Youth’s Blindness Brings Malathion Issue Into Court : Health: Teen-ager claims pesticide caused his condition. Case could change the way public is informed about risks.

Juan (Johnny) Macias heard the roar of helicopters and, according to his family, worried about his dad’s blue pickup truck. It had been promised to him for his 16th birthday, less than two years away.

The state was spraying the pesticide malathion over parts of south Los Angeles to combat an infestation of the Mediterranean fruit fly, and officials had warned residents to cover their cars. His father says Johnny raced outside to make sure the truck was covered.

What happened next is unclear, and the argument is clouded in tragedy. The state says the spraying stopped about two blocks from the Macias home. But his family insists that the boy was caught in a gooey downpour from the helicopters, and within days got sick. His vision began to fade, they contend, and two months after the spraying he was legally blind.

Although the cause of his blindness is hotly disputed and the state insists that malathion is safe, the Macias family blames the chemical and sued government officials and the pesticide’s maker. That lawsuit, which awaits a key ruling by the state Supreme Court, has revived the debate over malathion and could force major changes in the way the public is informed about the risks of products.

Without getting into the issue of malathion’s safety, the state Supreme Court is expected to decide this year whether the manufacturer has a duty to warn the public about the potential dangers when the state’s advisories are inadequate. If Macias wins, manufacturers would be liable for injuries caused by a product if they allow it to be used without the prescribed precautions.

The law is unclear, but manufacturers generally assume that they have discharged their duty to warn by giving the purchaser the precautions on the product label.

Macias’ blindness occurred during the 1989-90 phase of the state’s controversial Medfly eradication program, which is continuing with spraying over Camarillo in Ventura County. The state also dropped the pesticide from helicopters over Corona last year.

Malathion is an organophosphate, and such compounds have been linked to eye damage in humans and animals. But malathion is considered one of the safest of these compounds, and the few studies that have implicated it in eye injury have failed to rule out other possible culprits.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, recognizing a dearth of information about malathion’s effects on vision, is designing studies on it.

*

Some scientists interviewed by The Times expressed skepticism that the chemical in the concentration used by the state could have triggered the boy’s blindness, but cautioned that such an effect can not be ruled out until more research is done. Others described the evidence implicating malathion as circumstantial or speculative but sufficient to warrant more investigation.

State officials contend that the pesticide cannot be blamed for the boy’s condition and expressed confidence that further medical tests will show something else caused his blindness.

These officials portray the Macias family as pawns of environmental activists and contend that the respected neuro-ophthalmologist who examined the boy allowed his personal convictions to cloud his professional judgment.

The Maciases live in a small, stucco home on a modest street lined with low chain-link fences. They had never been involved in a lawsuit. On a recent rainy afternoon, Johnny Macias and his father, Alfonso, chatted quietly in the family’s immaculate living room about their legal fight.

Alfonso Macias, 50, is a graphic artist who immigrated here many years ago from Mexico. He has sad eyes and a soft voice and grieves for his middle son. “Our life has been changed,” he said, looking at the floor.

Johnny, by contrast, seems neither bitter nor sorry for himself, although he alludes to the football trophies on the television won by his older brother, now a student at UCLA. Johnny wanted to play football too.

“It doesn’t matter if we win or not,” said the 19-year-old, clad in blue jeans, a sweat shirt, dark glasses and a wristwatch that announces the time. Referring to the state’s claims that the spraying posed no risks, he said: “They lied.”

Because of inadequate warnings, the lawsuit charges, the Maciases failed to call a doctor after the youth’s exposure or to suspect malathion as a possible cause of his eyesight loss, which Johnny Macias described as starting with two yellowish balls in his vision that grew bigger and bigger.

*

“NO HEALTH HAZARD,” the state notices to residents proclaimed during the aerial spraying. The concentration of pesticide being applied, the notices said, has about the same toxicity as laundry detergent.

“You basically have to take a bath in it to have some effect,” a spokeswoman from the Department of Food and Agriculture said at the time of the Los Angeles spraying.

But the Macias lawsuit contends that federal regulations required the state to inform residents of the more cautionary warnings used on malathion container labels.

“Harmful if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through skin,” the label on malathion says. “Avoid breathing mist. Avoid contact with skin, eyes or clothing. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling.”

State officials contend that these warnings are intended primarily for applicators and would needlessly raise anxiety among the public. They nevertheless revised spraying notices last year, said Deputy Atty. Gen. Charles W. Getz IV, “as a matter of continuing examination.”

U.S. EPA officials, however, said they found that the state had committed a “technical violation” of its federal permit authorizing aerial spraying and told California to include more explicit precautions that reflect the product label.

