Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In Small WV Town, Monsanto Faces Class-Action Suit Over Agent Orange Chemical

Posted by timothy on from the don't-drink-the-water-don't-breathe-the-air dept.

eldavojohn writes "Agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto is now at the receiving end of a lawsuit from representatives of anyone who lived in the small town of Nitro, WV from 1949 on. This suit alleges that Monsanto spread chemical toxins all over town — most notably the carcinogenic dioxins. The plant in question produced herbicide 2,4,5-T, which was used in Vietnam as an ingredient for 'Agent Orange.' [Note: link contains some disturbing images; click cautiously.] From the article: 'Originally the suit called for Monsanto to both monitor people's health and clean up polluted property. The court rejected the property claims last year, leaving just the medical monitoring.' Strange that the suit is only allowed to address the symptom and not the root cause."

22 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dihydrogen monoxide. They should really ban the stuff....

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    1. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're an idiot.

      To clarify, I don't think that the herbicide 2,4,5-T is safe, or not dangerous. The point is that calling it "an ingredient in Agent Orange" is designed for emotional rhetoric, not reasonable inquiry.

      Forget that it was used in Agent Orange, which was an unhealthy mix of numerous toxic chemicals, and rather, focus on the specific effects of 2,4,5-T itself... like "the herbcide 2,4,5-T, which is a known carcinogen".

      This avoids hype and emotional rhetoric, while at the same time educates the person about how the substance is dangerous in its own right, without resorting to mentioning that it was just one part of a large concoction of toxic chemicals. ... and now that I've explained my joke, it's no longer funny...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    2. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      In defense of the article: Agent Orange was a 50:50 mix of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D.

      In your defense: 2,4,5-T is only moderately toxic, as long as it is not contaminated with TCDD.

      It was legal in the U.S. to use it on crops until 1970. Even the 1970 ban had an exception: It could be used on rice crops.

      In 1985, it was finally completely outlawed.

      Basically, the lawsuit is saying that even though Monsanto had the right to make the chemical, sell the chemical, and use the chemical until 1970, the damage done to the land is bad enough that they should be sued anyway.

      I think that the sentence should require the current Monsanto CEO to purchase a ticket to use a time machine, and go back and tell the previous CEO not to pursue 2,4,5-T.

      --
      Free unix account: freeshell.org
    3. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by thrich81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      A quick check on Wikipedia shows that 2,4,5-T made up about 50% of Agent Orange (the other 50% was another herbicide), and 2,4,5-T is considered the more hazardous of the two, so in this case the reference as a component of Agent Orange seems quite legitimate and so is linking the emotional connotations of Agent Orange to the compound in question.

    4. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They used the land, they made a product there, they made a profit. Now the people who lived or worked there suffer and die and your "legal thinking" precludes redress?

      The money went into the coffers of Monsoto the death and misery should be absorbed by someone else?

      I not talking negligence or guilt I just think economic crimes like this one always deserve swift and clean restitution.

    5. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by anotheryak · · Score: 5, Informative

      Huh?

      First of all, Agent Orange was not a chemical weapon. It was a nasty chemical and it injured my father-in-law and his children--my wife included--but that was collateral damage from what was intended as a defoliant. It was intended to clear tree cover and/or destroy food crops (though that was more Blue than Orange).

      The really nasty chemical in Agent Orange was actually a contaminant; ,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. It was not supposed to be there at all.

      Agent Orange was supposed to be a 50:50 mixture of (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid and (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid.

      I agree with snowgirl, the article title was for emotional impact. It's like saying "KNOWN CHEMOTHERAPY INGREDIENT "NORMAL SALINE" FOUND DUMPED NEAR SCHOOL!"

  2. You know what ? by unity100 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Those fucks recently applied to whatever regulatory agency that regulates those stuff in the u.s., to permit usage of base elements used in agent orange, for agricultural pesticide applications again.......... it seems superbugs adapting to afflict their genetically modified corps have come too much for them. (was in slashdot news recently too)

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:You know what ? by prefect42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A couple of points:
      I thought the claimed reduction in use of pesticides with GM crops was widely questioned. http://www.pan-uk.org/archive/Projects/Food/gmobriefing.html
      Some people object to GM partly on the basis that crops end up being patented. While I agree that's tangling two issues, that still could be a reasonable objection to GM in its current form.

