Question

DuPont and Benlate

            At the turn of the century, DuPont is the world’s second largest chemical company, with sales of over $30 billion in 2000. In 2001, the company announced that it would cease making its fungicide Benlate. The news release read in part:

In 1987 DuPont introduced a dry-flowable form (Benlate 50DF) that was recalled in 1989 and 1991 due to the presence of the herbicide atrazine in some lots. The recalls generated hundreds of claims, and growers and their lawyers began blaming Benlate for a wide range of problems. DuPont initially paid may claims to maintain good customer relations . . . When testing could not duplicate the claimed plant injuries, the company declined to pay any further claims . . . In the following decade DuPont faced hundreds of Benlate lawsuits. DuPont won cases before some courts . . . other trials resulted in losses, including some that reflected the runaway verdicts being rendered by the U.S. jury system in the 1990s. Ultimately, for business reasons, the company decided to stop selling Benlate worldwide.

            Benlate was first synthesized in 1959 and introduced as a fungicide in 1970. It had remarkable properties because, unlike other compounds that stayed on the outside of the plant and acted as a shield, Benlate was able to penetrate the plant and actually protect it from the inside. It helped turn canola into Canada’s main cash crop and effectively defeated a number of fungal infections and molds. By 1979 it was DuPont’s top-selling fungicide, with over $100 million in annual sales. In 1987 the DF variant was introduced. Two years later it was permanently recalled because it had been contaminated by expose to other chemicals during production.

            DuPont was repeated sued. Growers reported that Benlate use had caused crop damage. An Ecuadorian shrimp farm was awarded $12 million because Benlate was linked to poisoning from run-off water of a nearby banana plantation. In 1996 a Florida court awarded damages to the parents of a child who was born blind. Human eyes develop early in pregnancy, and experts testified that exposure to Benlate during the fourth to ninth week of pregnancy could lead to anopthalmia – a condition where the eyes fail to develop. Subsequently, a number of class action suits were filed in the United States, Canada, and Britain, claiming birth defects due to exposure. DuPont’s response was that it knew of “no credible science to support these claims and will continue to defend the product.”

            The company’s image was also tarnished when, in a series of cases from 1995 to 1998, it was fined fir perjury and obstruction of justice. By July 2001, the company claimed that it had spent over $1 billion in Benlate-related litigation and settlements.

            In 2003 the company settled with shareholders, who wanted compensation for lost share value, by paying out another $77 million. Investors claimed that the company had underestimated the liability caused by the compound and that it had caused losses by issuing false and misleading public statements.

Issues to Address

1. Torts – harms – could be handled more efficiently if society just demanded compensation rather than assigning fault. Thus, for example, DuPont would pay out compensation based in affidavits or exposure according to a schedule of harms. (Worker’s compensation operates in such this way.) Similarly, a firm making lawn mowers could design a foolproof model or a chapter one that is more likely to result in injuries to users. Without the need to assign fault or blame, considerable saving would be achieved through avoiding litigation. The cost of compensation would be passed on to consumers, who would ultimately decide through their purchasing choices whether they prefer more expensive and safer goods or less expensive riskier ones. If there were to be a large number of fraudulent claims, then the market forces at work would lower the amount of compensation for an injury. Do you see any moral problems with this approach?
2. In a Canadian case, there was an unusual cluster of children born about the same time in the same area with underdeveloped or missing eyes. Lawyers claimed that the mothers had all been exposed to microscopic amounts of Benlate, as it was being sprayed on a local orchard. What standard of proof do you think should apply in a case like this? If you were on the board of DuPont, would you assume any responsibility or fight the claim?
3. If you were on the board of DuPont, how would you respond if a Third World country wanted to buy up all the remaining stocks of Benlate at a discount, with assurances that the company would be completely immune from any potential liability?
4. From an environmental point of view, do you believe that chemical pesticides are useful? How do you measure the efficiencies of farming with fungicides against a more natural approach?

Answer 1

What standard of proof do you think should apply in a case like this? If you were on the board of DuPont, would you assume any responsibility or fight the claim?

The proof that would apply in this case would be the medical certification that the disorder among the customers or the people who got affected is because of Benlate. Also, the people who got killed, their heirs should have presented the evidence that the cause of death of these people is because of benlate and this could be proved through the genuine post mortem report of the deceased person.

If I would have been on the board of Dupont, I would have sought the evidences from the people who claims that they have got affected as a result of benlate. I would have fought for the evidence only, and if the tort would have been proved that it has been caused as a result of benlate, then I would have compensated them.

If you were on the board of DuPont, how would you respond if a Third World country wanted to buy up all the remaining stocks of Benlate at a discount, with assurances that the company would be completely immune from any potential liability?

I would have conducted the test of the benlate. If the result of the test would have proved that benlate would not cause any harm to the people in whose consumption it would get mixed, then and then only I would have sold the substance to the third party, otherwise, I would not sold Benlate to the third party. Since, it has been proved that Benlate has caused several injuries and tort among the people and that the children of the mother get affected as a result of the consumption of Benlate, I would prefer not to sell the benlate to the third party on the ethical grounds.

From an environmental point of view, do you believe that chemical pesticides are useful? How do you measure the efficiencies of farming with fungicides against a more natural approach?

From the environment point of view, chemical pesticides are harmful in nature and their use should be strictly restricted as when applied, these chemicals move to the water bodies through the rain water, thus creating the water pollution. Moreover, they are disseminated up to the depth of the leaves and fruits of the plant leading to the consumption of the chemical by the people to a certain amount.

Rather than fungiside, which is a chemical product, farmers should use naturally made fertilisers or natural approach to save plants from pesticides as it is the most efficient way to bring sustainability among the environment and various stakeholders associated with the consumption of farm produce.