High Court is asked to rule on Lindane
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.(First Edition)
IN A CASE that could have major implications for the chemical and pesticide industry, the High Court will be asked today to decide whether a man's rare blood condition was caused by exposure to Lindane, which is found in wood preservatives.
William Gaskill, a student, is suing Rentokil, alleging that the aplastic anaemia - a potentially fatal blood disease, similar to leukaemia - from which he suffered was caused by his exposure to the chemical as a baby when his parents' house was treated. Rentokil is contesting the case, denying there is any link between exposure and the disease.
The start of the case co-incides with the launch of a campaign for the setting up of a no-fault compensation scheme - similar to that for workers exposed to radiation - for alleged victims of chemical and pesticide poisoning.
The scheme would be funded by the chemical manufacturing industry and the Government, which regulates the use of pesticides.
The campaign is supported by MPs, academics and lawyers because of the difficulties facing potential victims in proving that a particular chemical caused a disease; and that the company using the chemical was aware of any risk and was negligent - particularly when research may be scant.
Scientific reports and articles may indicate a possible link but this does not establish the necessary causation to scientific standards that is necessary for a court.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments