Up to 15 years after their children were born without eyes, a group of British parents is locked in an expensive legal struggle to win compensation from the US multi-national corporation, Du Pont.
In the latest development, the parents believe their case has been boosted by the disclosure of an internal Du Pont report into the safety of the fungicide at the centre of the case.
As a test case for 30 other British families, Chris and Maggie Bourne, of Frinton-on-Sea, Essex are suing the chemical corporation for multi-million pound damages for their 15-year-old blind son, Andrew.
They claim that Mrs Bourne was exposed to the once-popular fungicide Benlate while gardening during a crucial time of her pregnancy, and that the chemical seeped into her body, preventing Andrew's eyes from developing properly.
The safety of benomyl, the chemical ingredient of Benlate, has been questioned for many years. In the 1970s, the US official watchdog, the environmental protection agency, proposed that Du Pont should put a warning on the label that benomyl could cause birth defects and reduced sperm production in laboratory animals, and exposure during pregnancy should be avoided.
But Du Pont persuaded the EPA that the warning was misleading and unnecessary, and so it did not appear.
For three decades, Du Pont sold Benlate in Britain and 50 other countries, earning up to $2.5bn from its highest-selling fungicide.
Du Pont has recently withdrawn Benlate from the global market because of mounting litigation costs. The company claims to have spent more than $1.3bn over the past decade fighting Benlate lawsuits and paying damages. Most lawsuits have emanated from hundreds of growers of flowers, ornamental plants and food crops who alleged that the fungicide wrecked their produce.
Du Pont has spent $30m de fending the Bournes' lawsuit since it was filed in 1997, while the Bournes' legal team, Jim Ferraro in Florida and Alan Care of the London firm Russell Jones and Walker, have spent $8m on a "no win, no fee" basis, according to a source in the case.
Whether the British families win compensation on the other side of the Atlantic is likely to turn on scientific studies into the dangers of Benlate.
The potentially important report which has now emerged was funded by Du Pont at an independent laboratory in Yorkshire in 1997. Scientists tested benomyl on rats. They discovered that a "high" proportion of the chemical was drawn to the eyes.
The report, seen by the Guardian, showed that after two hours, a third of the benomyl was concentrated in the eyes, rising to two-thirds after 24 hours. After 10 days, 80% of the benomyl was pooled around the eyes.
According to the report, the "results of this study will be used in order to evaluate the safe levels of benomyl which can be administered to man".
The Bournes' legal team believes the experiment reveals how the eyes act as a kind of powerful magnet to attract the benomyl and explains how the chemical destroys the eyes of a foetus.
Mr Ferraro said: "This is a key report which shows the mechanism in which the kids were born without eyes."
But the Bournes suffered a blow in January when a judge in West Virginia dismissed their scientific case as unsound just before the lawsuit was to go to trial.
Mr Ferraro is appealing against this decision, criticising it as being plainly wrong and unfair. He is due to file lawsuits for the bulk of other British families in other states in the US.
A Du Pont spokesman said the judge's decision proved the Bournes' case was "junk science and unacceptable".
In 1996, a Florida jury awarded more than $4m to the family of an eyeless boy in a case won by Ferraro. It has been claimed that his mother, while pregnant, had been drenched with Benlate while walking near a farm.
But Du Pont appealed successfully, and the case is now before the Florida supreme court. Both sides can point to scientific studies which support their positions.
