Woman Sprayed With Pesticide Can't Get List Of Chemicals Because They're A Trade Secret
A North Carolina woman out walking her dog last month was sprayed in the face with a gypsy moth pesticide, and subsequently developed "a severe rash and other flu-like symptoms, breathing complications, and nausea for several days." Unfortunately, her doctor can't treat her properly because the company that makes the spray won't tell him what's in it.
Instantly, her eyes began to burn and as the chemicals seeped through from the misting, she was unable to open her eyes.
[...]
To make matters worse, Russano's doctor explained that he could not offer her a diagnosis or treatment plan because the chemicals in the gypsy moth pesticide, known as Foray 76B, are trade secret ingredients owned by Canada-based manufacturer Valent Biosciences Corp.
"The doctor was stymied. He said, ‘If you don't know what's in it, I can't help you.'" Russano's husband Frank Russano said. "She cannot be tested, or treated for the rash, and now she's developed this flu and we have no of knowing if the two are related."
Residents in the area were warned about the spray beforehand, both in a town meeting and via postcard, although they were told the spray was safe. On the scheduled day, weather forced them to postpone the spraying by two weeks, but this time there was no notice other than a sign at the local fire station.
Besides all that, the helicopter distributing the pesticide was flying outside the designated spray area when it mistook the woman for a giant gypsy moth who had discovered how to domesticate dogs.
North Carolina's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Sciences (NCDACS) has opened an investigation, but it looks like they're just investigating why the pilot was out of range. There doesn't appear to be any move on their part to force Valent Biosciences Corp. to tell the woman's doctor what's in the spray.
Frank Russano said he isn't interested in making a "federal case" out of the matter, but would like a data base with a detailed account of the Foray 76B chemical content, so if his wife does develop adverse reactions to the spray later in time, they will be able to diagnose and treat any problems.
[State] investigators have visited the Corolla site and continue to be in contact with the Russano's.
"They seemed to be apologetic, and sincere," Frank Russano said. "We just want to make sure this won't happen again or to anyone else."
"State probes spray mishap" [Daily Advance] (Thanks to EB!)
(Photo: Teo)
Post a comment
Comments:
I just don't see how they could let a "trade secret" get in the way of someone's health, when it's obvious that the doctor needs to know what she got sprayed with so that they can treat her..
What do they do if their employees get in contact with this chemical? Just send him home and tell him to walk it off? I bet they have doctors that know what is in that stuff.. maybe she could see on of them.
Or they could tell the doctor what is in it and have him sign something that says he wouldn't tell anybody/go into the spraying business himself.
There has to be a way to help this woman.
We have a law here in the US regarding chemicals and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). Every chemical used in this country must have one of the sheets which contains safety information if one comes in contact with the chemical. Even offices are supposed to have these sheets for copy machine toner. The City, County, or state should have this information.
How is that even legal? What's stopping them from putting illegal ingredients in their product if they don't have to share what's in it with anyone?
@PappaBear: Was about to post this same thing. How is it no one has an MSDS on this chemical? It wasn't legal for them to even transport it in the USA without one.
The company could make the doctor sign a NDA, or they could even send their own doctor out to treat the woman, if they're that worried about their trade secret.
More importantly though, no one should use a spray whose ingredient list isn't available. Whoever decided to permit that was acting woefully irresponsibly.
Don't worry, OSHA will hit them with a $1000 fine for not having their MSDS on hand to supply to the doctors.
That will set them straight.
/scathing sarcasm
So, those of us who were children in the 50s and 60s, what did we inhale from those trucks that rumbled down our suburban streets spraying trees for bugs and the air for mosquitos? Back then no one said to get out of the way -- chemicals were GOOD FOR US, you know? Kids used to walk to school through the lethal mist, or run behind the trucks letting it settle over their faces, hair, clothes. I hate to think what tumors we Baby Boomers are incubating. *makes note to inform my kids about future class-action lawsuits*
Sue baby, sue!!!
