var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
jdmba
June 2, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

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.

Reply
18 replies
\"user-pic\"
acrobatic rabbit
June 2, 2009 7:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Megalomania
June 2, 2009 11:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@markrubi: It was coming down in dust; she was breathing. As someone who has also had worse stuff spilled on them, it's a world of difference between having a strong base or acid on you and inhaling something.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
June 2, 2009 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: It seems to me that they should at least be required to give the doctor a list of ingredients for the thing if it is requested. They don't have to give the entire stinkin' formula or anything. This is ridiculous to the enth degree.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Wes Chevalier
June 2, 2009 6:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: I agree its up to the company to keep it a trade secret but they should have to sit in jail in the meantime similar to a reporter not disclosing their source. Either until it blows over, the person is 100% healthy or until criminal charges can be pressed,ie attempted murder or murder. CEO's and company presidents need to be criminally responsible for their companies actions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
June 2, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: What if she dies, will a trade secret make sense? In the end their has to be a way to have her seen by a doctor who can be cleared to know their trade secret. To just claim they can do nothing is ridiculous.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
June 2, 2009 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: Have the USDA or whomever regulates that kind of thing give them 24 hours to cough up the ingredient list or have their product banned from the US.
I can understand trade secrets but someone needs to know what is in a product to determine if it is safe.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
madog
June 2, 2009 6:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: Think outside the box, people.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ShanghaiLil
June 2, 2009 5:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: Wouldn't the list of ingredients be in the patent? Just wondering.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Luckwouldhaveit
June 2, 2009 5:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ShanghaiLil: No, trade secret protection is separate from patent protection. If they registered the patent for the spray, they would have to disclose the ingredients in their patent application, and then others would be able to reproduce it (illegally, but the company would have to police that activity) and they would lose the patent protection in 21 years. Under trade secret law, as long as they take strict efforts to keep the formula secret, it stays secret (ie Coca Cola's recipe).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OmniZero
June 2, 2009 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: Withholding the secret makes NO sense. Let's go and spray you in the face with it and see if you want what's in it or not. Or what if you eat something that gives you a deathly allergic reaction? Oops! Trade secret! Can't tell you what you're allergic to. Enjoy!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 2, 2009 5:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: Disclosing the chemical ingredients may indeed fall under trade secrets law. That's fine with me.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ibanez720
June 2, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hi
June 2, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ibanez720: your under the impression the feds want to save you. :/


wakey wakey...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ibanez720
June 2, 2009 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hi: How about something a little more constructive than a smart ass comment like that...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
June 2, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: Witholding possible dangerous chemical information doesn't make sense and in fact, I'm pretty sure it's illegal. Or should be.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Inglix_the_Mad
June 2, 2009 5:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
selectman
June 2, 2009 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
June 2, 2009 5:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Easton21
June 2, 2009 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor
June 2, 2009 9:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Easton21: where can I buy concentrated pool shock treatment and a Nelson Lens in order to have a sweet half white/half blue eye? It's like the opposite more painful version of this: [consumerist.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MikeF74
June 2, 2009 5:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Easton21: I had the same treatment when I got paint stripper in my eye (nasty stuff). The fun part was when they would periodically stick a litmus strip under my eyelid to test pH.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Easton21
June 4, 2009 11:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MikeF74: Yes I suppose that if I had to choose a fun part, that would've been it!
The old blue parts, newly combined with the bleached white and blood-red parts made me look quite patriotic. That was kinda fun too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
June 2, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Easton21
June 4, 2009 11:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nakedscience: It's still an accident. I agree that it was erronious, but most accidents are.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Easton21
June 2, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Easton21: ...and that's supposed to say \"splashed\", not \"spleashed\". No Queens accent intented.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
June 2, 2009 4:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
JiminyChristmas
June 3, 2009 4:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo: You're exactly right. In fact, even though it's a Canadian company any US employee handling the pesticide would be required to be provided a Material Safety Data Sheet that described the chemical, possible health effects, etc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bog
June 3, 2009 1:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo:

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)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
crashfrog
June 2, 2009 5:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Charles Duffy
June 2, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@crashfrog: There's a much easier and cheaper solution: The doctor signs an NDA.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Wombatish
June 2, 2009 5:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
June 2, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Wombatish: I bet that would easily be invalidated as a contract under duress.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Wombatish
June 2, 2009 5:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shadowman615: So only tell the doctor.

