Despite an adverse court ruling out of Ecuador, Chevron continues to remain on the offensive against trial lawyers who are suing the company over environmental allegations that have been hotly disputed.  An Ecuadorian appeals court in Lago Agrio  upheld a ruling earlier this month ordering the company to pay $18 billion in damages to plaintiffs who claim the oil company is responsible for polluting the Amazon and damaging the health of local residents.

Chevron became a target for litigation after it took over Texaco in 2001. Farmers and tribe members claim Texaco damaged parts of the jungle with faulty drilling practices in the 1970’s and 1980’s. In response, Chevron officials have said that Texaco properly re-mediated the areas where it had operations. Moreover, the company has produced reams of evidence that demonstrate plaintiff attorneys have been operating in collusion with Ecuador’s judiciary to produce fraudulent rulings. Chevron has also sought international legal recourse with considerable success.

Under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Agreement Treaty, a Hague Tribunal has ordered Ecuador to suspend enforcement of the ruling pending further investigation. Several federal judges in the U.S. have also ruled in the company’s favor. Chevron has also submitted a letter to Galo Chiriboga, Ecuador’s prosecutor general that documents the fraud and corruption allegations. The plaintiffs’ representatives including Steven Donziger, Pablo Fajardo, Juan Pablo  Saenz, Julio Priento and Luis Yanza worked in covert partnership with Judge Zambrano to craft a ruling  that would be favorable to their case, according to the letter.

Chevron’s evidence against the Ecuadorian court includes the following:

(more…)

In the pitched battle over whether government should take over our health care system, a group of pro-life Democrat congressmen held the line to oppose the legislation because they knew the bill authorized funding for abortion.  Under intense pressure from the president and their pro-choice comrades in the Congress, the group, led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) flip-flopped when they received a letter from the president ensuring that government would not spend money for abortion.  They were had.

Now Sen. Rob Portman appears ready to “pull a Stupak.”  Under pressure from Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown, Portman appears ready to cut a deal to confirm former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to a five-year term to head the super-regulatory agency known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Word on Capitol Hill is that Portman has assured Cordray he has no problems with his nomination and is asking for assurances that his concerns about the Bureau will be address – not in legislation, but in a letter.  Has Portman learned anything from the Stupak incident?  Apparently not.

Unlike Portman, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) is taking a principled stand against the creation of a new super regulatory agency and is not shaking in his boots.  Shelby has organized his colleagues who have pledged to oppose the nomination of Cordray or any other nominee unless the Bureau is reformed.  Unlike Portman, apparently, Shelby is smart enough to demand real statutory changes as opposed to “promised” changes.

The CFPB was structured in a way to give huge, and perhaps unconstitutional, power to its Director.  Alan Raul, who served as general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget and associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan, described the CFPB’s power as “an independent agency on steroids because Congress essentially exempted the director from any meaningful accountability or strong presidential oversight.”

(more…)

Regarding our country’s current fiscal issues, Republicans are right to draw a line in the sand. We have an obligation to say “no” to tax increases that do nothing to either stem or support the profligate, big-government spending favored by the Democrats. Unchecked government spending is a road that, if traveled, will further plunge our nation into economic anemia due to massive debt and uncontrollable entitlements. This malaise, Democrats will argue, may only be solved by “redistributing wealth” through back-breaking tax increases that will erode the spirit and principles that distinguish our country, leaving only a shadow of its past greatness. That is what is at stake; the stakes have never been higher.

Conservatives cannot allow Republican lawmakers to soften or defect on the party’s fundamental principles, or worse, align with those who are diametrically opposed to everything the GOP stands for:  free enterprise, reasonable taxes, limited government and tort reform. Yes, tort reform — and here’s why.

Ignoring tort reform has been devastating to taxpayers, the economy and American business. The U.S. is the most litigious nation in the world; it weakens us competitively and lessens respect for America’s legal system in the eyes of the world. The question isn’t how this critical issue fell from our sightlines to the sidelines. The question is: Why have we permitted trial lawyers to worm their way into our ranks to undermine GOP priorities and the party itself?

In state capitols across the country, there are legislators who proclaim to be conservatives yet block lawsuit reform. A look at just a few states quickly reveals several examples of Republicans who align with personal injury lawyers. (more…)

The American Jobs Act exposes states to frivolous lawsuits while providing a boon to trial lawyers seeking government settlement money.  The President made no mention of this boon to the trial bar in his national jobs speech.  Nor does the glossy overview of the American Jobs Act (Act) on the Whitehouse website mention this gift.  Instead, one must delve deep within the bill to perceive this threat to state governments— 376 sections into it to be exact.

