16 Cities Sue Manufacturer Of Atrazine Weed-Killer For Contaminating Drinking Water

Huffington Post Investigative Fund   |  Danielle Ivory First Posted: 03- 8-10 05:45 PM   |   Updated: 05- 8-10 05:12 AM

What's Your Reaction?
Cities Suing Over Atrazine
16 cities are suing the maker of the weed-killer Atrazine.


A coalition of communities in six Midwestern states filed a federal lawsuit Monday seeking to force the manufacturer of a widely-used herbicide to pay for its removal from drinking water.


Atrazine, a weed-killer sprayed primarily on cornfields, can run off into rivers and streams that supply municipal water systems. As the Huffington Post Investigative Fund reported in a  series of  articles last  fall, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency failed to notify the public that atrazine had been found at levels above the federal safety limit in drinking water in at least four states.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois by 16 cities in Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, and Iowa.  The communities allege that Swiss corporation Syngenta AG and its Delaware counterpart Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. reaped billions of dollars from the sale of atrazine while local taxpayers were left with the financial burden of filtering the chemical from drinking water.

Many water utility managers  told the Investigative Fund that they could not afford the expensive carbon filters that are needed to remove atrazine.

Syngenta spokesman Paul Minehart told the Investigative Fund that the company had not yet received word of a federal action, but said that current levels of atrazine in drinking water are safe.

"What Syngenta can say is that EPA re-registered atrazine in 2006, stating it would cause no harm to the general population," Minehart said. "In the current economy many organizations, including water systems, are looking for additional sources of revenue.  It is not surprising that some water systems would say they cannot afford additional filtering but, for atrazine, there is no need."

Story continues below
Advertisement

Atrazine has long been a controversial product. The European Union in 2004 banned its use, saying there was not enough information to prove its safety. The EPA recently  announced that it would be re-evaluating the herbicide's ability to cause cancer and birth defects, as well as its potential to disrupt the hormone and reproductive systems of humans and amphibians.

Last week, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science  reported that male frogs exposed to levels of atrazine below federal limits could become functional females, with the ability to mate and lay eggs.

Citizens in all sixteen of the cities named in the lawsuit get their drinking water from sources next to or surrounded by agricultural fields where farmers use atrazine. Some of these cities sell their water in bulk to other nearby towns.

According to EPA data from 2008, at least two of the cities -- Coulterville, Ill. and Monroeville, Ohio -- found atrazine in their river water at levels above 30 parts per billion (ppb). To comply with federal law, the level of atrazine in drinking water must not exceed 3ppb on annual average.

Lawyer Stephen Tillery, who is representing the sixteen cities in this complaint, said that these cities alone have spent upwards of $350 million trying to filter atrazine from their drinking water.

To watch a video of Investigative Fund reporter Danielle Ivory discussing atrazine on the TV program Democracy Now, click  here.


Illinois Class Action Complaint Against Syngenta

Get HuffPost Green On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz!
A coalition of communities in six Midwestern states filed a federal lawsuit Monday seeking to force the manufacturer of a widely-used herbicide to pay for its removal from drinking water. Atrazine...
A coalition of communities in six Midwestern states filed a federal lawsuit Monday seeking to force the manufacturer of a widely-used herbicide to pay for its removal from drinking water. Atrazine...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
298
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »   (7 total)
AtrazineNews   11:47 AM on 4/21/2010
eugenegerard   01:19 AM on 3/11/2010
Like the tobacco sellers, I am surprised MSG and High Fructose Corn Syrup manufacturers haven' t been subjects of class action lawsuits. How long do you have to poison people before justice is done?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tjconkster   04:46 PM on 3/10/2010
"What Syngenta can say is that EPA re-registered atrazine in 2006, stating it would cause no harm to the general population," Minehart said. "In the current economy many organizations, including water systems, are looking for additional sources of revenue. It is not surprising that some water systems would say they cannot afford additional filtering but, for atrazine, there is no need."

OK, Minehart, if Atrazine is so safe, how about we give you a glassful and you drink it for us on national t.v. and then let us track how it affects YOUR health....
AboutAtrazine   06:54 PM on 3/10/2010
The manufacturers of atrazine have conducted humans studies with atrazine to determine metabolism and kinetics in man. They supplied a capsule of atrazine technical to several individuals who were high up in the chain of command (it's referred to as "the Directors Study). They all consumed a capsule in the morning, and their urine was monitored for the principal ingredient, as well as for a couple of dichloro metabolites. Scientists who reviewed the results found that the dichloro metabolites being used as indicators to measure exposure were not adequate, and that other metabolites should be used.

In connection with a personal injury suit brought by an individual who suffered kidney damage resulting from exposure to atrazine and its metabolites, Syngenta's predecessor, Ciba-Geigy Corporation, hired an expert in pharmacology and toxicology to rebuke those claims. In his sworn testimony, that expert testified that he would recommend that humans have a "zero" exposure to atrazine in their diet. He also testified that the hydroxy metabolite of atrazine is much more tissue toxic than the parent compound.