      --

      jh

    2. Re:You know what ? by Rary · · Score: 3, Informative

      'GMO' and 'organic' are not two mutually exclusive categories of food.

      In order to be certified organic in the United States, food cannot be genetically modified. This is true of most (although not all) countries.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

  3. If we would just allow free market by Are+You+Kidding · · Score: 3, Interesting

    to function without interference, we would not have such problems. Right? Maybe Ron Paul, or one of his disciples will explain how that works in a case like this.

    1. Re:If we would just allow free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From what I understand, Ron Paul believes that any laws passed by the congress by the people, for the people, should be enforced. He has never stated that any laws that the public deems necessary should go unenforced in the name of the free market. The kind of rhetoric you blindly parrot is what's damaging our nation, not people like Ron Paul. If you honestly believe that Ron Paul is on the same side of the equation as Monsanto, you've been horribly misled and should probably take a break from CNN and Fox News for a while to detox.

    2. Re:If we would just allow free market by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well it's quite simple, if Monsanto releases dangerous chemicals over a town, the residents will boycott the Monsanto chemicals they were never buying, and when news of this boycott gets to the megacorps using these chemicals, they will stop using them and the shareholders will absorb the higher operating costs out of the goodness of their hearts, then Monsanto will go out of business.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:If we would just allow free market by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Free Market includes Courts to address grievances exactly like this. In a Free Market, a company such as Monsanto would and could be sued in perpetuity for hazards it created either intentionally or unintentionally. If bad enough, the entire company could be liquidated to pay for damages, leaving shareholders nothing. Additionally, in MY version of the free market, the CEO (all of them) and anyone sitting on the Board of Directors would be criminally liable for any criminal activity condoned or sanctioned by them.

      In this case, if found guilty, Monsanto would be forced to pay for cleanup, health monitoring and medical bills of all people damaged by their product or the process used to create that product.

      Free market works if the right application is applied. Don't blame the free market when we have no such thing to blame. There is no "free market", because we have government involved in too many places telling businesses how to do business.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:If we would just allow free market by forkfail · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't have it both ways.

      Courts are by definition a part of the government. And courts are supposed base their decision on law, not Solomon-esque declarations of wisdom off the cuff.

      You argue that the courts are a required part of the free market.

      You then say that free markets don't currently function properly because there's too much government involved in the process.

      Your argument is absolutely contradictory to itself.

      Aside from this, it also ignores the fact that the folks with the money can always influence decision makers, including the justices or judges of a court. So, no, in your case, the little guys suing the big guy would be even more screwed.

      Finally, arguments like this always ignore the fact that power abhors a vacuum. Government may be in some ways fundamentally evil, but it is the bulwark that our societies build against even more evil (private and unaccountable) entities filling that niche. Taking government away will not stop power from being exercised; all it will do is ensure that the people of the land have no protections against that power.

      --
      Check your premises.
    5. Re:If we would just allow free market by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What good is a court to address grievances when your kids were already born deformed, you've been burned by the agent, and your crops have all failed due to some careless disposal of toxic chemicals? Will you have the money to pay for the court fees before judgment is handed down? Will your kids ever be supported enough by the company to make up for the fact that they were born fully disabled and in permanent pain? If the company is liquidated, who pays for the medicals bills?

      Libertarians never think these things through. To them, a check in the mail is the most that they see necessary to right a wrong. Somehow, I'm convinced that behind every hardcore libertarian is a white male who hasn't had a debilitating accident happen to them, or hasn't gotten shafted hard by someone more powerful than them.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    6. Re:If we would just allow free market by Nimey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Out here in the real world the rich can afford better lawyers than we can; y'know, /free market/.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  4. Long dead . . . 1949 & corporate personhood by cfulmer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, I can pretty much guarantee that anybody who was involved in Monsanto's decisions 63 years ago is no longer at the company and, in fact, may no longer be alive. Why does it make sense to sue the current company and injure its current stockholders for something that those people did all that time ago?

