In the fourth week of trial, attorneys for defendant Monsanto called expert witnesses, including a company toxicologist who told a jury on Monday that weed killer Roundup did not cause the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer of three plaintiffs.
Dr. Donna Farmer, a Monsanto regulatory toxicologist tasked with ensuring compliance with regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said Roundup had been exhaustively tested over the years with no finding of cancer cause.
“Has Monsanto conducted testing?” asked defense attorney Jennifer Saulino.
“Yes, from 1974 to today,” Farmer said. “Glyphosate does not produce toxins. There are no (cancer) tumors in the studies.”
Glyphosate is the active ingredient of Roundup.
The trial in the Missouri 21st Judicial 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 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined in 2014 the substance is an animal, and thus probably a human carcinogen.
However, the EPA has said there are no risks from the chemical to humans when it is used in accordance with its labeling.
During Monday’s session, Saulino asked Farmer if Roundup caused cancer. Before Farmer could answer, Judge Brian May stopped the proceeding and called the attorneys from both sides to come forward to advise them.
When the hearing resumed Saulino asked Farmer, “Do you use Roundup?”
“I do,” Farmer said.
“How long?”
“For 25 years."
“Do you use it with special (protective safety) equipment?”
“No, it’s not required by the label,” Farmer said.
“Do you wear gloves?”
“No.”
“Why do you use it (Roundup)?”
“Because it works really well.”
Farmer said she used the chemical to control weeds in her driveway and yard.
“Do you have any concerns about your health?” Saulino asked.
“No I don’t.”
“Is your husband a doctor?”
“Yes he is,” Farmer said.
“Does he have (safety) concerns?”
“He doesn’t have any.”
Farmer explained that glyphosate is a chemical that is mixed with mostly water and a substance called a “surfactant” to make Roundup.
“The surfactant is a soapy substance like a dish detergent,” she said.
Farmer said the surfactant acts to bind the chemical to a plant leaf rather than roll off like a drop of water would.
“Instead of rolling off it acts like a pancake and spreads out,” she explained. “It binds to the plant (weed). The plant can’t produce amino acids (glyphosate blocks it), the building blocks of growth. The plant withers and dies.”
“Can this happen in humans?” Saulino asked.
“No,” Farmer said.
Farmer said there are seven manufacturers of glyphosate including Monsanto. Monsanto held a patent for the substance but the patent ran out in 2000 allowing other makers to come in and produce the chemical as well.
“Does the EPA have guidelines that Monsanto has to follow?”
“Yes,” Farmer said. “It (EPA oversight) is very prescribed on how you should do a study (of glyphosate).”
Farmer said testing of the product included its chemical performance and impact, laboratory health and field use studies.
“Different exposure (periods) were tested,” she said. “These (tests) took place over days, weeks or months. Eye and skin exposures were considered and animals tested using rats, mice, dogs and rabbits.”
Farmer said the goal was to test if Roundup produced DNA damage. She said the process of satisfying regulatory agencies such as the EPA took 11 years and cost an estimated $286 million.
“How many studies have you monitored?” Saulino asked.
“Over the years hundreds,” Farmer said.
She added that toxicity tests revealed no carcinogens in Roundup.
Saulino directed the questioning to the IARC finding, that Roundup is probably a carcinogen, an important part of the plaintiff attorneys’ case.
Farmer said the IARC study looked at over 300 substances (including processed meat and wood smoke) in addition to glyphosate. Glyphosate received only a medium priority for scrutiny, not high or low priority.
Products were rated, carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic, or not carcinogenic. Glyphosate received the second designation.
Farmer told Saulino that scientist and professor Dr. Christopher J. Portier was influential in the IARC finding that Roundup is probably toxic. Farmer agreed that Portier has been an expert witness for plaintiffs suing the pesticide industry.
During the IARC deliberations Farmer said she became concerned about the outcome.
“That was because in 50 years they (IARC) only categorized one thing as not carcinogenic,” Farmer said.
Farmer said the IARC study event held in Lyon, France originally placed Glyphosate at the third level (possibly carcinogenic), but it progressed during the deliberations to “probably carcinogenic."
Farmer said the IARC designation went against the opinion of regulatory agencies around the world.
“Were you and your fellow scientists looking to mislead anyone?” Saulino asked.
“No,” Farmer said. “We know the science. “The science is founded on (the fact) that Roundup is a non-carcinogen.”