
|
|
Government RecalcitranceFederal Immunity From Toxic SubstancesBy Bruce L. Benson
The saga of the chemical Agent Orange illustrates how the government can be immune from liability even when it is the best informed party and when its contractors are forced to pay compensation for harm.(2) Chemical companies were pressured to make these payments even though no substantive harms from Agent Orange were proven. The government simply denied liability. During World War II, as Peter Schuck (1986, 16) discusses in his book Agent Orange on Trial, the Army formulated a number of defoliant compounds, including 2,4,5-T. The compounds were regarded as more effective, easier to apply, and safer than existing weed killers, so after the war they were made available to the private sector. The Army continued to test many herbicides. President Kennedy approved spraying various mixtures that include 2,4,5-T, another powerful herbicide, 2,4-D, and other chemicals on the jungles of Vietnam. As U.S. involvement in Vietnam increased, so did the defoliation efforts. Agent Orange, consisting of equal parts of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, was introduced in 1965. Several chemical companies were compelled to provide the Army with Agent Orange under the Defense Production Act (Glasser 1986, 514). By the time its use ended in 1970, 11.2 million gallons had been sprayed over about 10 percent of South Vietnam’s land area. Potential dangers of herbicide toxicity in general and of Agent Orange in particular had been known by Army officials for some time. Monsanto, one of the largest producers of Agent Orange, informed army officials that 2,4,5-T was a toxic substance as early as 1952. A 1963 Army review of toxicity studies of 2,4,5-T concluded that there was an increased risk of chloracne (a severe but often treatable skin condition) and respiratory irritations, and that the risk was heightened when the chemical was applied in high concentrations by inexperienced personnel. The Army knew as much, and probably more, about the potential dangers of the herbicides as any company that manufactured them. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were also informed of potential health dangers of herbicides by the President’s Science Advisory Committee in 1963. President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee apparently discussed the potential toxicity of 2,4,5-T in meetings between April and June of 1965. The National Cancer Institute contracted with Bionetic Research Laboratories in 1965 to study the potential toxicity of a number of herbicides and pesticides, including both 2,4-D and 2,4,5- T. A preliminary report indicating potential dangers was not made public until 1969 when it was leaked to Ralph Nader. Before this, the Army had denied (perhaps correctly) that any serious danger existed, but on April 15, 1970, the Army stopped using Agent Orange. Subsequently, veterans, claiming that they had contracted diseases from Agent Orange, initiated litigation to obtain compensation. Despite evidence of substantial knowledge by government officials of potential health hazards of Agent Orange, the government denied virtually all liability. The government’s lead attorney on the case stated: “The United States declines to attend or participate in settlement negotiations or court settlement of this case because any settlement that calls for contribution by the United States is not warranted. This is the United States’ firm position, and we anticipate no change whatever in any aspect of it” (Schuck 1986, 148). Although there are substantial scientific questions regarding causality with respect to many of Agent Orange’s alleged health effects (Franklin 1994, 3–4), the judge in the case manipulated the producers of Agent Orange into a $180 million settlement. This was in addition to their legal fees, estimated to be in the $100 million range (Schuck 1986, 5). If government officials were correct in denying any liability, then the producers should also have been free of liability. The defendants attempted to recover litigation expenses and settlement costs from the federal government. They were not successful, as the Supreme Court affirmed lower court rulings against them in 1996.(3) To the degree that Agent Orange causes harm, the case appears to be one of gross negligence on the part of government officials. Immunity for such officials can apply even when potential harms are intentionally inflicted.(4) There are many other examples of government actions that exposed people to toxic materials without legal liability. Consider just a few examples.
The list goes on and on. It is a sad commentary on government “responsibility. ” Notes References Bruce L. Benson is Devoe Moore Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at Florida State University. This article is excerpted from Cutting Green Tape, edited by PERC Senior Associates Richard L. Stroup and Roger E. Meiners (Transaction Publishers). |