“Whenever pesticides are involved,” said Jerome Blondell, an EPA epidemiologist who reviewed the state notices, “people should be encouraged to avoid unnecessary exposure. . . . You shouldn’t overemphasize the comparison with laundry detergent.”

The state’s notices now say that concerned residents “may wish” to minimize exposure and suggest a variety of measures, from washing if the chemical gets on the skin to hosing off eating surfaces and toys that children might put in their mouths.

Because the manufacturer of malathion knew the state’s warnings were inadequate, the Macias lawsuit charges, the company had a duty to ensure that the public learn of the recommended precautions. A state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles agreed, ruling 2 to 1 in March that Macias could sue the manufacturer. Six of the seven members of the California Supreme Court voted three months later to review the case.

*

The appeals court ruling stunned the industry, which fears that companies may be exposed to unreasonable damage awards. State officials had to meet with the malathion manufacturer, American Cyanamid Co., in November to mollify the company so it would continue selling to the state. California officials contend that the state alone is responsible for notices during a declared emergency.

California declares a state of emergency during major Medfly infestations on the grounds that the pest could cost the state’s economy $5 billion and raise pesticide use by home gardeners. The fly threatens about 200 kinds of fruits, vegetables and nuts.

“An emergency, by its very nature, requires immediate action,” said Getz, who is defending the state, “not necessarily reflection where you sit and think about it and plan it carefully. Because your great goal is to protect . . . sometimes that comes at the expense of a few.”

Manufacturing groups have lined up behind American Cyanamid and urged state justices to overturn the ruling.

“For products with mass distribution,” said Alan J. Lazarus, a lawyer who wrote a brief for the Chemical Manufacturers Assn., “the burden could be extraordinarily onerous.”

Consumer groups also fear ramifications beyond the Macias case. They worry that the court might interpret a federal pesticide law in a way that would allow manufacturers to escape liability for inadequate warnings as long as the federal government approved the product label.

“We’re not on a crusade to recover big bucks from chemical companies,” said William Curtiss, a lawyer for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. “What we want is to make sure they don’t get off scot-free.”

Regardless of how the California Supreme Court rules, Macias will have to convince a jury that the pesticide caused his blindness. Dr. Alfredo Sadun, a USC professor of ophthalmology and neurosurgery, made the diagnosis that prompted the lawsuit.

Sadun, a respected neuro-ophthalmologist, said Macias’ blindness could have been caused by about 10 toxins, but the boy told him he had no contact with any except malathion.

“I can tell you it is the most likely cause,” said Sadun, who had spoken out about the risks of malathion during the controversy over spraying in Los Angeles.

Several state and county studies have failed to detect any significant injuries after years of aerial spraying, and state officials appear confident that further investigation will prove that the boy’s blindness was caused by something else.

“If I felt persons had to take personal, evasive action not to be at risk,” said Dr. Peter Kurtz, a toxicologist with the California Department of Food and Agriculture, “I could not support the program.”

Deputy Atty. Gen. Getz said no one previously has lost eyesight after exposure to malathion, but drinking wood alcohol or genetic problems can trigger blindness. He said he suspects a genetic link, although Sadun said he ruled that out. Medical tests by Los Angeles County are pending.

“The state has been using this (aerially) since 1975 in urban areas,” Getz said, “and one would expect to see more cases than this one. . . . Is it probable that this could have happened? The overwhelming amount of science says no.”

*

The state disputes that malathion was sprayed over the Macias home, which officials said was located outside the spray zone. At the most, they maintain, he would have been exposed to drift.

A 1991 state report noted that incidents of overspraying occurred about once a night in 1990. The report also did not conclusively rule out significant chemical concentrations in adjacent neighborhoods, saying only that it was “unlikely” they would be higher than in the spraying zone. Macias jogged on streets that were repeatedly sprayed, and his school was in the spray zone.

Barrett S. Litt, the lawyer for the Macias family, said he believes Johnny Macias probably had an extremely rare reaction to the pesticide. Litt noted that Sadun made the diagnosis before Macias filed the lawsuit, not as a hired expert.

Alfonso Macias initially suspected that Johnny, the second of his three sons, was “playing a joke” when he complained about not being able to see. When permanent blindness was eventually diagnosed, the family was stricken.

“I was crying all the time,” Alfonso Macias said. “The problem is, I want the best for him.”

No trial date has been set for the lawsuit, and whatever the ruling by the Supreme Court, state officials hope to persuade a judge to dismiss the lawsuit before a trial.

Johnny Macias attended classes for the blind and graduated from high school in 1993. He is taking college courses at a school for the blind and hopes to become a college or probation counselor.

“If you feel sorry for yourself,” he said, “people are going to treat you that way.”

He never could drive the pickup truck he ran outside to cover on the night of the spraying. His father sold it last year.