MOFGA Logo

  

MOFGA Letterhead

the MOF&G Online

Info

Events

Technical Services

Crop Certification

Organic Food

  

 

Potato Sprout Inhibitor Seriously Injures Bystander

On December 15, 1998, Barbara McGuire, a bookkeeper for Northeast Potato Distributors, went to work as usual at her office in Monticello, which ajoins a potato storage facility owned by Arrow Farms. Greg Schools, a manager of the storage facility, advised her and her co-worker Dale Peers that they were going to be applying sprout inhibitors to potatoes in another part of the building. He did not, however, tell the employees to exit the building or to take other precautions to protect their health; instead, according to his written statement, he advised them "not to call the fire department if they noticed smoke coming out of the storage facility through any cracks or windows." Blaine Lincoln, of Northern Refrigeration, Inc., then made an application of Pin Nip 98% Chlorpropham, a carbamate insecticide, to the pesticide storage area adjoining McGuire’s office. As the morning progressed, both Peers and McGuire developed light-headedness, dizziness, headache, sore eyes, tight chest and a funny taste. About 12:30, when they opened the office door, they observed a fog permeating the loading area connecting the office and the storage area. Both went home and then to the emergency room. Both were diagnosed with carbamate inhalation poisoning.

McGuire, a non-smoker who had no previous symptoms of allergy, asthma or respiratory complaints, has been in treatment ever since for chemical-induced asthma, taking three different inhalers and a pill. For 11 years prior to the incident, McGuire ran 25 to 30 miles a week She has not been able to run since, because of shortness of breath. McGuire no longer works at the facility, and has a pending lawsuit against Northern Refrigeration. She is represented by Tom Brown of the firm of Eaton, Peabody.

At the May 19, 2000, BPC meeting, the staff brought the case to the Board for approval of an enforcement action against the licensed pesticide applicator, Northern Refrigeration. Discussion focused on the issue of whether the applicator, Blaine Lincoln, was justified in relying on the management of the storage facility to notify and take steps to protect other tenants in the building. Lincoln’s lawyer, Paul Douglas, argued that Lincoln wasn’t under a legal duty to "ensure" that no one was exposed to the pesticide, only to take reasonable precautions. Douglas argued it was not negligent for Lincoln to expect Schools to protect anyone who could potentially be exposed. BPC enforcement officer Henry Jennings countered, however, that "the Board has consistently held that notice is the responsibility of the applicator. Here you’re faced with no indication that the applicator instructed people to leave. Were those reasonable steps?" McGuire’s attorney argued that the building where the application was made was "very porous, not suitable to fogging," and that the only barrier between the storage facility and the loading shed that connected to the offices consisted of plastic strip "apron doors." Lincoln, he noted, was "in protective gear from head to foot, and he had a duty the way we see it to expose nobody. His exculpatory efforts don’t hold hot water, let alone fumes and fog." Discussion also addressed the fact that the amount of carbamate applied exceeded the label instructions. Northern Refrigeration argued that that was OK because there were other potatoes in the facility. Jennings pointed out that the argument was tantamount to an admission that they "engaged in chemical trespass on someone else’s potatoes who had not asked for the treatment."

The Board unanimously approved pursuing the enforcement action, except that Neil Crane, a potato farmer who contracts for Northern Refrigerations services, abstained.

EPA moves against Dursban

In its third major reassessment of a pesticide under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, the EPA moved in June to phase out all residential uses of chlorpyrifos (Dursban), which, for decades, has been the most widely used household pesticide product in the United States. The move is expected to reduce national production and use of the product by 50%, and was prompted by studies, some conducted by the manufacturer Dow Chemical Co., finding that the compound causes brain damage in fetal rats, whose mothers were exposed to the pesticide. Twenty to twenty-four million pounds of Dursban are applied annually in the United States. In addition to household uses, which account for 50% of production, Dursban is used on 40 agricultural crops. Three of those crops, which contribute to most of children’s dietary exposure to the pesticide--tomatoes, apples and grapes--will also be affected by the proposed rule. Dursban use will be eliminated on tomatoes, and reduced on apples and grapes.

While environmental groups generally applauded the move, controversy centered on whether the EPA should recall existing household Dursban products, or allow a phase-out over a period of time. The EPA elected a phase-out, allowing sales of existing stocks through 2001, because any other approach would have resulted in years of litigation, according to EPA chief Carol Browner. The EPA press release advises consumers that should they choose to stop using Dursban products they have on hand, they "should contact their state or local hazardous material disposal program."

--Sharon Tisher

Return to The MOF&G Online