Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case

[Guest guest]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1111186,00.html

 

Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square