Section 376 of the Act guts the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution by requiring states to forfeit their sovereign immunity rights guaranteed by this Amendment upon receipt of certain government funds.   This opens the door for expensive litigation against states.  Such litigation is a boon for trial lawyers but serves as a millstone around the neck of drowning taxpayers.

The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

The Supreme Court held in 1890 that this amendment prohibits suits brought against a state by its own citizens as well as from citizens of other states.  (Hans v. Louisiana,134 U.S. 1 (1890)).   Without this doctrine of sovereign immunity, lawsuits brought by private individuals could result in states being forced to pay monetary damages for alleged violations.  People with valid claims against the State would not be the only ones collecting monetary damages.  As those experienced in trial law will attest, settlements are often paid out to those launching lawsuits even when the merits of the case are questionable.  Settling a case in many situations is simply less expensive than paying exorbitant legal defense costs.

This doctrine of sovereign immunity does NOT eliminate recourse by citizens for constitutional rights violations committed by a state government.  Lawsuits may still be brought in an effort to prevent the States from continuing conduct which violates such rights.  Courts can then order the state to alter its actions.  Those who ratified Amendment XI recognized that courts should be in the business providing constitutional guidance rather than transferring public funds to individual litigants.  After all, those public funds are derived ultimately from individual citizens.

(more…)

It should come as no surprise that the radical left is rallying behind former Ohio Attorney general Richard Cordray to head to powerful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – a newly created government agency designed to regulate the American economy with little oversight from Congress.

MoveOn.org and other liberal groups are demanding Republicans play dead and allow Cordray to be confirmed by the Senate for a five year term where he can singlehandedly dictate regulations government nearly any financial transaction in America.

Quietly another interest group is rallying to Cordray’s corner – the securities lawyers.  Daniel Fisher, writing at Forbes.com noticed that despite the constant bashing of the financial industry by Cordray, he is wildly popular with securities class action lawyers and law firms:

Lawyers at Labaton Sucharow contributed $125,000 to various Cordray campaigns between 2008 and 2010, according to Ohio campaign-finance records. Delaware-based Labaton represented Ohio in the AIG case, which it settled last year for $1 billion including something like $90 million in fees (the final fee payout, surprisingly, isn’t on the AG’s website).

Lawyers at crosstown Delaware rivals Grant & Eisenhofer ponied up $25,000 for the Cordray campaign; they represented the state in a lawsuit against Marsh & McClennan that netted the state’s outside lawyers 13% on a $400 million settlement. Other out-of-state law firms that took a keen interest in Cordray’s campaign included Atlanta’s Chitwood Harley, which gave $146,000; Berman deValerio of San Francisco and New York’s Bernstein Litowitz, known for its generosity in seemingly obscure state political races, which gave $50,000.

That’s because Cordray has a scandalous record of “taking money from lawyers who profit from private litigation that often follows closely on the heels of government investigations…” So, the reality is that President Obama’s liberal white-hatted regulator appears to be neck deep in a pay to play scandal with trial lawyers.

Republicans appear ready to hold the line on the nomination with 44 Senators signing a letter refusing to support any nominee until the CFPB is reformed and proper checks and balances are put into place.  But there is a bigger story and a bigger scandal brewing.

From Politico:

America’s trial lawyers are getting ready to make the case against one of their biggest targets in years: Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Among litigators, there is no presidential candidate who inspires the same level of hatred – and fear – as Perry, an avowed opponent of the plaintiffs’ bar who has presided over several rounds of tort reform as governor.

And if Perry ends up as the Republican nominee for president, deep-pocketed trial lawyers intend to play a central role in the campaign to defeat him.

(more…)

Texas took yet another step this week that is certain to tighten its grip on the designation as the nation’s leading state for business. Governors in other states looking to improve their jobs situation should give serious consideration to mirroring the Lone Star State’s aggressive pro-jobs, pro-growth agenda.

On Tuesday the Texas Senate, under the leadership of Lt. Governor David Dewhurst and despite an aggressive lobbying effort by the Trial Lobby, voted unanimously in favor of “loser pays” tort reform legislation. On Wednesday, the House, which had passed a similar bill and was awaiting the Senate’s version, concurred with the Senate bill and passed it through. Gov. Rick Perry has said he will enthusiastically sign the bill into law.

