J
john
Guest
Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1111159,00.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.
[email protected]
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1111159,00.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.
[email protected]