Dursban: banned in America homes but sold as safe for Indian children and families

The origins of chlorpyrifos can be traced to the late 1930s, when the German conglomerate IG Farben developed the organophosphate pesticides tabun and sarin (later used as precursors for making nerve gas). Appropriated by the Nazis as prospective weapons during World War II, the compounds cause symptoms ranging from blurred vision to asphyxia. All organophosphates inhibit cholinesterase, an enzyme that regulates nerve transmission in the body. The result can be overstimulation of the nervous system; in extreme cases, "you can't run, you can't walk, you can't breathe," says Janette Sherman, a physician in Alexandria, Va. "That's the way it kills the insect."

In 1965 Dow began producing Dursban, an insecticide based on chlorpyrifos, which was known to cause headaches, nausea, dizziness, tiredness, leg cramps, nerve damage, asthma, and birth defects. Dow was well aware of chlorpyrifos's dangers to health, but advertised Dursban for use as a household pest controller, for lawn care, schools, day-care centers, office buildings, on farms and use by pest and termite exterminators. Dow said Dursban lacked "long term (health) effects" and claimed that there was “no evidence of significant risk to the environment.”

Dursban, Dursban everywhere

Chlorpyrifos was very profitable for Dow in the US and is one of the top five insecticides with annual sales worldwide of over US$ 2 billion. The chemical causes more than 1,000 cases of poisoning and 7,000 cases of accidental exposure per year in the US alone.

A study of 1,000 Americans in 1994 found that 82 percent had detectable levels of chlorpyrifos reisudes in their urine. All had more than 1mg/litre and 31% had more than 5 mg/litre: a six-fold increase between 1974 and 1994.

Tests showed a six-fold increase of chlorpyrifos in people's urine between 1974-94

A survey of 46 California school districts in 1997 found that almost half routinely applied pesticides containing chlorpyrifos. In New York the same year, Dursban Pro was the most popular bug killer: State records show that 3.5 million pounds and 665,000 gallons were applied.

An EPA analysis found that the chemical was suspected in 17,771 incidents reported to U.S. poison-control centers between 1993 and 1996. More than half the cases involved children under 6. In a draft report released last week, the EPA said that those who come in contact with the product in its granular and powdered forms–whose dust is easily inhaled and absorbed through the skin–could receive up to 100 times the safe amount. Dow AgroSciences says the document is riddled with errors and omits important data.

"A home interior was sprayed for carpenter ants. Dursban was
used while children were present. Three hours later the mother
reported headaches, nausea, dizziness . . ."

"A woman had two serious reactions to Dursban in 1988 and 1998.
Electric feeling through torso like a seizure, sleep disruption, deadened nerves."

"Flea and tick collar containing Dursban was chewed by a dog. The dog died."

Dursban on his collar was meant to kill the tick, but the dog it was who died

Dursban and children

Studies suggest that chlorpyrifos poses a particular threat to the developing nervous system, attacking it in ways that can lower intelligence and cause behavioral problems.

Children like Christie and A. J. Ebling of New Albany, Indiana developed seizures, learning disabilities, and incontinence after a pest-control service repeatedly sprayed their apartment with Dursban and an organophosphate mixture called Creal-O in 1994. "The fact that this occurred in two children simultaneously is pretty hard to ignore," says Roger Pardieck, the family's attorney in a lawsuit against Dow AgroSciences. "Their doctors have looked for every other possible explanation, and there is none." The company contested the suit.

Misleading advertising claims violated the law

An investigation in the early 1990s by the New York Attorney General's Office found that Dow had repeatedly engaged in false and misleading advertising that violated both state and federal laws. In exchange for not paying fines for its illegal advertising claims.

Dow signed an agreement with the state in 1994 in which it pledged to reform its advertising and marketing practices and agreed to discontinue what the New York attorney general characterized as deceptive claims in a Dursban brochure.

"Unnamed, unappreciated. This caterpillar is a species of Monoleuca. The habitat where it lives will be sprayed with the pesticide Dursban next week. The only known specimens will be those I have feeding in my lab. I know this isn't the best photo, but I'm dedicating it to all you Flickr bug photographers, especially those of you who never use the words ugly, hate, or fear in reference to your finds. ~CH" Courtesy Flickr: Caterpillar Hunter

Dow hid hundreds of Dursban-related health incidents

In 1995 the EPA caught Dow hiding hundreds of health related lawsuits involving chlorpyrifos and fined the company $876,000 for belatedly reporting 288 possible adverse reactions.

The EPA found additional unreported incidents in subsequent years because Dow continued not to report adverse incidents. It is clear that Dow habitually disregarded the EPA and its federally-required reporting. It is apparent that people at Dow were using an elaborate scheme to achieve a simple goal, to make chlorpyrifos appear to be a safer and a less problem-prone product than it really is so they could keep the product on the market and sell more of it. They intentionally hid damaging product issues and thousands of complaints from the public. They did this to keep chlorpyrifos from receiving additional attention from regulators or as Dow marketing strategists amusingly joke about it, "keep chlorpyrifos under the radar of regulatory".

$10 million out of court settlement for an American child

Still in 1995, Mohamed Abou-Donia, a professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke University reported that Dursban could be more toxic in combination with other chemicals than alone, or more toxic in repeated small doses than in a single large one. "It should not be used inside the home,"he said.

This research helped secure an eight-figure settlement, said to be $10 million, for Joshua Herb, a paralyzed Charleston boy who had been exposed in utero to Dursban and another organophosphate, propetamphos. Dow had been prepared to go to trial, until animal tests performed by Professor Abou-Donia showed that chlorpyrifos, when combined with the other chemical, caused "catastrophic destruction" of the nervous system in lower doses than it would have alone.