‘Loser pays’ will require plaintiff’s to foot the bill of the winning party’s legal costs if a judge finds the case to be groundless. According to the Wall Street Journal, “This Texas upgrade would build on reforms in 2003 and 2005 that have vastly improved the legal climate in what has not coincidentally become the country’s best state for job creation.”

Negotiations on the bill were highly contentious in recent weeks, mostly due to a well-funded lobbying campaign by the Trial Lobby, which, in Texas, is virtually synonymous with the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, there was a breakthrough over the weekend.

From the Austin Statesman:

By a unanimous vote, the Texas Senate has just given final approval to a once-controversial “loser pays” bill designed to make it easier to get meritless lawsuits tossed out of court.

(more…)

The expression ‘Everything is Bigger in Texas’ used to apply to ambulance chasing attorneys, frivolous litigation, and mega-payouts to plaintiffs.  The Lone Star state was known for attracting a robust tort bar and a less-than-thriving medical community, as physicians gave the state a wide berth to avoid sky-high malpractice insurance rates and the constant risk of getting hit with junk lawsuits where even the winner loses via punishing legal fees.

That all changed when the state enacted pioneering tort reform laws in 2003 and 2005 that overhauled much of the state’s legal system, with a focus on areas that act as magnets for low-merit litigation, such as class-action certification, product liability, and medical malpractice.  The new law also put a cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages, vastly reducing the average size of lawsuits.  The result?  In just a few years, Texas has become first in the nation in job creation, and seen the number of doctors applying for license to practice rise by 60 percent.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is not content to stop there; the popular Republican and current RGA Chairman devoted a portion of his most recent State of the State address to promoting adoption of a ‘loser pays’ rule, which requires plaintiffs to pick up the tab for defendants’ legal fees if their suits are judged to be groundless.   Sometimes called the ‘English Law’ due to its origin in England, loser pays laws are in place in the legal systems of nearly every developed nation besides the U.S.  Incidentally, the U.S. is home to the world’s most complicated and costly legal system by far.  The Wall Street Journal reports that Americans now spend more per year on tort litigation than on new cars, with the total tort tab reaching $247 billion in 2006.  Coincidence?  Probably not – loser pays measures are known to clear the legal system of nuisance litigation, act as a deterrent against low-merit class action suits, lower overall litigation costs, and create a more expedient path to justice for meritorious claims.

The Texas House handed Perry a victory this month, handily passing their version of the loser-pays legislation.  Now, the tort reform battle looms in the State Senate, where their version of the loser-pays bill is in committee.  Lt. Gov. – and likely U.S. Senate candidate – David Dewhurst will be pitted against Texas Trial Lawyer honcho President Steve Mostyn, a sort of King of the Ambulance Chasers.  Mostyn has amassed a large personal fortune by obtaining jackpot settlements from the state in hurricane-related lawsuits, and coughed up almost $6 million (nearly half of what the trial lawyers spent in total) to defeat Perry and other pro-tort reformRepublicans in 2010.  Perry has made it clear he will sign any loser pays bill that crosses his desk, so the spotlight is on Dewhurst to play the rainmaker.

(more…)

“In recent injury/product liability news, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit against the FDA alleging it failed to regulate toxic substances in certain consumer products.”

Thus began the latest manufactured consumer crisis illustrating the powerful union between radical environmentalists and the trial bar.   Add a sympathetic Congressman and a manipulative triad is born.

Product liability wrangling follows a clear path – first the setup, then vague accusations of the product’s damaging properties followed by class action cash flow.

In just one sentence, the above blog comment posted by Texas personal injury law firm captures the essence of how product liability wrangling starts – and, ultimately, why.

Despite a forty-year record of reducing germs, slowing their transfer and being deemed safe by the FDA and EPA, the latest victim of the NRDC and friends are antimicrobial products – particularly those with ingredients Triclocarban and Triclosan.

These synthetic antimicrobial agents kill or retard the growth of fungus, mildew and bacteria in commercial and consumer products including hand soap, toothpaste, cosmetics, restaurant equipment, air conditioning coils, surgical scrubs and the Swiss Army Knife.