@jdmba: In what way does it make sense? Are you really saying she should accept permanent damage to her eyesight in exchange for a legal settlement?
@Kimaroo: I was thinking the same thing, they know what's in it and how to treat it. Just tell the doctor what needs to be done for treatment.
3.3% active ingredient. Remainder is inert 96.7% Maybe their secret is h20???
@ElizabethD: You inhaled DDT, if nothing else. Read "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson.
[en.wikipedia.org]
@PappaBear: Frankly if you goto the MSDS web site [www.msds.com] and search for the listed chemical "Foray 76B", they have a listing (you need to sign up to view the sheet).
Then again, didn't one of those computer cartridge manufacturer's manage to get an injunction to not have to release their MSDS sheets due to "trade secrets" on what they use in their ink/toner?
@jdmba: in cases of human beings, requests from medical professionals MUST be honored. They are risking one f*ck of a lawsuit by not answering the questions or sending over the proper (not redacted) MSDS. Not only that the Feds can put them out of business for this, not that they would (it's a hollow threat), but the possibility is there.
Pets are a different story.
@selectman: As serious as any chemical in your eyes is, it's quite easily rinsed off with something called a Nelson Lens. It's basically a large contact lens hooked up to an irrigation sourse, usually saline.
I once got concentrated pool shock treatment spleashed in my eyes. It was horrible but the lens took care of it. Part of one of my baby blues turned pale white. It looks pretty awesome and it's a great conversation piece.
Thanks careless pool attendant!
PS - I didn't sue. Not my style. Accidents happen.
@Kimaroo: Really? Greedy corporations throw people under the bus for profits every day.
Sadly, that's the world we live in.
Someone needs to do their research...this doctor is full of crap, as the safety sheets are readily available all over the place.
@Kimaroo: Tell the doctor, then make him and the woman sign a non-disclosure agreement.
As much as I wouldn't want to sign it (I'd want to ruin their trade secret out of spite at that point) I would if it meant getting treatment.
Seems to me like there could be a criminal case here, something about harm due to willful negligence if this lady suffers harm from their refusal to help her.
@LostTurntable: Nope, not unless it's for consumtion and even then it has to be a certain volume to count. Remember Coke's ubiquitous ingredient "X7"? The fda eventually made them disclose it or take it off the label. They took it off in favor of "natural flavors".
@selectman: It doesn't make sense. @ElizabethD: That was dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane. Don't worry, most people will die of overexposure to fast food before DDT gets you.
Any company using a chemical in the United States is required to have, and provide to the public, a "Material Safety Data Sheet" which will include exposure protocol. Failure to do so gets you in a LOT of trouble. This woman needs to call and request the MSDS for the spray in question.
@jdmba: Witholding possible dangerous chemical information doesn't make sense and in fact, I'm pretty sure it's illegal. Or should be.
@jimv2000: But they don't disclose the inert ingredients, which constitute over 96% of the substance; they classify them as a "trade secret." It's pretty clear that those ingredients are what's in contention.
@jimv2000: Except that 96.7% is listed as a trade secret on those pages and so is no help.
Claiming something is inert, doesn't mean it is.
Cigarettes are safe, fun and healthy remember?
@jimv2000: Turns out the active ingredient is a bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, that isn't infectious to humans. And she got irritated eyes (a potential health hazard according to the MSDS) and the ... flu? Either they weren't spraying what they said they were, or something else is going on here.
@Easton21: Except this wasn't just an accident. 1)She got sick and they still won't give her the ingrediants. 2)The helicopter was way out of range.
Applied at a rate of 1/2 gal. per acre. Remove contaminated clothing, flush exposed areas with lots of water. Suck it up lady. I've had a lot worse spilled on me and I did not sue.
As previous comments have said, in the US the EPA runs a program called the Chemical Right to Know program. I'm a chemist in a suburban research facility and we run into this program on a regular basis. We have to keep accurate, up to date records of the hazards of all the chemicals we use and be able to provide those sheets at a moment's notice to any inquiring community members. Naturally, anything that is a trade secret or hasn't been patented will be withheld, but the hazards will be disclosed so proper treatment can be administered.