Dow AgroSciences counsel Relford doesn't regret the decision to settle: "We were facing a jury trial in West Virginia, in state court, involving a five-and-a-half year-old little boy who was paraplegic and respirator-dependent," he says. "And we couldn't look at that case . . . and not have a huge amount of sympathy for Joshua Herb." Nor, presumably, could the jury.

Cases of accidental poisoning have been many. In the US Poison Control
Centres alone there have been more than 7,000 cases just in 1996, of
accidental exposures due to Dursban.1 Most susceptible are children playing
at home and in the garden.

After the Dursban ban, consumers commiserate while cockroaches celebrate, wrote the Dallas Morning News

Dursban banned in the US for household use with other uses to be phased out within five years

In June 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced the banning of most uses of Dursban, also known as chlorpyrifos, because of concerns the pesticide was harmful to the public health, particularly children. By the end of 2001, uses to control termites in buildings other than homes or areas where children could be exposed were to phased-out as well. By the end of 2004, the termiticide use on new construction would be phased-out unless new information became available which show that this use could safely continue.

Dow continues to advertise Dursban as safe and pays biggest ever pesticide fine in US history

As recently as March, 2003, Dow's internet site included the statement:
"Consumer exposure from labeled use of chlorpyrifos products provides
wide margins of safety for both adults and children." In contrast, Dow's
safety data sheet for Durban TC™ (chlorpyrifos) states that excessive
vapor concentrations are attainable and could be hazardous on single
exposure."

Attorney General Elliot Spitzer's investigation revealed that even after the 1994 agreement Dow had continued illegally to advertise the safety of chlorpyrifos and other pesticides. The investigation centered on Dow's advertising of the Dursban™ pesticide product line. The federal Environmental Protection Agency, specifically citing health risks to children, took action in 2000 to prohibit most household uses of chlorpyrifos.

In 2003, Dow paid the largest pesticide enforcement penalty ever in New York State ($2 million) for false advertising about Dursban’s safety. Largest Pesticide Enforcement Penalty in U.S. History. New York Attorney General Spitzer said, "By misleading consumers about the potential dangers associated with the use of their products, Dow's ads may have endangered human health and the environment by encouraging people to use their products without proper care."

The unspoilt Western Ghats near Chiplun, Maharashtra. Dow has built its Dursban manufacturing plant on the plain below, and the stink of it carries for miles

Dow double standards: it continues to market Dursban as safe for household use in India

After the US household ban, the EPA fines and the roasting it got from the Attorney General of New York, Dow Chemical simply switched production and sales of Dursban overseas, particularly targetting poorer countries with lax regulatory systems. Dursban has been declared as unfit for almost all home/garden uses by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). However, Dow is still selling it to consumers in these countries for the same uses.

In India, Dow produces and distributes Dursban, claiming it is safe for people and its sales literature claimed Dursban has "an established record of safety regarding humans and pets." (!)

There have been several cases of accidental poisoning of workers in India, but to date there are no systematic data on poisoning in India and other countries.

Dow is fined $325,000 for having routinely bribed Indian officials to gain safety certification for Dursban

Early in 2007, Dow Chemical was charged by the US Securities and Exchange Commission with having paid more than $200,000 in bribes to Indian agriculture ministry officials to expedite registration of three pesticides, including one (Dursban) that was prohibited for domestic use in the US owing to its proven toxic effects on the mental development of children. Dow did not contest the allegation and paid a fine of $325,000.

In August 2007 CBI officials raided seven offices and houses of Dow Agrosciences for investigating this crime of bribery.

'We have raided six offices of Dow-Nocil Corp. Protection Ltd., a subsidiary of Dow Chemical based in US, and other accused for allegedly paying bribes to key Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) officials to obtain licence for the marketing of its insecticide products in India,' said a senior CBI official. The CIBRC, a wing under the Ministry of Agriculture, is entitled to grant licences for the marketing of insecticide products in the country.

The CBI sleuths searched Dow-Nocil offices in Mumbai, Chennai, Pune, Faridabad, Ghaziabad and Gujarat on instructions from the agriculture ministry after the Security Exchange Commission of the US passed a 'cease and desist' order earlier this year after Dow allegedly paid 'illegal gratification' to the CIBRC officials during the period 1996-2001 to get licences.

De-Nocil, headquartered in Mumbai, was established in 1994 and changed its name to Dow Agro Sciences Private Ltd. in 2005.

"To market and sell its three products - Pride (NI-2s), Nurelle-D and Dursban 10G - in India the company spent a whopping US$ 200,000,of which $32,000 was allegedly paid to R.L. Rajak, director of the licensing committee. The foreign company also gave Rajak gifts of jewellery, travel and hotel allowances," the official told news organisations.

"With the help of Rajak and other CIRBC officials, the company obtained licences in 1997, 1998 and 2000."

"The amount was paid by Dr C. Ramakrishnan, Dr P. Natrajan and one Banerjee - former employees and consultants with Dow-Nocil - to the CIRBC officials, via consultants and unrelated companies to facilitate expeditious registration of Dow-Nocil products. Fast-tracked registration of products accelerated sales and resulted in the company generating an estimated $435,000, of which $330,000 went to Dow Chemical as owner of the company."

The scandal, which falls under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, demonstrated what many had long suspected, that Dow would not hesistate to use corruption in India to get its way. That situation has not changed.