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)
By the way there are roughly 100 pages of inert ingredients in pesticides. I would be interested in hearing from others.
Rebecca and Sherman in Minnesota
Regardless, she still would be. The pesticide has Bt as an active ingredient. Bt is a biologically-based pesticide and is eligible to be used in organic farming operations. (Though I haven't looked up this particular strain). So, no worries.
]]>Pesticides in the US are registered under the jurisdiction of the EPA, which also has a comprehensive label search.
While it pisses me off that the shampoo that I buy lists all the ingredients and they aren't on pesticide labels, there are some things that can be figured out. In this case, there is a sensitivity warning and the sulfite warning. Is the lady in question is allergic to sulfites?
If you want changes to the way labeling is handled in North America, it will have to come from the US because the usual response of manufacturers to pushes from those regulating the smaller Canadian market is to withdraw the product or sue the government regulators for trade restrictions under NAFTA.
So please do write to your Congressman and push for comprehensive listing of pesticide ingredients and while you are at it, for laws requiring better spray warning signs. I know a lot about pesticides and I still can't decipher those daft things that they put on lawns. Maybe if enough people do that there will be change. Until full listing becomes a condition of registration the manufacturers have to actively protect thier secrets or else the formulations will get ripped off legally without compensation.
There is one other thing that could be done in this case but it would be expensive and I am not sure how legal it is. Get a sample of the pesticide and take it to a really good analytical lab with as much information as possible about what might be in there. It seems as though it should be legal to do this with anything that you get sprayed with if the manufacturer refuses to cough up the ingredients list but I am not a lawyer.
]]>Lawsuit! Lawsuit! Lawsuit!
/gets out pitchfork
]]>Beyond "blaming the OP" reasoning, but given dwb has SOME reason to think the chemical as mild, I do fail to see how its "bigoted" for dwb to think that the chemical is mild, and that somebody who was sprayed with pesticide, then felt ill, would not also have a solid chance of being hysterical. Which typically happens to people who have traumatic experiences.
Are you assuming dwb thinks only women become hysterical?
]]>The MSDS is easily available online.
The active ingredient is:
Bacillus thuringensis, var. kurstaki 18.44%
inert ingredients are listed as proprietary, so the doctor might be concerned about that.
]]>If every corporation who refuses to comply with handing over medically-necessary information gets the shit sued out of them right up front, so much the better for everyone. That's what lawsuits are for: Punishment and deterrence of bad and dangerous behavior.
]]>Your ignorance-slash-bigotry aside, that's also a hell of an assumption about allergies, considering you DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THE STUFF. There's absolutely no data to support the label's claim of "inert"ness, but you're willing to let them off the hook because they say it is? Bullshit -- someone's been hurt, so now you PROVE IT. Your pesticide ingredients are NOT more important than someone's health!!
It's that kind of willingness to write off someone's illness (that you'd no doubt be screaming all over the place about if it was YOU who couldn't open your eyes or get any medication to treat your painful rash) that lets companies get away with shit like not telling someone's doctor (including YOUR DOCTOR if it was you, no matter how "hysterical" you were) what they've been poisoned with.
I'll spend the rest of the day hoping you get sprayed next. Breathe deep, motherfucker.
]]>Well, someone, somewhere has to have an Material safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for that stuff in case of accidents. "Trade Secret" doesn't enter into it. That's the law - Employees have the right to know what they are handling for their employer.
As a matter of fact, here it is: [www.cdms.net]
It's the "inert ingredients" part that could be the issue. The active ingredient it Bacillus thuringiensis, a commonly used "green" bacteria used to kill insects.
]]>If you think it's a problem for folks getting exposed, try disposing of the unused/waste residual properly. Without knowing what the "trade secret/proprietary" items are, you can neither treat an exposed person properly IN A TIMELY MANNER nor dispose of the material properly without possibly harming the environment.
This was meant to protect company's formulation to prevent counterfeiting or copying a company's product; however, there need to be provisions inserted to allow medical professionaly INSTANT ACCESS to all ingredients IMMEDIATELY so they can properly treat an affected person in a timely manner.
