Plaintiffs' attorneys on Wednesday tried undercutting the testimony of an expert witness called in the defense of Monsanto, saying that company employees concocted their own bogus science to counter a finding of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that the weed killer Roundup probably causes cancer.
“You don’t think IARC is biased?” attorney Gibbs Henderson asked.
“No,” responded Dr. Donna Farmer, a Monsanto regulatory toxicologist tasked with ensuring compliance with regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The trial, in its fourth week, is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
The suit filed by plaintiffs Marty Cox, Cheryl Davis and Gary 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 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.
Farmer testified on Monday and Tuesday telling defense attorney Jennifer Saulino that the company had done exhaustive testing over the years of its Roundup product and had found no link between glyphosate and NHL. She said studies including the Agricultural Health Study (2017) found no link.
During Wednesday’s session, Henderson produced his own study findings that said the opposite.
“You started being involved (for Monsanto) with Roundup in 1996,” he said.
“Yes,” Farmer agreed.
“Your part has been to defend glyphosate.”
“To defend the science,” Farmer said.
“You’re serving as a spokesperson.”
“Yes, about the science of glyphosate,” Farmer said.
Henderson said and Farmer agreed that she had been trained to deal with the media regarding the IARC finding.
“A public relations firm prepared you to respond to IARC.”
“I would not characterize it that way,” Farmer said.
“They taught you how to answer questions.”
“Yes.”
A company document regarding the training advised, “If it’s not what you came there to say, don’t say it. Don’t be trapped by the questions asked, say what you came to say.”
“The training taught you to talk to different agencies and consumers.”
“Yes,” Farmer said.
The IARC finding that glyphosate probably is a carcinogen was one of many substances looked at by the agency. Other substances or situations listed as likely carcinogens included hot beverages, night shift work and pickled vegetables.
Henderson suggested that a slide provided by Farmer intentionally noted glyphosate alongside other safer-sounding products that got the same (likely carcinogenic) IARC label, such as red meat, to minimize the impression of danger with Roundup.
“Roach insecticide got the same classification (as glyphosate) and you didn’t put that on the slide, did you?” Henderson asked.
“No,” Farmer agreed.
“You didn’t want to create the idea that it (IARC finding) wasn’t a big deal to Monsanto, correct? You thought it serious enough to spend time and money on the effort to publicly dispute it.”
“Yes,” Farmer said.
“To defend glyphosate?”
“I would not characterize it that way,” Farmer said again.
Henderson exhibited an email from a doctor to Farmer saying she did well to keep a straight face when a media host gave the opinion that IARC was not biased.
“You said (in response) that was one time you needed to keep a straight face,” Henderson said.
“Yes,” Farmer agreed.
“IARC looked at 1,000 studies of glyphosate.”
“That was my understanding,” Farmer said.
A company memo displayed recommended that an “outcry” be generated in response to the IARC finding.
Henderson contended that company employees discussed “ghost writing" parts of a genotoxicity study of Roundup in 2015 in response to IARC, and a company employee served as a co-author of the report.
“Not to have any Monsanto employees involved in it (report), it didn’t pan out did it?” Henderson asked.
"It did not," Farmer answered.
Henderson said a 2001 McDuffie Study as well as a Hardell Study in 2002 found a risk factor between glyphosate and NHL cancer.
“Monsanto was aware of three studies showing that,” Henderson said.
“Yes,” Farmer said.
“Monsanto did not have a single study (at the time) that found no cancer link. That makes three yes and zero no,” Henderson said.
“Yes,” Farmer said.
“There is evidence that Roundup is genotoxic.”
“Yes, but not credible evidence,” Farmer said.
Missouri District Judge Brian May ordered the word “credible” stricken from the record.
“If you look at independent studies, the majority have concluded that glyphosate is genotoxic.”
“Yes,” Farmer said.
“Industry (pesticide sponsored) studies, none concluded glyphosate was genotoxic?”
“Yes.”
“The majority of studies are finding it (cancer link).”
“The way you presented it, yes,” Farmer said.
Henderson displayed an inter-office email in which it was stated it would be desirable for Farmer to help the company “dig us out of the genotoxic hole.”