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\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Easton21
June 2, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo: Really? Greedy corporations throw people under the bus for profits every day.
Sadly, that's the world we live in.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JeffMc
June 2, 2009 5:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PappaBear
June 2, 2009 4:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
bbb111
June 3, 2009 3:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PappaBear:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
timbrews
June 3, 2009 12:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PappaBear: The will have an MSDS (as required), but mfr's are able to put \"trade secret\" in for either inert or active ingredients (they only need to show what % of materials are in product, along with storage, handling, shipping & health/safety info.)

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...)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 2, 2009 10:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PappaBear: 100% Correct. The USEPA requires both active and inert carrier ingredients in pesticides to be listed on the label along with their concentrations. The label also has to have a note to physicians outlining treatment for dermal, inhalation, and oral exposure. I'm a licensed pesticide applicator in IL. I'm having a hard time buying this story.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kogenta
June 2, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 2, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
31y/oToday_GitEmSteveDave
June 2, 2009 5:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: I would wonder if a hospital could not get the list/sample, and analyze it and it be covered under medical confidentiality?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Canino
June 2, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Justin Ferguson
June 2, 2009 5:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Canino: The MSDS is less than useful regarding what the 81.6% inert/proprietary ingredients are.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HIV 2 Elway
June 2, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Justin Ferguson: I does provide info on what to do if you come in contact with it, wash it off.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
June 3, 2009 3:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HIV 2 Elway: She was sprayed in the face, though, which means a lot of contact with mucous membranes - which means very fast absorption. As a result, a good amount was likely absorbed before she even got home to wash it off.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
June 2, 2009 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
31y/oToday_GitEmSteveDave
June 2, 2009 5:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nakedscience: They know what the active ingredient is, just not what the inactive/inert ingredients are.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
June 2, 2009 6:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ludwigk
June 2, 2009 11:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nakedscience: I was really curious as to how this woman could have such a severe reaction to 'inert' ingredients, which in things like drugs are usually sugar and starches. I got curious, and did a google search, and found this:

[www.epa.gov]

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 3, 2009 12:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ludwigk: That's right. Reading the MSDS (which the sprayer absolutely should have), you can see the active ingredient, but that may not mean much. The 'inert' ingredeints, however, could pose a health risk. The MSDS lists a pH of 4.1-4.5, which is enough to cause irritation. It doesn't say what chemicals make the pH so low.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LostTurntable
June 2, 2009 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
oneandone
June 5, 2009 1:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LostTurntable: All pesticides must be registered with the EPA, which reviews all the human health effect data & any impact the pesticide (active ingredient + inerts) will have on the environment. Pesticides are actually regulated a lot more stringently than other toxic substances. However, the EPA registration assumes that they will be used in accordance with the label. It sounds like this was an unplanned exposure.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Easton21
June 2, 2009 5:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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\".

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
June 2, 2009 4:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
ludwigk
June 2, 2009 11:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@vladthepaler: Tell that to the EPA. They're apparently fine with it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
heltoupee
June 2, 2009 6:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Whoever decided to permit that was acting woefully irresponsibly.\"

@vladthepaler: But they are probably quite rich now (on a completely unrelated windfall, I'm sure...)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
FooSchnickens - Full of SCAR
June 2, 2009 4:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Vanilla5
June 3, 2009 4:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FooSchnickens: I actually was a little curious as to why a complete MSDS was not available with all the information. I thought that was standard.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
June 2, 2009 5:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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*

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Sean Gamble
June 3, 2009 12:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: you inhaled DDT or 2,4Dichloro-diphenyl-trichlorethane
DDT wasn't acutely toxic to humans but was mildly carcinogenic. The biggest concern behind DDT though was it's ability to mess with the reproductive system, It acts like estrogen (chemicals like DDT are called Xenoestrogens). it first caused problems in wildlife and might be to blame,in part, for declining sperm counts and in vivo feminization of this an the last coupple generations of baby boys.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
farcedude
June 2, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: You inhaled DDT, if nothing else. Read \"Silent Spring\" by Rachel Carson.
[en.wikipedia.org]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
June 2, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
packcamera
June 2, 2009 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sue baby, sue!!!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
markrubi
June 2, 2009 5:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

[www.pittsgrovetownship.com]

3.3% active ingredient. Remainder is inert 96.7% Maybe their secret is h20???

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jimv2000
June 2, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Someone needs to do their research...this doctor is full of crap, as the safety sheets are readily available all over the place.

[www.pittsgrovetownship.com]

[www.prs.k12.nj.us]

[www.arlingtonva.us]

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Freeloader
June 2, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
June 2, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.\")

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
June 2, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RogueSophist
June 2, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dialing_wand
June 2, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ludwigk
June 2, 2009 11:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dialing_wand: As per my post above, for the purpose of pesticides, \"inert\" is defined as anything that doesn't have a direct pesticide effect, but might be a chemical that improves the efficacy of the pesticide, such as a anti-caking agent, preservative, solvents. A lot of it probably is completely harmless, just bulk to help in dispersion of the pesticide, but there's a whole bunch of other stuff that could be in there as well.

@Freeloader: ..bacterium.. hrm. maybe the inert ingredients are bacteria food!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 2, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
dbshaw
June 2, 2009 5:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 2, 2009 5:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
markrubi
June 2, 2009 5:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Jacob Morgan
June 2, 2009 5:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
June 2, 2009 5:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@markrubi: Also, don't you find it mighty fishy that they are unwilling to give up this information?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
June 2, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
maex
June 2, 2009 5:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
feckingmorons
June 2, 2009 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@maex: You can eat it by the handful it is not toxic. The reporter blew it all out of proportion.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 2, 2009 7:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@feckingmorons: You can eat what by the handful? Are you talking about B. thuringiensis? That's not the issue, because she already knew about that--it's the majority of the Foray 76B that she's concerned about.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HiPwr
June 2, 2009 5:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 2, 2009 11:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HiPwr: Just ban the product for non-compliance. If the company then tries sneaky things to get it on the market anyway, ban everything from that company.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
maex
June 2, 2009 7:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HiPwr: As an affected community member, she has a right to know the hazards of any chemicals she has the potential to be exposed to. Since she was exposed, the doctor has to be granted access to all pertinent materials relating to the hazards of any chemicals she was exposed to. They can redact the chemical formula, but under the Right to Know program, community members have access to all hazard information, regardless of a chemical's toxicity.
The EPA is the agency that enforces the right to know program, so they couldn't force the company to publicly reveal their chemical info, but they are certainly in a position to have it revealed to those exposed to the chemicals and their doctors.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 2, 2009 11:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@maex: In a lot of cases, the actual chemical formula is needed to understand the hazards, including matching up systematic health and environmental issues.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Eldritch
June 2, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"trade secret\" = \"illegal ingredients\", amirite?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
June 2, 2009 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eldritch: There is something awfully sketchy going on if they won't even help a doctor treat this woman.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
DrGirlfriend
June 2, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
dwb
June 2, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Mary Marsala with Fries
June 3, 2009 2:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dwb: \"Exacerbated by hysteria?\" What are you, fucking Sigmund Freud? I'd edit that misogynistic bullshit out of your repertoire right quick, before you make a comment like that in real life around someone like me, who'd show you firsthand what \"hysteria\" does to exacerbate a black eye. Jesus.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
redkamel
June 4, 2009 2:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mary Marsala with Fries:

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
redkamel
June 4, 2009 2:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@redkamel: of course feeling ill and having a rash are totally different. I am just saying exploring the possibility that someone who was traumatized is also hysterical is not \"bigoted\" or misogynistic.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JiminyChristmas
June 3, 2009 4:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dwb: Exacerbated by hysteria?

What a nice randomly misogynistic comment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anne Boleyn
June 2, 2009 10:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dwb: Allergies are what I'm guessing. I work in a lab that grows B. thuringiensis (a different subspecies) for biocontrol and typically the bacteria are grown in liquid tryptic soy media amended with Magnesium. I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that those are at least some of the \"inert ingredients.\" She might be allergic to the trypsin or soy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
June 2, 2009 10:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dwb: First thing I also thought of is to look at the MSDS on the product and treatment.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Hoss
June 2, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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...

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
HIV 2 Elway
June 2, 2009 5:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Blame Canada!

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
heltoupee
June 2, 2009 6:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HIV 2 Elway: In all honesty, though, if I were to go buy a Glock, then go buy some, let's say, Mexican-manufactured ammo, then come to your house and put said Mexican ammunition into your head with my Austrian sidearm, whose fault would it be? Mexico? Austria? No, it would be mine.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 2, 2009 11:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@heltoupee: And just how is the local spray company going to provide the ingredients list? Should we waterboard them until they tell us? Most certainly the local spray company is going to be liable for a lot ... a lot more than the pesticide manufacturer (I don't think anyone here believes the manufacturer is to blame form incorrect spraying). However, proper health care needs to know what is in these things. WE NEED to know what is in these things for general population and environmental reasons. These chemicals need to all be registered with the EPA (does this need a new law?). What if some terrorist sprayed it over a large city?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 2, 2009 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@heltoupee: At the moment, she doesn't seem to want to \"go after\" anybody--she just wants information about what she got hit with. The municipality isn't going to have that information.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JGKojak
June 2, 2009 5:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 2, 2009 11:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JGKojak: If NAFTA is a way for a company outside the USA to escape from their corporate responsibility, then it's time to dump NAFTA and start all over.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dave_coder
June 2, 2009 6:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JGKojak: Not saying your wrong but please provide the exact law. I hate general statement like these.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 2, 2009 11:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dave_coder: Sounds like a damned good law to have, to me ... whether we actually have it or not. I say sue and let the court decide. They decide what laws really mean, anyway.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 2, 2009 5:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What a terrible thing...this woman needs to quit being so nice.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Skeetz
June 2, 2009 5:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What about the fact that she's no longer \"organic\"

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
oneandone
June 5, 2009 1:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skeetz: This is a puzzling comment. I didn't realize she was concerned about still being 'organic'.

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Damocles57
June 2, 2009 5:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Mr-Mr
June 2, 2009 5:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's all about money. Corporations don't care for the little guy. They could easily make the doctor sign a statement of confidentiality so the patient can be treated for her condition.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 2, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This just reaks of a Daily Show \"Be a f****** person\" segment in the making.

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!.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
TheBursar
June 2, 2009 6:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Be a F#@%ing Person!!!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
AngryK9
June 2, 2009 6:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
June 2, 2009 6:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Ah, Chris. I wish I could bottle you and take you wherever I go. Then when I'm sad, I'd uncork you, sniff deeply and all would be right in my world.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Applekid
June 2, 2009 7:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: See, if she HAD been a giant gypsy moth who had discovered how to domesticate dogs we'd be touting the poison sprayer a hero, nay, savior to mankind.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
June 2, 2009 11:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Applekid: One more piece of evidence that humanity will rue the day that they prefer them over cats: Teh Kitteh would never stand by a 6' flitting moth's side. Thus we'd be saved from this road-striding, wing-flopping, unfortunately pesticided menace.
Sure dogs have the chocolate brown eyes, the wagging tails and the puppy-breath. But it's all a feint. All a feint.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
June 2, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Err, in the cleanest, most wholesome, unicorn-pranciest sense. Of course.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Feminist Whore
June 3, 2009 3:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Puh-leeze! Unicorns are total deviants.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
feckingmorons
June 2, 2009 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nonsense. Poison control has the information in the Poisindex database.