(more…)

“Never before has such a low bar been set for certifying such a gargantuan class”
Judge Sandra Ikuta writing in her dissent against class certification of the Walmart lawsuit in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Walmart is getting sued by 6 women for sex discrimination; this despite the fact that most of the employees are women. The ambulance-chasing shysters fomenting this case succeeded in getting “class” status for their few plaintiffs from the notorious 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. One of the primary tests for certifying a lawsuit as a “class” is for the court to determine whether the named plaintiffs are sufficiently representative of the class. Additionally, the court must determine if actual discrimination occurred and that this discrimination was likely to be widespread and effect a large class; in this case, a half of million female employees.

This sad case began with a few hapless women who couldn’t qualify as managers, but wishing they were managers. These people are rolling the dice with their litigation lottery scam. These women ended up telling sad stories of how they didn’t get their promotions to manager due to discrimination (yes, it’s true, Walmart has a strict policy against promoting morons). This is not a tort, unless those people can show, with evidence, that they were passed over because they were a woman. In the Walmart case, the attorneys for the plaintiffs used a combination of sob stories, anecdotal evidence and statistics. The statistics showed nothing.

The Walmart case, filed in 2001, against the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer by six female workers who claimed the company paid women less than men and gave them fewer promotions. Their evidence? They said that 65 percent of Wal-Mart’s hourly employees were women, while just 33 percent of the company’s management team is female. So what? These statistics are not proof of wrongdoing. They’re the same sort of phony statistics that feminists and their media echo have used for years saying that women only make 70 cents of the dollar compared to men. That’s baloney.

(more…)

The first plastic was created in 1855 by British metallurgist Alexander Parkes.   As nobody knew quite what to do with it, plastic remained obscure until the 1890’s when another Brit developed polymers called “silicones.”

By 1910, plastic was a fully synthetic compound revolutionizing industry, consumer products and military supply.  It is still the world’s most utilized material.

When plastic became readily available in 1910, life expectancy in the U.S. was 50.  Today it is nearly 79 and there are about 80,000 American over 100 years old.  Clearly, plastic is not a serious health concern.

Nevertheless, the Obama Administration has just unleashed yet another attack on plastics, using an end-run by bureaucratic fiat, hoping we won’t notice.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is a Carter-era law governing the Environmental Protection Agency’s management of chemicals through collecting data and designing regulatory protections.  Although its original intent was to address toxic PCBs, bureaucrats found other chemicals needing management once that crisis passed.

Some of the agency’s regulations have been good, such as rulemaking on lead paint and asbestos abatement.  But now EPA is abrogating the process by focusing on silicone.

(more…)

The Ninth Circuit Court recently set forth a ruling on an interesting case involving arbitration clauses in contracts. A couple received two complimentary cell phones from AT&T as part of a bundled-service contract but were charged $30.22 in sales tax required by California law.  As part of their contract, the couple agreed to arbitration.  As part of the arbitration clause AT&T agrees to pay $7500 plus fees if an arbitration award exceeds the amount last offered by AT&T before the settlement.  The couple claimed they were misled and filed a class-action law suit, despite their having signed the contract agreeing to arbitration.

The ruling by the Ninth Circuit, in Laster v AT&T Mobility LLC, called the contract unconscionable and refused to enforce the clause requiring arbitration.  The Court felt that such a clause, by disallowing class action, would result in little enforcement of contracts.  Because the amount involved is small, the individual customer would probably not find it worth the opportunity cost of their time to go to arbitration, and thus AT&T could default on lots of small contracts for minimal amounts and not fear an arbitration settlement.

There are a number of reasons why this ruling should be overturned.  First, it flies in the face of the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, which was passed to provide certainty to contracts that have arbitration clauses.  The Act requires federal courts to enforce arbitration agreements unless they violate standard contract law doctrine, such as fraud, duress, or are unconscionable.  For a contract to be unconscionable, in this particular case, it must be seen as a scheme of the party in a stronger bargaining position to cheat large numbers of consumers.  The standard arbitration contract doesn’t meet any of these standards.

The contract with AT&T is clear.

(more…)

It’s Halloween, and in the Land of (Honest Abe) Lincoln a liberal judge is wearing a Republican mask and lying to voters.

Staring disaster in the face on Tuesday, Democrats are running scared. And some are even running as Republicans.

Thomas Kilbride is running to be “retained” as a State Supreme Court Justice in Illinois. He needs 60% of voters in the 3rd District, which comprises a band across the middle of Illinois from the Mississippi River to Indiana, to re-elect him.