(Gets down off of soapbox...)
]]>Honestly, the physician only has a few options as to what it could be. Most of this stuff is either organophosphates or organichlorines. However, the treatments for this if I remember right are quite expensive and aren't the best drugs in the world. For him to not treat, he must think the patient is very stable.
]]>I used to work for NYPIRG. At the time companies treating lawns with pesticides were required to keep records of what chemicals they sprayed and where, but they weren't required to share that information with anyone, so if say, there was a cancer cluster, no one would know. I don't usually agree with Ron Paul, but I like his take on pollution. Once your pollution crosses onto someone else's property they have a right to sue you for damages it causes. Of course, that's cold comfort if the company that is doing the polluting is making enough money at what they are doing that they don't mind paying the settlement over and over.
]]>What a nice randomly misogynistic comment.
]]>@feckingmorons: That's really amazing the way you are able to ferret out information like that. It's a true talent, considering that at least one medical doctor and some reporters and some officials at NCDACS weren't able to find that information the way you did. I wonder what backward search engine THEY used! Idiots!
Are you a reporter? You should be! Totally. You'd rocket right to stardom, you'd be the next Woodward and / or Bernstein depending on how tall you are.
Maybe you could win a pulitzer? Heck maybe you could win one for this very post where you simply looked up the poison control information! Or maybe you could take that information and make a killing in pesticides, or maybe Valent will give you a handsome reward if you let them know that poison control has their trade secret formula out there for all the world to steal.
I mean really, I am astonished at your massively superior skills.
]]>@kewl132: At this point is there anything that hasn't been a Law and Order plot?
]]>@Trai_Dep: Puh-leeze! Unicorns are total deviants.
]]>The answer to that question is easy. The value of the trade secret is worth more money than the live(s) of the people affected. (To the company)
]]>One thing worth noting is that the MSDS does indicate the mixture was not lethal at the maximum achievable concentration. It doesn't say it didn't cause sever harm at that concentration.
]]>Trade secret needs to be trumped by public right to know for health and safety. If the company wants the rights to get a good return on their investment, they need to show they did innovative or expensive research to come up with the formula and patent it.
]]>@Freeloader: ..bacterium.. hrm. maybe the inert ingredients are bacteria food!
]]>Don't know how closely related this is to 76B (other than that it's an older BtK formulation), but it's worth a shot.
Mmmm, I love the smell of octamethyl cyclortetrasiloxane in the morning.
]]>An inert ingredient means any substance (or group of structurally similar substances if designated by the Agency), other than an active ingredient, which is intentionally included in a pesticide product. Inert ingredients play a key role in the effectiveness of a pesticidal product. For example, inert ingredients may serve as a solvent, allowing the pesticide's active ingredient to penetrate a plant's outer surface. In some instances, inert ingredients are added to extend the pesticide product's shelf-life or to protect the pesticide from degradation due to exposure to sunlight. Pesticide products can contain more than one inert ingredient, but federal law does not require that these ingredients be identified by name or percentage on the label. Only the total percentage of inert ingredients is required to be on the pesticide product label.
So there really can be any number of strange chemicals that are 'inert' because they are simply inert from the perspective of a pesticide, such as solvents, preservatives, etc. Fascinating.
]]>@dwb: First thing I also thought of is to look at the MSDS on the product and treatment.
]]>Generally, the inactive/inert ingredients on a specific brand of pesticide are there as a marking (so you can see where you applied) or a sticking (resistant to rain) agent. Otherwise, it's there to give you a specific consistency so that you don't gum up a spray tank when mixing it. Marking/sticking agent is not really harmful to life, but annoying to you as you can end up blue and/or green for a day or two if exposed to it.
The company doesn't want to expose the "trade secret" because it charges more for the same product you can get elsewhere for cheaper.
]]>anyway, what is your take on the Guidant defibrillator recall? Brief synopsis:
-They made a batch of faulty internal defibrillators.