I just looked at it.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Feminist Whore
June 3, 2009 4:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
feckingmorons
June 2, 2009 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anathema777
June 2, 2009 7:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@feckingmorons: That's the active ingredient. What are the other ingredients that make up 95% of the product?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 2, 2009 6:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

For the love of...

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.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
unpolloloco
June 2, 2009 6:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

the MSDS is right here: [www.cdms.net]

The spray's a mild mucous membrane irritant - which would cause all the symptoms she describes.......

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ephdel
June 2, 2009 7:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

there should be a statute of limitations in place to protect people like this, wherein a confidential meeting between a company rep and the doctor takes place, NDAs are signed, and the doctor can treat the patient.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
bobert
June 2, 2009 7:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's the 81.56% \"Inert/other ingredients\" that's proprietary, but claiming \"trade secret\" is a load of baloney. Any competitor with a half-decent analytical lab could figure that out. When I was in grad school working on my Ph.D. in chemistry, I could've had the complete formulation within a few days at most.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
crymson777
June 2, 2009 7:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bobert: sounds like a chance for you to help her out :)

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
cc82
June 2, 2009 7:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I for one blame the victim... I mean, the first thing I do every morning after my coffee is go to the local fire station to check the poison gas cloud schedule for the day.... jeesh!

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Haggie1
June 2, 2009 7:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The chemical company is really digging a hole for themselves when the woman files her civil suit. I'm sure the jury will remember their attitude when they calculate the punitive damages...

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
DoctorMD
June 2, 2009 7:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why does everyone use CocaCola as the example of a trade secret. The consistent recipe that has been leaked multiple times appears to be correct. And anyway CocaCola has been changed at least 3 times so now it is even a secret to CocaCola.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor
June 2, 2009 9:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DoctorMD:

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jdmba
June 2, 2009 8:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The essentials of corporate economics are missing from many of the above responders.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor
June 2, 2009 9:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: haha, someone watched Fight Club...

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
savdavid
June 2, 2009 9:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

She has a case for damages and they know it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kewl132
June 2, 2009 9:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm pretty sure this was a Law and Order SVU episode.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Feminist Whore
June 3, 2009 3:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kewl132: At this point is there anything that hasn't been a Law and Order plot?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor
June 2, 2009 9:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kewl132: In that episdoe, if I remember the right one, the chemical was placed on purpose with the creepy \"pedo\" dude (who really wasn't) paid to take pictures of the consequences.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kewl132
June 2, 2009 9:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SpruceStreetPhil - but ya gotta take market, the bridge is ...: Yeah but same situation where the chem company invoked trade secrets

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor
June 2, 2009 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

easiest way of action:
1. fly to canada
2. find the ceo
3. \"accidentally\" spray him in the eyes with cayenne sprinkled water (nothing too bad, it just burns)
4. then withhold what you just sprayed him with when he asks because its a \"Big Secret\"
5. run away

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 2, 2009 10:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My pesticide application experience was centered mostly on fungicide/herbicide so I might be a bit off base with gypsy moth pesticides...

