Chlorfluazuron. Class action in Australia against ICI over residues in meat. Food Safety & Hygiene, 1997

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK PESTICIDE PROJECT

Chlorfluazuron. Class action in Australia against ICI over residues in meat. Food Safety and Hygiene, 1997

The following items were published by

Food Safety and Hygiene

A bulletin for the Australian Food Industry

http://www.dfst.csiro.au/fshbull/fshbull10.htm#cfz

September 1997: Chlorfluazuron (CFZ) residues in meat

In the June 1997 issue of this bulletin, attention was drawn to a class action by New South Wales and Queensland graziers against the chemical company ICI and the governments of both these States. The case involved a massive compensation claim over the contamination of cattle and meat by CFZ which was widely used in aerial spraying to control insects in cotton crops. Cotton trash was fed to beef cattle as a drought food supplement in the early 1990s.

In June, the Federal Court found that ICI had breached its duty of care to graziers who used the feed; to abattoir owners who unwittingly purchased contaminated cattle; to meat processors and exporters who owned meat that was contaminated; and to feedlot owners who incurred expense in holding contaminated cattle in detention.

The presiding judge found that ICI had failed to undertake the full environmental field studies recommended by specialist scientists. This occurred in spite of numerous expressions of concern about the environmental hazards of CFZ by ICI scientists in the United Kingdom over a period of four years. ÔICI did not know the problems associated with CFZ because, and only because, it did not take the usual and obvious steps to find them out,Õ concluded the judge.

The judge ruled that the State governments had not been negligent and could not be held liable for the negligence of officers who had been involved in recommending feeding cotton waste to cattle. ÔIt is not shown that any officer knew, or ought to have known, that the feeding of cotton trash might lead to a significant contamination problem,Õ said the judge.

Officers of the Technical Committee on Agricultural Chemicals were found to have acted negligently in their consideration of ICIÕs application for clearance to use CFZ.

However the agreement to grant clearances was a policy decision and as such the Committee was granted immunity irrespective of its actions or inactions.

The judge said the story was about bureaucracies: one in the private sector seeking to generate profits from a new product and the other a public network established to guard against harm from agricultural chemicals. Each had failed because well qualified people had examined details without considering the whole picture.

The damages to be awarded have yet to be determined by the Federal Court.

http://www.dfst.csiro.au/fshbull/fshbull9.htm#meat

June 1997: Farmers seek compensation over chemical residue in meat

Four hundred and eighty cattle producers from northern New South Wales and western Queensland have launched a class action to seek millions of dollars compensation in the Federal Court from chemical company ICI and the NSW and Queensland governments. The case involves contamination of cattle and meat by the chemical chlorafluazuron (CFZ) which was widely used in aerial spraying to control insects in cotton crops between 1989 and 1994.

The cattle owners fed their animals with cotton trash and cotton seed remnants during the prolonged drought early in this decade. The detection of CFZ residues in meat being processed at a plant in northern NSW in October 1994 resulted in the immediate quarantine of about 3,000 beef farms and the rejection of beef exports by Japan and the United States. Some properties where CFZ contaminated feed was never used could still have been affected by spray drift following the aerial application of CFZ it was claimed in the Federal Court.

Legal Counsel for the cattle producers said that CFZ was not registered for use in any other country at the time. Hence the finding of any CFZ residue in exported meat would lead to rejection. The plaintiffs are alleging common law negligence by ICI in failing to carry out appropriate testing to establish an appropriate withholding period and to provide adequate warning of risks associated with use of the chemical. The plaintiffs further allege negligence on the part of the NSW Department of Agriculture and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries in allowing the use of CFZ. Counsel claimed that both State Departments were at the time represented on the Technical Committee for Agricultural Chemicals (TCAC) and on the body that replaced it, the Australian Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Committee. The TCAC had cleared CFZ for aerial application to cotton at the same time the State Departments were recommending the use of cotton trash for feed.

The case is continuing.