    The answer? The legal fiction that the company is a 'person' that, among other things, has to be responsible for its actions.

    All the people complaining about companies not being 'persons' in regard to free-speech rights should be careful, because if they're not persons, then they're just collections of people. And in the US, we only hold people liable for things they're personally responsible for. For example, if your parents die owing a lot of money, you don't inherit their debt. If corporations are just collections of persons, then there's no sense in suing Monsanto for this today -- they weren't involved. At most, you could find out who made all the decisions and go back and sue their estates.

    1. Re:Long dead . . . 1949 & corporate personhood by Dhalka226 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All the people complaining about companies not being 'persons' in regard to free-speech rights should be careful [. . .] at most, you could find out who made all the decisions and go back and sue their estates.

      Why?

      The idea that if a corporation isn't a person that it's nothing at all is a false dichotomy. A corporation is a legal construct. We can attach whatever we want to that construct (and technically we do -- corporations exist explicitly to serve the public good in most states, as an example). If we want to cease the illusion of it being a person and yet still attach legal liability for its actions, we can do that.

  5. Re:So You're a COMPLETE Idiot? by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay you're really an idiot. It is one of the two active ingredients in agent orange. Jesus fucking christ people are stupid ... it is half of agent orange ... you don't even produce evidence that water is one of the ingredients of agent orange, you just speculate to make your joke. And you call this fucking hype? Seriously?

    Nothing I said was about the content of their argument, but rather just the presentation of the argument. The article explains NOTHING about how dangerous 2,3,4-T is, and simply replies upon "it's a part of Agent Orange" to assert the harmfulness of the chemical.

    If the article had included any of what you included as information (that it's one of two chemicals in Agent Orange, and that it breaks down into TCDD which is crazy harmful when heated) then there would have been no issue at all with the article.

    This is not a substance argument, it is a FORM argument, and thus attacking me with "but it really is dangerous!" is completely beside the point, because that's not what I was arguing. I knew 2,3,4-T was harmful, the point was that the article doesn't establish WHY it is harmful in its own right.

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  6. Washington Lawyers by Tokolosh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Agent Orange and its emotive supporters want to keep the revenue pump primed. Together with asbestos, this is productive government teat:

    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/112_HR_812.html
    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/112_SN_1629.html
    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_2254.html
    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_637.html
    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_3491.html
    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_972.html
    etc., etc.

    Regarding free markets. My city used to dump raw sewage in the river, until it was sued in 1925 by a downstream town for polluting the water. After a court case, a treatment plant was built - no EPA or federal government required, common law is sufficient.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  7. I grew up in Nitro by Bryan_Casto · · Score: 4, Informative

    The sad part is that this is barely news in WV. Oh, there have been numerous lawsuits over the years challenging each of the companies mentioned above for various abuses, often with commercials and mailers asking you to contact Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe, attorneys at law or some such nonsense. I moved away six years ago and I still get mailers today for class-action suits from my time there.

    I played baseball at the parks across Viscose Road from the industrial park mentioned in the story. My mom worked in Nitro along that same road where there was an EPA Superfund cleanup site for Fike Chemical. They found all kinds of junk there, including hydrogen cyanide and methanethiol. There was also a tremendous tire warehouse fire about five years ago near the industrial park mentioned in the story. The story goes on and on, and has ever since the nitrocellulose plant was built in 1917 for World War I.

    It's unfortunate, but coal and chemicals (and medical services for those dealing with coal and chemicals) are the only kind of work that is generally available in that area. It provided a good living for the time, but left a pretty awful legacy now that those jobs are packing up and leaving.

    --

    Bryan J. Casto
    bryan.casto(a)gmail.com
  8. I grew up in and still live in Nitro by asherlev · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since we're besting each other, I also have a box full of my grandfather's diaries after he found FMC(right down the street from the Monsanto plant in question) dumping barrels of cyanide in the Kanawha River in the 70's. The management threatened to kill him and his daughters.
    You're right though, it's no better now. Despite the fact that the Nitro area(don't even get me started on Manilla Creek) had one of the highest concentrations of marker cancers in the world before the plants closed down, if you say anything negative about the chemical industry in town you're immediately attacked.