Kilbride is a Democrat, according to Wikipedia’s State Supreme Court page for Illinois, and received $600,000 from the Democratic party in 2000 when he first ran. But Republicans and conservatives in his District will be forgiven for being confused about that, because they’ve recently been bombarded with campaign flyers indicating Kilbride is a Republican.

(more…)

From Legal News Line:

A new study focusing on what one organization feels is an abuse of power was released Wednesday, naming the 10 worst state attorneys general in recent history.

Hans Bader, Counsel for Special Projects at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote the report, which names Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal as the worst.

“The nation’s worst state attorney general is Richard Blumenthal, a tireless crusader for growing the power of his own office and spreading largesse to his cronies,” Bader wrote.

Bader focused largely on Blumenthal’s role in litigation against tobacco companies, starting with the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.

“Wealthy trial lawyers across the nation received $14 billion nationally in attorneys’ fees under a $246 billion-plus settlement paid for primarily by smokers — the alleged victims of the very fraud that begat the settlement,” Bader said.

(more…)

Sometimes being in the baby poo business means you just can’t win.

If your disposable diapers take too much room in landfills, environmentalists boycott you.  If you update old diapers, a handful of parents complain about the new.  If a baby gets a diaper rash, trial lawyers target you.

Then they all come together in a perfect storm of consumer indignation and sue the disposable pants off you.

Parents have loved disposables since 1961, and market competition kept improvements like self-sticking tape, elastic waistbands, skin protectants and anti-microbial agents coming regularly.  New fibers made diapers lighter, more absorbent and landfill-friendlier.  Potty training?  Disposable training pants.

As parents (figuratively) rejoiced in their disposables, they held no interest for trial lawyers — until Pampers introduced new “Dry Max” Cruisers.

Goods manufacturers anticipate complaints after any product change or improvement.  When Pampers introduced new Cruisers in Fall 2008 with no accompanying marketing campaign, complaint levels remained static.  But after converting its packaging and announcing the change in late 2009, objections flew immediately.

In late November, Twitter and Facebook pages were created by a mom complaining the new diapers weren’t as good as the old, and Pampers should have instituted a more vigorous campaign to announce the change.  The “Bring back the old Cruisers” campaign was born.

The mom complained in the same vein until February 9, 2010 when she posted, “do you think pampers (sic) violated consumer rights when they switched diapers without fair advertising or marketing?  Is (Pampers) guilty of this?”

Then on April 7, the first diaper rash reference magically appeared.  Both sites eventually lurched into an aggressive discussion of serious rashes allegedly caused by the new Dry Max Cruisers.  Facebook members were advised “not to talk about how much we like other Pampers products” and admonished to only upload photos through site administrators.

(more…)

Every day, we see an expansion in the midterm battlefield as the number of vulnerable Democrats increases. This video goes a long way to explain this. Done for Ben Lange, in Iowa’s 1st District, this seat is on no one’s list for a possible take-over. But, this video captures the public zeitgeist.

(more…)

There’s a great new report from the Manhattan Institute emphasizing the role of tort law as a supplement (and alternative) to regulation. If fishermen in the Gulf coast had a right to be free from pollution, perhaps BP would have invested more in preventing the recent disastrous spill. Unfortunately, as the MI piece points out, trial lawyers have tended to focus not on these genuine – and objectively verifiable – harms but instead on hypothetical and highly subjective concerns. A series of class action suits resulting in essentially arbitrary payouts has enriched the trial lawyers but done little if anything to protect individuals or the environment from harm. Indeed, arguably these suits have been counterproductive as they have often led to the elimination of beneficial substances, while diverting resources to lawyers and plaintiffs and away from more productive uses.

One of the examples given in the MI report is MTBE, an additive used in gasoline to make vehicles run more efficiently (and thereby produce less pollution). Oil companies started adding MTBE to fuel in 1979 but its use was increased after 1990 – as the MI report points out “Congress had reached the policy judgement that adding MTBE to motor fuel produced a net benefit, even though the chemical can affect the taste of drinking water if it enters the water supply.” The EPA also evaluated MTBE and concluded in 1997 that “there is little likelihood that MTBE in drinking water will cause adverse health effects” in the quantities present. Given that the EPA tends to err on the side of caution (demanding very wide margins of safety), it seems fair to conclude that MTBE in drinking water really was most unlikely to pose a danger to health.