-They didn't tell because the risks of surgery to
replace were worse than the risks of the device failing.
-They thought people would be rational in the use of statistics and not elect to replace their defibs if they knew, so why tell them?
-Kid died when one failed, everyone found out, freaked out, and the stock fell, deals fell through and they were sued.
Personally, I think they did the right thing. Being a utilitarian, I think Guidant shouldn't have told the public like they didn't because the public is STUPID. They made the educated decision for everyone and potentially (statistically) saved lots of lives yet rightfully they get sued for the kids death. Loss - loss situation on every front.
]]>CocaCola's recipe: Go to walmart, buy some 2 liters of pepsi, dumb some stuff in, rebottle
Pepsi's recipe: Go to walmart, buy some 2 liters of cocacola, dumb some stuff in, rebottle
ahhhhh, the world is about to 'plode.
]]>In the case of safety, car companies weigh, ALL THE TIME, whether to undertake a costly recall or to pay the wrongful death suits. Corporate America has no compassion for the individuals, there or here. I would assume, as I stated above, that the company must protect its trade secret, plain and simple. Is the company really supposed to say 'oh, ok, here's our formula we spent a ton of money developing, sorry you got some in your eyes'?
Please understand - I do not SIDE with the companies, and feel that it is a d--k move to keep the information secret. I did not, however, expect any other response from them.
And as I also said, she should sue them for that.
]]>@Anathema777: Typos...81.5%
]]>@feckingmorons: That's the active ingredient. What are the other ingredients that make up 95% of the product?
]]>Seriously though, couldn't the company release the formula to her and the doctor if they sign a non-disclosure statement or something? Sounds like lawsuit city otherwise.
]]>@jdmba: it doesn't make much sense to keep a trade secret about pesticides. seems to me the FDA or Dept. of Agriculture would REQUIRE to know the chemicals used in pesticides to ensure nothing illegal (i.e. DDT) is being used.
]]>@bobert: sounds like a chance for you to help her out :)
]]>The spray's a mild mucous membrane irritant - which would cause all the symptoms she describes.......
]]>@maex: You can eat it by the handful it is not toxic. The reporter blew it all out of proportion.
]]>@feckingmorons: It contains Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki
BTK is a naturally occuring organism and is toxic only to those insects it is used to contorl.
Two minutes of research by anyone at the Newspaper.
]]>@heltoupee: Try watching more South Park.
]]>Look, as a previous poster mentioned, the fact sheets are available, including treatment info. If you're not going to try to look, then don't complain about the absence of information.
Second, inert means inert. _You_ can always argue this, but unless you're a chemist and up to speed on what the government has declared as inert (usually done after reputable chemists have told them this, but your mileage may vary - see E.Coli acceptable levels worldwide for an amusing, if sickening, example), you may want to not voice your ignorance. Likely these trade chemicals have to do with bacterial suspension and support, so I can see why a company might want to keep these secret. You know, for commercial purposes?
Lastly, look, Canada is as North American as the USA. We're full of the same people that the USA is full of, and offer only relatively minor differences compared to various states of the USA. you have the West Coast, we have British Columbia. You have Texas and Montana, we have Alberta. I'm not too sure who Quebec or the Maritimes would be, since I'm not up on who the current "whipping boy" states are (et le Québec est une province spéciale aussi bien). In short, please don't assume Canada is a wonderland, where everyone is nice, kind and oompa-loompaish. I do appreciate the sentiment, but we're not Smurfs.
]]>Nonsense. Poison control has the information in the Poisindex database.
I just looked at it.
]]>I'm sure a local company was hired by the local municipality to spray this chemical they bought from a Canadian company. They go after the local company that cocked it up so badly, and sue them so hard their grandchildren end up on the street.
]]>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.
Have the doc sign and NDA and be done with it. It's not rocket science.
If the woman dies one or more corporate execs should be held for involuntary manslaughter. This is just further proof that corporations care nothing about people and care only about their bottom lines.