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.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jessi5000
June 2, 2009 11:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

they should at least meet her halfway and have her see one of their doctors who is under a non-disclosure agreement for the recie. AT LEAST.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
June 2, 2009 11:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's a link to a 1999 University of British Columbia study where Foray 48B was \"reverse engineered\" and includes a list of possible inert ingredients:

[www.nosprayzone.org]

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Duckula22
June 3, 2009 12:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You'd think one getting sprayed on with potentially dangerous stuff is a far more serious issue than keeping the liable company's special formula secret.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
XenosPadoozle
June 3, 2009 1:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes, the EPA requires disclosure of all ingredients, inert or not, to register pesticides in the US. Only the actives must be on the label (and MSDS), but all ingredients are evaluated by the agency for toxicity, individually and in combination.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
nacoran
June 3, 2009 5:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

They shouldn't be talking about law suits, they should be talking about criminal charges. If the company wanted to be ethical and protect their trade secrets they could get the doctor and anyone involved in treating the woman to sign a non-disclosure agreement about the ingredients.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jwissick
June 3, 2009 7:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Shouldn't poison control have this??

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Phexerian
June 3, 2009 11:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If this was an organophosphate poisoning, it is possible the victim could expire. Many of these poisons are quite strong and can't be left untreated. The family should file an immediate action with a judge to hand over the main ingredients so they know what to treat.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Winteridge2
June 3, 2009 11:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

sounds very similar to what happened to our troops in Vietnam with agent orange, except they were sprayed by their own people. I think our (US) government never did admit liability for cancer and other side effects. We are our own worst enemy.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Urgleglurk
June 3, 2009 1:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Mary Marsala with Fries
June 3, 2009 2:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wouldn't even ask twice for the information -- the first time they said no, LAWSUIT. Further, she shouldn't back down even if they offer her the information later (on a golden platter): They need to be smacked HARD for this behavior, to keep them from thinking they can get away with doing it to anybody else. If I were this woman, I'd think it was my duty as a consumer to punish this company as much as my situation allowed.

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Yamunation
June 3, 2009 9:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

well, a lawsuit should fix that problem!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
redkamel
June 4, 2009 2:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Agree with above. This is what the US legal system is designed for! screw hot coffee, stick with getting sprayed by chemicals by people who werent supposed to be there.

Lawsuit! Lawsuit! Lawsuit!

