Pesticide Makers Ask U.S. Gov't
for Indemnity
Beyond Pesticides.org
April 27, 2001
According to the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), pesticide
manufacturers are increasingly reluctant to supply their products to
fight public health diseases because of the litigation costs that can
arise from their use. In an attempt to sell more hazardous products
without the risk of litigation costs, pesticide manufacturers are
suggesting that they not be held accountable for injuries caused by
their products.
"Indemnification for pesticide makers is appropriate because public
health pesticides benefit society by preventing vector-borne
diseases," Don O'Shaughnessy, director of regulatory affairs for
Cheminova Inc., of Wayne, N.J., told BNA. Cheminova refused to supply
the organophosphate pesticide malathion to New York City in 2000 and
2001 without indemnification because of the high cost of litigation,
reported BNA. Cheminova also refuses to supply malathion to the
Agriculture Department for emergency use against the Medfly in
California absent indemnification, "They will have to take this
material by force because that's the only way we'll give it up," Mr.
O'Shaughnessy said.
|
| Litigation cost is the price of marketing toxic
chemicals that may adversely affect people |
Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP believes that pesticide manufacturers, and
not the American taxpayer or governments, that should bear the cost
of the litigation. Litigation cost is the price of marketing toxic
chemicals that may adversely affect people. There have been a litany
of cases in which pesticide makers have faced lawsuits for damages
from legal, labeled uses of pesticides, and been successful. "You
take the good with the bad," Jay Feldman, executive director of
beyond Pesticides told BNA. "This is a high risk business that
includes both profit and the risks of litigation, for which companies
should pay."
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/
|
www.caps.20m.com