]]>@vladthepaler: But they are probably quite rich now (on a completely unrelated windfall, I'm sure...)
]]>It makes perfect sense that a stupid, greedy, awful fucking company won't give up "trade secrets" even when someones life may depend on it.
It actually does not surprise me at all. It doesn't make it right, or smart, but it does make sense.
]]>Sign the doctor to a confidentialty agreement regarding any of the chemicals that could be dangerous - let him treat the poor lady. Be a f****** person!.
]]>@Ibanez720: your under the impression the feds want to save you. :/
wakey wakey...
]]>@31y/oToday_GitEmSteveDave: I know that. And they still can't figure what is making her sick because the company won't cough up the info.
]]>@maex: I don't know if the EPA can force the company to reveal the ingredients, or just fine them for non-compliance.
It would seem like some compromise could be reached whereas the doctor agrees to not publicly disclose the list of ingredients. I would think that he might be bound by doctor/patient confidentiality to keep the details of her ailment (if there is one) private anyway.
]]>There is an additional issue here.
According to Chris' article, "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."
Why did the local US governmental agency warn (or was it merely notify?) the residents beforehand via town meeting and postards about a safe spray? Why did they change the date of application without a similar notification process? What specific advice and/or recommendations were given to residents to reduce exposure to the spray?
Two weeks is enough time to send out postcards to the same address list used on the first mailing. I would pursue some action against the governmental agency and as part of their defense they can include the applicator and the manufacturer as co-defendents.
Hopefully, though, Ms. Russano will have found some relief from her health symptoms before any legal actions are concluded. Unfortunately, the legal system is not designed to actually help the individual with remedies in a timely manner. But if businesses and organizations are forced to change policies or procedures, then better late than never.
]]>Something, for gods sake. I mean, there have to be people outside that company that know what is in the pesticide. That's just not the way manufacturing in this country works. You can't make "mystery chemicals".
]]>What about the fact that she's no longer "organic"
]]>She should:
1) Get a lawyer
2) Get a second medical opinion
3) Make the biggest stink possible until she gets what she wants...this is her HEALTH...and who knows what permanent health issues could result from this accident?
Unbelievable. You'd think that the chemical company would be more than happy to whip out the ingredient list with a smile, being Canadian and all.
]]>Under the law she has a right to know so she can be treated. If the company does not follow the law they should sue. If they can't sue due to NAFTA, they should call their Congresscritter and raise holy frickin' hell.
]]>Blame Canada!
]]>@HIV 2 Elway: But what if she did wash it off (it doesn't say) and still had a reaction? But they can't determine what is going on because they don't know the ingrediants? It's hard to determine what made you sick if you can't get the ingrediants.
]]>But what sane executive would risk his or her company's money and reputation by not disclosing that information?
The necessary step, though, it publicizing the injury. So good on ya, Consumerist.
]]>@markrubi: Also, don't you find it mighty fishy that they are unwilling to give up this information?
]]>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: 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?
]]>@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.")
]]>@Justin Ferguson: I does provide info on what to do if you come in contact with it, wash it off.
]]>@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.
]]>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.
]]>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...
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>@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.
]]>@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.
]]>Claiming something is inert, doesn't mean it is.
Cigarettes are safe, fun and healthy remember?
]]>@jdmba: Witholding possible dangerous chemical information doesn't make sense and in fact, I'm pretty sure it's illegal. Or should be.
]]>@Easton21: ...and that's supposed to say "splashed", not "spleashed". No Queens accent intented.
]]>Same law exists in Canada.
]]>@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".
]]>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.
]]>@Kimaroo: Really? Greedy corporations throw people under the bus for profits every day.
Sadly, that's the world we live in.
@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.
]]>Pets are a different story.
]]>@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?
]]>3.3% active ingredient. Remainder is inert 96.7% Maybe their secret is h20???
]]>That will set them straight.
/scathing sarcasm
]]>More importantly though, no one should use a spray whose ingredient list isn't available. Whoever decided to permit that was acting woefully irresponsibly.
]]>@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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>