In a trial accusing Monsanto maker of the weed killer Roundup of causing the cancers of three people, defense attorneys on Friday sought to portray a plaintiff witness who said the chemical is a carcinogen as a well-paid mouthpiece of those suing the company.
During a testy exchange, attorney Jennifer Saulino with the Washington D.C.-based Covington law firm, asked Charles Benbrook, an agricultural economist, if during a meeting he discussed accepting money for nonprofit researchers from lawyers involved in (pesticide) litigation.
“That’s attorneys involved in plaintiff litigation?” Saulino asked.
“No, it was all (attorneys) involved in litigation,” Benbrook said and began to expand his answer.
“That’s alright doctor,” Saulino interrupted.
“I think I have a right to answer,” Benbrook responded.
The latest trial against the agrochemical biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. in the 21st Judicial Circuit of Missouri is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
The suit filed by the plaintiffs Marty Cox, Cheryl Davis and Gary Gentile claims Monsanto developed cancer from their exposure to Roundup. The trio are asking for punitive damages for medical bills, treatments, physical pain and mental anguish. Cox was diagnosed with B-cell lymphoma, Gentile with high-grade-B-cell lymphoma and Davis with follicular lymphoma.
Called as an expert witness by plaintiff attorneys, Benbrook is a pesticide litigation consultant and former professor with the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University. He also is executive director of the Heartland Health Research Alliance (HHRA), a nonprofit located in Wisconsin tasked with ensuring public health through safe food policies.
He has been a critic of the pesticide industry, and has warned of its dangers. He said users of Roundup should have been warned by the mid 2000s that the product was a toxic and cancer risk, that organic food is safer and more nutritious.
During Friday’s session he said such a pesticide alters the DNA in humans.
On cross examination Saulino challenged Benbrook’s qualifications to offer such opinions.
“You’re not a medical doctor,” she said.
“Correct,” Benbrook said.
“You have no training in oncology, the study of cancer.”
“Correct.”
“You have no degree in physical science.”
“Correct.”
Saulino exhibited a document that said the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC), a European agency that studies the hazards of chemicals manufactured or imported to Europe, concluded that the addition of glyphosate the chemical in Roundup as an identified carcinogen was not justified.
“Did I read that correctly?’ she asked.
“You did,” Benbrook said.
Saulino exhibited a document from the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) stating that the use of glyphosate does not pose a risk to humans and there was no scientific basis for revising its status as a non-carcinogen.
“It would not be an undue hazard to the safety of people using it,” Saulino said. “Did I read that correctly?”
“You did,” Benbrook said.
“They (APVMA) are not changing their assessment.”
“Correct.”
Under California’s Proposition 65 providing a list of hazardous chemicals, glyphosate was added to the list in July of 2017 by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). This after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined the substance is an animal, and thus probably a human carcinogen.
However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has said there are no risks from the chemical to humans when it is used in accordance with its labeling. The EPA enacts laws while the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) oversees enforcement programs.
Saulino exhibited a document that said the DPR had the greater authority and capacity to act quickly, more than does the EPA, and could suspend the use of a chemical in a matter of hours statewide if it was deemed dangerous.
“Is that right?” she asked.
“Yes,” Benbrook said.
“They (DPR) have done different reviews from the EPA?”
“Many times,” Benbrook said. “They (DPR) don’t always trust the EPA analysis and so they do their own (analysis).”
Benbrook agreed the DPR decided glyphosate wasn’t a carcinogen but IARC put it on the list mandated by Prop 65.
“You are the executive director of the HHRA?” Saulino asked. “You don’t have a science degree.”
“Correct.”
“For two years (with HHRA) you were paid $326,324, correct?”
“Yes.”
“Your daughter works for the HHRA.”
“Correct.”
“She made $200,000 from the HHRA.”
“Correct.”
As a nonprofit you have to raise money,” Saulino said.
“Unfortunately yes,” Benbrook said.
Benbrook agreed that he had stopped taking a salary for a period when the agency became short of funds.
Under re-direct, Gibbs Henderson, the plaintiff attorney, asked Benbrook where HHRA got its funding.
“Mostly from foundations (including colleges),” Benbrook said.
Benbrook agreed that out of $3.7 million of the nonprofit’s funding, $30,000 came from plaintiff attorneys.
“Did HHRA take money only from plaintiff lawyers?” Henderson asked.
“No,” Benbrook said.
The trial officiated by 21st Missouri Judicial Circuit Judge Brian May is expected to last from four to six weeks.