats and discovered that a 'high' proportion of the chemical was drawn
to the eyes. The report revealed that after two hours a third of the benomyl was concentrated in the
eyes, rising to two-thirds after 24 hours. After 10 days, 80 per cent of the benomyl was pooled
around the eyes.

Some scientists believe this reveals how the eyes act as a kind of powerful magnet to attract the
benomyl and explains how the chemical destroys the eyes of a foetus. DuPont has always argued that
humans could be exposed to large doses of this fungicide without any risks to health. But scientists
say the risks are at a very different level for a foetus at the very early stages of pregnancy, when
the essential structures of a baby's eye and brain are being formed. DuPont has recently withdrawn
Benlate from the global market because of mounting litigation costs.

The company has always denied that Benlate was the cause for the birth defects and argued that the
families' claim was based on 'junk science'. It claims to have spent more than $1.3 billion over
the past decade fighting Benlate lawsuits and paying damages. Most cases have emanated from
hundreds of growers of flowers, ornamental plants and food crops who alleged that the fungicide
wrecked their produce.

antony.barnett@observer.co.uk

"john" <whaleto@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1ad65102.0312211115.61123340@posting.google.com... (...)

> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was responsible for causing the birth
> defects.

This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.

Jeff

>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
>From: "Jeff" kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com
>Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <bs51ok$c7n@library2.airnews.net>
>
>
>"john" <whaleto@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:1ad65102.0312211115.61123340@posting.google.com... (...)
>
>> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was responsible for causing the birth
>> defects.
>
>This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
>
>
>Jeff

Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically proven.

Next?

Jan

On 22 Dec 2003 00:14:23 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case From: "Jeff"
>>kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time Message-id:
>><bs51ok$c7n@library2.airnews.net>
>>
>>
>>"john" <whaleto@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:1ad65102.0312211115.61123340@posting.google.com... (...)
>>
>>> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was responsible for causing the birth
>>> defects.
>>
>>This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
>>
>>
>>Jeff
>
>Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically proven.

Jan reads something on the internet and ASSumes it is true. I would like to see Jan's proof that 62%
of CM in not scientifically proven. Of course we will never see it. Jan will simply obsessively and
mindlessly repeat the same thing over and over and over again. Sad that.

Aloha,

Rich
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

In article <16ecuv4v7fm5umqs6qpkn6n13s6cmfprta@4ax.com>, Rich <,@.> wrote:
>On 22 Dec 2003 00:14:23 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case From: "Jeff"
>>>kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time Message-id:
>>><bs51ok$c7n@library2.airnews.net>
>>>
>>>"john" <whaleto@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1ad65102.0312211115.61123340@posting.google.com... (...)
>>>
>>>> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was responsible for causing the birth
>>>> defects.
>>>
>>>This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
>>>
>>>Jeff
>>
>>Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically proven.
>
>Jan reads something on the internet and ASSumes it is true. I would like to see Jan's proof that
>62% of CM in not scientifically proven. Of course we will never see it. Jan will simply obsessively
>and mindlessly repeat the same thing over and over and over again. Sad that.

Yep -- that silly and ancient statistic has been refuted countless times, but the myth lingers on.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case From: "Jeff"
>>kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time Message-id:
>><bs51ok$c7n@library2.airnews.net>
>>
>>
>>"john" <whaleto@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:1ad65102.0312211115.61123340@posting.google.com... (...)
>>
>>> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was responsible for causing the birth
>>> defects.
>>
>>This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
>>
>>
>>Jeff
>
>Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically proven.
>
>Next?
>
>Jan

100% of "alternative medicine" is NOT scientifically proven.

Next?

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> ..........

