Attorneys for three plaintiffs suing Monsanto for its weed killer product Roundup played a five-year-old deposition tape at trial on Friday, alleging the company tried to undo with their own study, a finding by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), that the chemical is a carcinogen.
Plaintiff attorneys said that to counter IARC, Monsanto came up with its own panel review of experts saying Roundup is not a carcinogen.
“You wanted to counter IARC and its finding of DNA damage (from Roundup),” a plaintiff attorney said to Dr. William Heydens, a 33-year employee toxicologist for Monsanto.
“IARC did not use scientific principles,” Heydens responded.
The trial in the 21st Missouri Circuit District Court is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
The suit filed by plaintiffs Marty Cox, Cheryl Davis and Gentile asks for punitive damages for medical bills, treatments, physical pain and mental anguish. The three have different forms of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL), a cancer. Cox was diagnosed with B-cell lymphoma, Gentile with high-grade-B-cell lymphoma and Davis with follicular lymphoma. The plaintiffs are in their 60s and 70s.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, was added to a list of hazardous materials in July of 2017 by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). This after 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.
Heydens was interviewed in January 2017. He told plaintiff lawyers he was a new products safety strategy officer.
“We were interested in new products (Roundup) and their marketing,” he said, “how the product is used and the safety of the product.”
An inter-company communication said that IARC had falsely stated that “glyphosate was a neurotoxin.”
“Your job was to defend Roundup?” the attorney asked.
“My main job was to ensure that the product was reviewed using sound science,” Heydens answered.
“Do you know what science fraud is?”
“Yes,” Heydens said. “It’s where something is written that is not true.”
Plaintiff attorneys exhibited Monsanto documents related to an article to be published (2016) by an alleged independent panel of experts reviewing the carcinogenic potential of Roundup (glyphosate). The panel had found there was no evidence that glyphosate was carcinogenic to humans.
“They involved you because you did such a good job defending glyphosate,” the attorney said.
“I was to ensure that the product received the best scientific review it could get,” Heydens said.
Heydens said he did not participate in the findings of the (pro-Roundup) article, but only provided historical background information for it.
“You reviewed the article, true?”
“I reviewed it but I never asked for changes,” Heydens said.
“But you made 28 edits on it (article).”
“I don’t recall.”
Heydens said he made some comments on the review but they had nothing to do with influencing the decisions made by the panel experts regarding Roundup.
An exhibited document said no employees or officials of Monsanto were contacted by the panel.
“That Monsanto was not contacted, that was false,” the attorney said.
“No,” Heydens disagreed.
“Did you have any contacts with the (panel) authors of the review?”
“It was late in the (review) process and I made no intellectual contributions,” Heydens said.
“It says none (no Monsanto employees) reviewed (panel findings).”
“I see that’s written there,” Heydens answered.
The plaintiff attorney said the goal was to explain away the IARC finding that Roundup was a probable carcinogen to both animals and humans.
“We wanted to explain the best way to look at the science,” Heydens insisted.
The attorney said the review would look more powerful if it was seen to be authored by outside authors, and not those influenced by Monsanto.
“That’s not correct,” Heydens said. “It (study) would pull more weight if the authors were experts in the field, that was the very best way, to get individuals like that.”
A company document was shown that said there was no risk (from a panel review) since Monsanto had done its own analysis (of Roundup).
“That is not correct,” Heydens said.
An email was displayed in which John Acqauella, a former employee of Monsanto, had opined (in 2016) that it would be unethical for him to “ghost-write” part of a review.
Heydens called that a “total misunderstanding” and said Acqauella had been a “faciliator” of the review process and because of his expertise in the field was made one of the authors of the review.
“It would not be as prestigious (to have a company employee as an author)?" The plaintiff attorney asked.
“It didn’t have anything to do with prestige,” Heydens said. “These guys are experts.”
An email was shown in which Acqauella advised Heydens, “It (review) can’t be a point of deceptive authorship.”
“Remember that?” the plaintiff attorney asked.
“It was a misunderstanding, I have no idea why John (Acqauella) said what he did,” Heydens responded. “He was a major contributor and was listed as an author which he was.”
The documents stated there was disagreement that pro-Monsanto advocates should make the claim there was no evidence that Roundup was unsafe, since other studies had been performed claiming that it was toxic.
“We can’t say no evidence,” a company document read. “I don’t see we can go that far.”
Heydens explained that some data had concluded the product was toxic, but when evaluated with other data, overall, glyphosate could be seen as a non-carcinogen.
Acqauella had said in an email, “I agree you can’t say there is no evidence (it’s a carcinogen).”
“I wanted it published because it was the most comprehensive review,” Heydens said of the company's panel report.
In a separate deposition tape played later in the day by attorneys defending Monsanto, Heydens said the IARC study of glyphosate was limited and flawed.
"Only about one-fifth of the time they were talking about glyphosate (the rest of the time looking at other chemicals)," he said. "IARC was not a proper evaluation of the glyphosate data base."