More later......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tjconkster   07:12 PM on 3/10/2010
Thanks that's great info. Thank you.

Now since you're more knowledgeable on this subject than I,let me ask you this.

I lived in rural Ohio for a number of years. Our drinking water came from a well. Our home was surrounded by fields, you know the rotation, corn, soybeans & wheat. Now the farmer who farmed these fields used what I thought were high amounts of atrazine & roundup, among other things in amounts that caused a maple tree and a white oak to die on my property. The maple tree was right on the property line and in direct contact with whatever he applied. The white oak was about 100 ft. from the line.

The reason I say he use high amounts of the chemicals is attributed to the way he farmed. It was not a no til field and when beans were planted, he did not "drill" the beans they were planted in rows. And of course wheat is drilled and not cultivated for weeds. However, his row crops, corn & beans were sprayed and he didn't til the weeds as the other farmers did. What do you think the risk of exposure might be?

I'll tell you when he sprayed things died and in a big way..
lightningbolt   11:33 AM on 3/10/2010
The only way to restore our environment is by making bribery illegal. The only reason these corporations can get away with massive amounts of pollution is because they bribe politicians through lobbying and private campaign finance. Bribery is the root of most of this country's problems and it is our most urgent priority to make all bribery illegal.
photo
paliuli   10:51 AM on 3/10/2010
The whole chemical based system of agriculture is poisoning people and the planet. What good is it to feed people food that causes cancer and genetic defects?

In a few more generations, these poisons will solve the population problem by increasing the number of infertile people.

The toll on our health care system by that time will be overwhelming, as the rate of cancer will be so high.

Buy all your food from small local farmers, and grow your own. There are natural substitutes for all these toxins they are pushing on us.
Joetown   05:27 PM on 3/09/2010
I love reading posts on this topic. It is so funny to see how clueless people really are when it comes to agriculture. Yes, chemicals are probably not good but if you take away the ability to kill weeds in the field yields will dramatically decrease. Not only do american farmers feed america we also export more than any other country. I would love to see how the markets would react to a total ban on chemicals for agriculture. Imagine Corn being 15.00 to 20.00 dollars a bushel. Talk about expensive food not only for americans but the entire world would feel a price shock. Our system is not perfect but the alternative is much worse
photo
paliuli   10:56 AM on 3/10/2010
We are all, variously, trapped in this dying world, poisoned by our own innovations. I ask you, what good is it to feed people, if you are poisoning their DNA for perpetuity?

Can't you be happy on a small organic farm, living sustainably? Try read "One Straw Revolution" by Masanobu Fukuoka.
benwha   01:30 PM on 3/10/2010
Where do propose we find the new land necessary to make up for the decline in productivity if we go 100% organic? Also, I guess you don't care about climate change either because of course more tilling of the soil will be responsible for releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide.

Just to be clear, this is what you are proposing right?
benwha   02:07 PM on 3/09/2010
A couple things to consider:

1. The atrazine compound has been around for years and is one of the most researched compounds in use in agriculture today.
2. Yes it is banned in Europe but simliar products fill the void, not sure if they are any less harsh. That would likely happen here too.
3. Syngenta makes very little selling it and in fact support it mainly due to farmers wanting them too. It would have almost no impact to Syngenta if it was banned and in fact would drive farmers to higher value products and could therefore be a net benefit to Syngenta as they would have the excuse public hysteria made them cancel it and could offer, new and under patent compounds.
4. Atrazine is very effective and its elimination could potential reduce the amount of no-till operations which will increase carbon emissions.

Food for thought...
photo
paliuli   10:57 AM on 3/10/2010
Sounds like disinfo to me. Plenty of studies show how harmful it is.
benwha   01:27 PM on 3/10/2010
Never said it wasn't harmful. Most chemicals are harmful. We can stop using chemicals if you like. How does 50% of your disposable income going to food sound to you? Better start saving now....
AboutAtrazine   11:49 PM on 3/10/2010
#1 - that's the company line. End of story.

#2 - the triazines are a class of pesticides - there are no "similar products."

#3 - atrazine is enormously profitable for Syngenta. You suggest Syngenta sells atrazine as a favor to farmers. That is ridiculous. That would mean Syngenta intentionally subjects itself to costs, expense and liability associated with operating manufacturing, formulation and packaging facilities, obtains and complies with the stringent terms of regulatory permits, exposes itself and its stakeholders to worldwide risk of litigation, spends millions of dollars on all those studies you allude to, etc., etc. - all to keep American farmers happy?