If historic tort standards were applied, there would be no case: MTBE might have an impact on taste, but that is of course subjective. It does not – according to the EPA at least – cause an “objective” harm to human health. This distinction is important. For the law to act as a guide to human behaviour, it must be based on objective standards. If judges apply subjective standards after the fact, how are we to know the standard against which we will be judged? Taken to its logical conclusion, we enter the world of Kafka’s Josef K, who is tried with crimes he didn’t even know he had committed.

(more…)

When companies are found to have violated regulations that govern their industry, is it right that a jury of non-experts can award damages the amount of which will wipe the company off the face of the earth? That is a question that has been raised in a case recently decided against Skilled Healthcare LLC of California.

A class action lawsuit (lawsuit info here) brought by trial lawyers was filed late last year against Skilled Healthcare of California claiming that the company had violated state regulations that stipulates that nursing homes must maintain 3.2 nursing hours per patient, per day (ppd). The lawsuit claimed that the nursing homes operated by Skilled Healthcare often did not meet the requirement.

Interestingly, there was never any claim from any patient that they’d been harmed or put in danger. Not a single patient claimed personal injury before these lawyers began to file their class action lawsuit.

After a six-month trial the jury decided that the company did violate the rules and awarded the plaintiffs $613 million in statutory damages and $58 million in restitutionary damages.

There is a problem with this award, however. The company only has borrowing credit of $94 million. If the company were to be held to this outrageously high award it would go bankrupt and would be forced to close its doors.

Not only that but some 32,000 people — patients/residents and healthcare workers alike — would lose their heatlhcare facilities and jobs if this award were enforced.

Does this make sense?

(more…)

In 1989, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a major environmentalist group, launched a nationwide panic over the presence on apples of alar, a chemical growth agent. On TV shows such as “60 Minutes” and “Donahue,” and in major women’s magazines, NRDC (with the aid of its expert consulting toxicologist, actress Meryl Streep) claimed that alar “might” eventually cause thousands of lifetime cancer cases due to apple consumption by preschoolers.

This carefully choreographed publicity stunt terrified parents, cost alar’s manufacturer millions, caused over $100 million in losses to apple growers—all while creating a fundraising bonanza for the NRDC.

The scare campaign was based on junk science—on experiments on laboratory rodents in which dose levels were so absurdly high that the animals were dying of simple poisoning. These tests were so shoddy that an independent panel of scientists convened by the EPA—called a Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)—dismissed the findings as scientifically worthless. (more…)

In 1989, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a major environmentalist group, launched a nationwide panic over the presence on apples of alar, a chemical growth agent. On TV shows such as “60 Minutes” and “Donahue,” and in major women’s magazines, NRDC (with the aid of its expert consulting toxicologist, actress Meryl Streep) claimed that alar “might” eventually cause thousands of lifetime cancer cases due to apple consumption by preschoolers.

This carefully choreographed publicity stunt terrified parents, cost alar’s manufacturer millions, caused over $100 million in losses to apple growers—all while creating a fundraising bonanza for the NRDC.

The scare campaign was based on junk science—on experiments on laboratory rodents in which dose levels were so absurdly high that the animals were dying of simple poisoning. These tests were so shoddy that an independent panel of scientists convened by the EPA—called a Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)—dismissed the findings as scientifically worthless.

Under political pressure to find something, however, the EPA ordered new tests on mice at dose levels that, again, were so outrageously high that 80 percent of the animals were poisoned to death. Not surprisingly, this overdosing produced the tumors the agency was looking for, and gave it the excuse to ban all use of the chemical.

I spent six months investigating this scam for a special report that appeared in the October 1990 Reader’s Digest. After its publication, many people—echoing the rock group The Who—concluded that “we won’t be fooled again” by environmentalist fear-mongers.

But now a new pesticide panic is underway. Once again, it is being incited by the NRDC, with additional litigation pressure from trial lawyers. Once again, the scare campaign rests on studies that amount to little more than “junk science.” This time, though, the target is an herbicide that plays a far more significant role in agriculture: atrazine.

Atrazine is a valuable weed-killer used to protect corn, sugar cane, and other crops. The EPA has estimated that farming without atrazine would cost corn farmers $28 an acre—the difference between getting by and going bankrupt for thousands of farms across the Midwest—and would cause sugar-cane crop losses from 10 to 40 percent. The overall cost to U.S. farmers would top $2 billion dollars annually.

(more…)