Pesticides in court

Court orders treatment against family's wishes
A London family has been forced to leave home and have their premises treated with permethrin and carbamate pesticide against their wishes.
     In mid January 1999 the Court of Appeal ruled that Hugh Berger, his wife Margaret and their daughter Anastasia, who are all suffering from earlier exposure to chemicals, must leave their flat in Kensingston, west London. Their appeal relates to a 4 December 1998 Order in which Judge Winstanley of the Central London County Court ordered remedial works to be carried out by the Berger's landlords, Women's Pioneer Housing Ltd., for dry rot using pesticides.
     According to lawyer Alan Care: "This is the first time that I am aware that any court in the world has ordered pesticides to be used against an individual's wishes in their home."
     In the mid-1980s Mr Berger, a buildings preservation expert, suffered a severe breakdown in health after prolonged exposure to timber treatment chemicals he was using to restore Llangoed Castle in Wales. His wife and daughter were exposed at the same time, and have since suffered symptoms associated with long-term damage from pesticides.
     In the December court case Mr Berger called on restoration expert Timothy Hutton who said that the best remedy for the dry rot would be to use the 'construction technique' involving no use of pesticides. This accords with the Health and Safety Executive's advice that chemicals should only be used where absolutely necessary.

Sunday Telegraph, 24 January 1999.

Benomyl case overturned
A Miami state appeals court has overruled a 1996 verdict against Du Pont Co and a Miami vegetable grower whose spraying of Benlate 50DF (benomyl) fungicide was blamed for a child being born without eyes (see PN33 p.8).
    Because of 'flaws in the scientific evidence', the court overturned a US$4 million award for the family of Juan and Donna Castillo, who claimed that their son John, was harmed before birth because the farm sprayed benomyl on the boy's mother when she was seven months pregnant.
    In a 29 page opinion, the Third District Court of Appeal said a key expert testimony linking benomyl to birth defects should not have been admitted.
    "Based on the record in this case we hold that the plaintiff's scientific evidence, and the conclusions it embraces, should have been excluded, as the methodology used to obtain them is not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community," a three-judge panel said.
    Du Pont, which manufactures benomyl, has paid more than US$1 billion in settlements since 1991 to nursery growers and farmers who claimed the chemical ruined plants and crops.
    Miami lawyer James Ferraro has 20 other benomyl cases pending around the US involving children born without eyes.
    In their 1993 lawsuit, the Castillos contended that during an afternoon stroll near a local field, a spray machine drenched Donna Castillo with benomyl. However the three-judge panel had noted that Castillo's exposure was the subject of 'extensive debate'.

Miami Herald, 18 February 1999.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 43, March 1999, page 15]