Question

DuPont and Benlate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues to Address

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

Answer 1

THe balance between benefits and harms of product should always be considered and transparency needs to be maintained with the customers. It was important in the case of DuPont to lay out all the benefits and harms of their products in front of the world, and let the customers decide whether they would still want to purchase the products or not, just like selling cigarettes or liquor. However, if DuPont had no idea of the harms their products could cause even after conducting all the scientific researches before launching the product and on later stages, than i don't see them doing anything wrong morally, although to be on the safer side they could promote their products as being dangerous as it has chemicals and let the people understand it can have severe impacts on health, so that buying decision is totally dependant on customers and DuPont doesn't have any liability towards them.

If I were on the Board for DuPont I would fight the claims made, because as per DuPonts research there were no signs of such harmful effects that could have been caused by their products. Also the incidents wherein the pregnant mothers had complications, was only noticed in only one area, and could have been caused by some other thing as well. Thus, I would definitely fight the claims until it was completely proven that it was due to DuPonts products.

However due to all the claims against Benlate i would not go ahead with any deal with any Third World country, even if it would be beneficial for the company because it would morally be wrong until all the claims were scientifically proven wrong and the product was completely safe to consume in all ways.