#4 - where is the science that supports this statement.
benwha   07:11 AM on 3/11/2010
#1 - this is not the company line, this is the Perdue University Line, etc. This compound is really old and has been studied ad nauseum. Look it up.
#2 - atrazine is a herbicide, pesticides kill insects, although I do realize the general public lumps them all together into the pesticides category. And of course there are products on the market, with different molecules that are designed to target the same group of weeds atrazine is effective on. I do not know what they use in Europe, I farm in the US of A but I guarantee they use some kind of chemical. It is probably no more or less harmful.
#3 - pull out a Syngenta annual report. Atrazine represents less than 2% of sales, iS off-patent meaning margins are razor thin as generic competition is high. Compared to Syngenta's growing GMO seed business, atrazine is tiny and would have zero impact on Syngenta's stock market valuation. And the risk of successful litigation is small considering the amount of study that has been done on the compound and the EPA approval. I would guess the worst case scenario here for Syngenta is a hefty settlement and the banning of the product which for a company of 25B will be a little blip.
#4 - Tilling the soil releases carbon, you can google that too. Atrazine is a product widely used in no-till operations as tjconkster says above.
bdaved   02:36 PM on 3/14/2010
About that #1 up there-- it's true that Atrazine has been studied quite a bit. Unfortunately, while the Hudson Institute likes to discredit the research of scientists whose results Hudson and Syngenta don't like, all research on Atrazine's effects on amphibians, at least up to 2005, was found by the EPA to be equally flawed: "EPA’s publicly available White Paper found that all of the available information
was scientifically flawed. Because of these flaws, no firm conclusions could be drawn
about whether atrazine affects frogs and if so, at what levels. In effect, all of the 17
amphibian studies with atrazine contained significant methodological flaws that severely
limited the utility of each specific study in determining the potential effects of atrazine on
sexual development in frogs. None of the laboratory studies on atrazine – whether
performed by laboratories under contract with Syngenta, or performed by Dr. Hayes or
others – were conducted in accordance with the standard ASTM International (formerly
known as the American Society for Testing & Materials) protocols."
bdaved   02:38 PM on 3/14/2010
bdaved   02:40 PM on 3/14/2010
And about #3-- do you honestly think Syngenta is just supplying Atrazine out of the goodness of its heart? As a favor to farmers?
urchinsadrift   12:51 PM on 3/09/2010
Gosh. I have a warm fuzzy feeling about the EPA protectong me. Gotta love em. Dontcha.
photo
kareemachan   10:55 AM on 3/09/2010
FTA:

"What Syngenta can say is that EPA re-registered atrazine in 2006, stating it would cause no harm to the general population," Minehart said.

Hmm, they RE-registered it in 2006. Under shrub's watch. Anybody surprised to read this?
29685   10:10 AM on 3/09/2010
Community organizes AGAINST FuelCell Energy installation...

http://www.notrumbull­powerplant.org/
Wakeworld88   09:52 AM on 3/09/2010
I love the insane thinking for totally irresponsible Capitalism. I will grow crops for profit, no matter how much poison I need to put on them, so I can get a bigger yield. I don't care if the crops deform, make sterile, harms humans, or kills or deforms babies, as long as my farm makes a profit. Then I can sell my poison crops to the world and spread my poison crops every where because, I feed people, and I'm doing good for humanity. I wonder if this contributes to our high health costs? The funniest and ironic part, it's mostly being done in the Bible belt of America. God bless PROFIT humans be dammed. Can you say totally unconscious?
benwha   02:08 PM on 3/09/2010
let me guess, not a farmer? because it sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about.
photo
paliuli   10:06 AM on 3/11/2010
What are you farming?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jeb50   09:49 AM on 3/09/2010
Yes, and Agent Orange was safe too.
Prairiewinds   09:24 AM on 3/09/2010
The presence of Atrazine in drinking water should come as no surprise to anyone. I've worked in conservation/with agriculture for over 30 years and can tell you we all partake of chemical soup every day.......it's in our bloodstreams and DNA now. Atrazine is just one of the culprits and even the decay products of many remain in our soils and groundwater virtually forever. The litany of toxic products is a long one and with the advent of GMO's will grow even longer as producers apply designer pesticides to their new menagerie of tailor-made crops and animals.

Can Syngenta, Monsanto, Bayer and their cronies be brought to task and forced to change their ways? No. Well, short of total rebellion and a market collapse since they control the entire process now.
Can we escape ingestion of these products in modern society? No. You can reduce your dosage though by refusing to buy corporate groceries and demanding to know the source of your foodstuffs or growing your own.

From Alzheimer's to Autism to mutagenics, we have just begun to taste the fruits of our craving for tasty, cheap and accessible products. Rachel Carson tried to warn everyone years ago and even now we find DDT embedded in soil samples. Enjoy your breakfast.
photo
Rockyman   10:39 AM on 3/09/2010
I appreciate your honesty and agree we're doomed to a future of increasing ill-health unless we change our dangerous ways NOW!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
COPerez   08:56 AM on 3/09/2010
Just another externalized cost that the Chemical companies foist off on the public.
photo
klbrz   08:56 AM on 3/09/2010
Maybe the Gulf of Mexico states should sue these states and their farmers for killing the gulf with all their fertilizers and other poisons. I guess it's different when your poisons end up actually poisoning you instead of someone else.

Twitter Edition