> >100% of "alternative medicine" is NOT scientifically proven.
> >
> >Next?
>
> Next, one can't use it as an excuse.
>
> Many things used successfully are not proven, That's why one goes with
RESULTS.
>
> Jan

Which period of the Dark Ages did you spend your former life in?

carabelli

wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in news:FftFb.38473$Ua4.1119
@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com:

> In article <16ecuv4v7fm5umqs6qpkn6n13s6cmfprta@4ax.com>, Rich <,@.>
wrote:
>>On 22 Dec 2003 00:14:23 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case From: "Jeff"
>>>>kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time Message-id:
>>>><bs51ok$c7n@library2.airnews.net>
>>>>
>>>>"john" <whaleto@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1ad65102.0312211115.61123340@posting.google.com... (...)
>>>>
>>>>> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was responsible for causing the
>>>>> birth defects.
>>>>
>>>>This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
>>>>
>>>>Jeff
>>>
>>>Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically
proven.
>>
>>Jan reads something on the internet and ASSumes it is true. I would like to see Jan's proof that
>>62% of CM in not scientifically proven. Of course we will never see it. Jan will simply
>>obsessively and mindlessly repeat the same thing over and over and over again. Sad that.
>
> Yep -- that silly and ancient statistic has been refuted countless times, but the myth lingers on.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net

I don't think it is a myth at all. Many times myths have some basis in fact. AFAIC, It is a lie just
like much of Alt. Med. As a matter of fact most of Alternative Medicine is not Medicine at all. It
should be called Guessing or Supersition or anything that does not have the name medicine in it. I
can sort of understand it when referring to a potion, but never as a methodology.

The dictionary says this about medicine:

"the science and art dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure
of disease"

The key word is science. Take science out, as most, if not all altie practitioners do, and you have
something that is not medicine.

Any suggestion on what to call it?

Alt. Amusing anecdote? ALt BSer? Alt. we will suck your wallet dry? Alt. everything taught in
schools is a lie?

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

So Results do not count,

Care to elaborate on Drug Company results that do count ? Please lets us all get out of the Dark
Ages of modern medicine.

Rod.

"carabelli" <redslaz3@att.net.not> wrote in message news:w1KFb.513806$0v4.21929636@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> ..........
>
>
> > >100% of "alternative medicine" is NOT scientifically proven.
> > >
> > >Next?
> >
> > Next, one can't use it as an excuse.
> >
> > Many things used successfully are not proven, That's why one goes with
> RESULTS.
> >
> > Jan
>
> Which period of the Dark Ages did you spend your former life in?
>
> carabelli

In <w1KFb.513806$0v4.21929636@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, carabelli wrote:
> "Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> ..........

>> Many things used successfully are not proven, That's why one goes with
> RESULTS.
>>
>> Jan
>
> Which period of the Dark Ages did you spend your former life in?

Former?

--
begin signature.exe
A:*Because*it*messes*up*the*order*in*which*people*normally*read*text.
B:*Why*is*top-posting*such*a*bad*thing?
C:*Top-posting.
D:*What*is*the*most*annoying*thing*on*usenet?

"Rod" <deniecerod1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QSWFb.62922$aT.43469@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> So Results do not count,
>
> Care to elaborate on Drug Company results that do count ? Please lets us
all
> get out of the Dark Ages of modern medicine.

If any therapy, alt or EOM works let's find out why. As in study it see if it really works and then
why. Jan prefers to remain ignorant, supposed results alone are enough for her.

carabelli

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:02:19 GMT, "carabelli" <redslaz3@att.net.not> wrote:

>
>"Rod" <deniecerod1@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:QSWFb.62922$aT.43469@news-
>server.bigpond.net.au...
>> So Results do not count,
>>
>> Care to elaborate on Drug Company results that do count ? Please lets us
>all
>> get out of the Dark Ages of modern medicine.
>
>If any therapy, alt or EOM works let's find out why. As in study it see if it really works and then
>why. Jan prefers to remain ignorant, supposed results alone are enough for her.
>
>carabelli
>
J./d has her own definition of 'results' and 'actual experience' that are subject to change at whim.

The phrase "scientifically repeatable results" has no meaning to the 'true believer' that is jxdx.

She cannot *grok* it.
--

Take out the G'RBAGE to reply
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com

"WB" <no_one@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:j58huvg0r7ifpn762irlat9au4vi64uuru@4ax.com...

> J./d has her own definition of 'results' and 'actual experience' that are subject to change
> at whim.
>
> The phrase "scientifically repeatable results" has no meaning to the 'true believer' that is jxdx.
>
> She cannot *grok* it.

Jan's reality is indeed a Strange Land.

;o) Rich