/gets out pitchfork

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 4, 2009 5:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In Canada, allergens and the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons are required on the label as a condition of registration. The Canadian label for Foray76B says that it contains sulfites. If there was soy present it would have to be on the label. Canadian pesticide labels can be searched on the PMRA website.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Aurore Sibley
June 4, 2009 6:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I had an experience akin to this when a commercial lawn care company was treating our neighbors yard with weed killer and our windows were all wide open. I couldn't figure out for several minutes what this overpowering chemical smell was, and once I did, I ran out of the house to find my 1 year-old son and husband so that they wouldn't walk past it while it was happening. Within twenty minutes or so I had developed dizziness, a severe headache, severe nausea, a deep raspy cough and exhaustion. I ended up in urgent care and was prescribed anti-inflammatory drugs and an inhaler as my lungs were inflamed, but the doctor could not test the levels of toxic chemicals in my system as I had no idea what was in the spray. It took me four days to find out how to even report something like this, and I remained ill for well over a week. Furthermore, the residue remained in our house and so we would have all been continuously exposed to the toxins, which I now know to be nervous and endocrine disruptors as well as carcinogens. The company was never cited because there was \"no evidence\" of the level of exposure and misapplication by the time the department of agriculture was called in to invesigate. Also, these same chemicals are sprayed all over The United States in residential areas whether or not people and even children are present, however the same chemicals are banned in the European Union and Canada. Wake up America. There are plenty of safer, (and more cost-effective in the long run), ways to take care of a lawn, and we have enough knowledge about these chemicals to know that it is time to put a person's health and well-being before an unnaturally green lawn.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Rebecca Sheets
June 5, 2009 12:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hi, We live in Minnesota and thought we should share our story. In 1993 I was sprayed by an plane while out in a filed working. When I complained the plane started regularly spraying our house. It took several years to get that stopped. My family has been raising and selling Organic Pigs for about 10 years paying triple the price for feed and fertilizers etc. Our property is posted with signs all the way around. For many years we asked the applicators and the adjoining landowner to please be more careful as their spraying was damaging our fruit orchards and making us ill. In 2007 In response to our requests that they be more careful the applicators backed up to our fences and sat next to our pregnant sow pens and let it blast in 17mph winds directed over our farm.I was hit dead on and became very ill. 7 of the 9 sows aborted their fetuses within 3 weeks. Some of the trees in our front
yard and orchard died. We finally filed a formal complaint with the Department of Agriculture. When they told the company who did the spraying, they told the landowner who promptly went insane and tied us up in court with a boundary line dispute after 23 years of same property lines. In 2008 the landowner had the applicators make 3 passes on the north side of our property in NE winds again directing the spray over our farm. This time hitting my husband who has Parkinson's Disease and 3 children who were out visiting with him dead on with a tank mix of Atrazine, Metalachlor and Napthalene + 97% Inerts. My husband tried 3 times to call 911 before he got through. They closed the doors and windows of our home. Our home was full of the pesticides. So he stepped outside of the house in an enclosed grove not within site of the applicator at all and fired 2 shots of birdshot in the air to let them know that someone was home and getting sprayed. He then got the children into a vehicle and drove down the road to the townhall to wait for the deputy to take his complaint and to get the children out of here. The deputies being good old farm boys with the applicators made him and the children come back into our farm and took our shotgun, told him to stay home and filed 2 felony counts of terrorism against him. It is against the law to drift unto others property or persons or animals. We have in the past tried to ask for help from the Sheriffs department because these have been illegal applications used as a deadly weapon to no avail. For my husband Sherman it was like someone flipped a switch in his brain, all of his medications for his Parkinsons stopped working, he developed chest pains and lost rapidly 45#, He lost his ability to vocalize and most of his walking overnight. 1 of the deputies wrote in his report that my husband could hardly walk or talk already by the time they got out here. It has been a year since and he has been hospitalized several times and now has developed a possible tumor on his kidneys and severe bladder problems and internal bleeding., he appears to have aged 20 years in this time.Because we asked them to be more careful they made him a walking dead man. The Department of Agriculture who regulates and enforces pesticide violations in Minnesota the day after this occurred took foliage samples which showed that in the area were he and the children were working not knowing at the time that the application was being made that there was 3.44 mg/ug of these compounds as residue on the foliage.So air concentrations at the time of application had to be pretty high. According to the EPA information on the product 5mg/ug is a lethal dose for inhalation. The applicators lied about the wind speed and the deputies helped them to do so. The Department of Agriculture in this case hit the company with a wetlands violation, nothing about human exposures was in the case closed report. In June 2008 they did an application on 3 sides of our farm with MCPA and Bromoxynil in June and almost killed me that day. There were 4 children with me in June playing outside of the grove of trees in the sandpile 150' from the application while I worked inside of the grove in the garden. These children all disappear from the complaints and the company was hit with some very low fines which they can apply to have reimbursed. Meanwhile we are out of the pig business, sick and to broke to find a lawyer who will help us because 1st they tied us up with the frivolious slap suit on the property. We documented with pictures the applicators tracks going back and forth next to the fence and all of the dead trees around our home and still the County Attorney will not even look at the evidence.The Senate Agriculture Committee told us that there are enough laws in regards to pesticide drift in Minnesota. But cannot get them enforced by the proper authorities. Which in our case the County Attorney should have charged the applicator with criminal charges of trespass, negligence, attempt to kill with a deadly weapon, malicious intent because they knew it was making us sick, etc. Instead they are charging a dying man with felony terrorism for attempting to let them know he was here and getting hit with the pesticides. We are not the only citizens out here that have been targeted. Clean water action of Minnesota has been trying to help us and has developed by way of a grant with a pesticide toolkit for exposed people which is located at [cleanwateraction.org]

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

Reply
");