Valent is violating federal law by not disclosing the hazards to a health professional. Regardless of whether or not their a Canadian company, if their chemicals are used in the US, the law applies. Someone needs to get the EPA involved.
"trade secret" = "illegal ingredients", amirite?
@jdmba: Just how in anyway do you think that the company has the right to withhold the name of the chemicals! So what that it is a trade secret, its not like a person got some Coke-Cola in there eye and they are going to reproduce and sell it at the local Walmart! It is the companies fault for not putting up more signs for people to read in the first place. I hope the feds yank there license for violating the MSDS safety laws.
Also, is a sign at the fire station considered proper disclosure of the date change? If it is, seems to be like there are a lot of wrongs that could be fixed (or at least addresed) if this couple decides to pursue a suit. Ideally they wouldn't have to because everyone involved would realize the error of their ways and promise to be better in the future, but until I start waking up every day to birds chirping and Bambi playfully peeking in my window I don't think that's what will happen.
@Kogenta: I can't see it (it claims I haven't turned off my popup blocker and I have), but my guess is it's the same as the one posted below, which doesn't identify the inert ingredients. If they don't have to do that, there's not much point to an MSDS then, really.
@Freeloader: Do you think "inert" means "safe"? What's going on here is that they're not saying what they were spraying. The active ingredient may well be beside the point.
@farcedude: I'm as much a fan of Rachel Carson as I am DDT.
Find more recent research on DDT than a book from 1962. DDT will aggravate asthma if inhaled, and might give you cancer, but you'll most likely die from other causes first.
If you look at the MSDS for Foray 76B, you will see that it is a bacteria that is presumably harmful to the moth they are trying to control. The inert ingredients are listed as proprietary, and the product as a whole is said to be a mild irritant. This woman must have been sensitive (allergic) to one of the inert ingredients, and her condition was most likely exacerbated by hysteria. Still, I am surprised that Valent would not work with the doctor in treating the woman.
We seem to be trusting a reporter's account, of her husband's account, of her doctor's account of what the company relayed.
I hope she's ok, but there isn't much direct information in this story. Says she couldn't open her eyes, for example, but somehow made it home and bathed the dogs...
@floraposte: I would wonder if a hospital could not get the list/sample, and analyze it and it be covered under medical confidentiality?
@Kimaroo: I just don't see how they could let a "trade secret" get in the way of someone's health
I'm thinking that if they release the information without being ordered to by the court, their competitors could argue that trade secret protection is invalid because the company itself voluntarily disclosed the secret.
Legal action should be taken immediately. Not to be sue-happy, but because there's no way this company will jeopardize potentially billions in profits to rectify a situation they didn't cause.
@Freeloader: She got flu-like symptoms (which could mean ANY number of things) but since they don't know the ingredients, they can't be sure or completely rule out the possibility that the two are connected. It's possible that the flu-like symptoms are just coincidance and that the only thing caused by the chemicals is the rash, but they can't be sure because they don't know the ingrediants.
@Freeloader: Oh and flu-like symptoms (especially if they've ruled out the flu virus) doesn't mean you got a virus. Lots of things cause those kind of symptoms. ("a severe rash and other flu-like symptoms, breathing complications, and nausea for several days.")
@markrubi: What? So basically, she got sick, and ... they can't determine if there is a connection ... but she should just "suck it up"? What are you smoking?
@markrubi:
"Instantly, her eyes began to burn and as the chemicals seeped through from the misting, she was unable to open her eyes" "and subsequently developed 'a severe rash and other flu-like symptoms, breathing complications, and nausea for several days.'"
She's not even suing because of that. She was willing to "suck it up", but Valent Biosciences Corp. won't tell her doctor what's in the spray.
@markrubi: Also, don't you find it mighty fishy that they are unwilling to give up this information?
Personally, the company's withholding their trade secret makes sense; but she should then sue them for any additional damage/distress that this withholding caused.