After questioning an oncology professor called as an expert witness on Tuesday and Wednesday, defense attorneys rested their case and now the lawsuit accusing Monsanto of causing the cancers of three plaintiffs with its weed killer Roundup will go to a jury to decide.
The defense sought again to establish that it was random cell division that caused cancers in the three plaintiffs, and not from their using Roundup.The defense also sought to undermine a central pillar of the plaintiff lawyers’ case, a 2015 determination by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that the substance in Roundup, glyphosate, was a probable carcinogen to humans.
“My opinion is that Roundup is not the cause of the plaintiffs’ non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL),” Dr. Ran Reshef a professor of oncology and a bone marrow expert with Columbia University told defense attorney Jennifer Saulino.
Reshef indicated that the evidence in the IARC study was limited in presenting its evidence that glyphosate was a carcinogen to humans, and the study possibly suffered from what is called "confounding," a failure to consider the toxicity of other substances. In addition, Reshef agreed that the chance of bias could not be ruled out and hinted that the IARC (2015) finding was becoming dated.
“Evidence in the (IARC) animal studies does not support it (Roundup as a carcinogen),” Reshef said. “The older studies (IARC), we should take with a grain of salt.”
The trial in the 21st Missouri Judicial District Court is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
The suit filed against Monsanto by plaintiffs Marty Cox, Cheryl Davis and Gary Gentile asks for 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.
Attorneys defending Monsanto cited their own selective studies that said glyphosate is harmless to humans. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has said there is no risk when the product was used properly. In addition a 2018 (Andreotti) report, part of an Agricultural Health Study that is a continuing study of genetics, lifestyle and AG factors and how the farming industry is impacted, decided there was no link between glyphosate and cancers such as NHL.
Both sides have admitted there is no 100 percent positive proof either way.
Reshef said cancers most often result from cell replication errors and the uncontrolled growth of malignant mutated cells - a mistake in the dividing of cells. He identified cell copy errors as the largest group of cancer causing events, heredity much less common and exposure from outside sources second most common.
“About two-thirds of the (cell) mutations are naturally occurring copy errors, with inherited a small amount (of cases) and one-third (outside) exposure related,” Reshef added. “Replication is the overwhelming majority of the cases."
Reshef said the body has very sophisticated ways to repair itself from cell damage.
“The majority of mutations occur in areas of the body that are not critical and it (mutation) will not become a cancer,” he explained.
Saulino asked Reshef how often mutated cells are killed and disposed of by the body’s immune system?
“On a regular basis,” Reshef said, “daily and hourly. A single mutation does not cause cancer. But if two, three and four mutations occur sequentially, a cancer could arise.”
Reshef added that cell mutations increase in the aging process.
The cancer in all three of the plaintiffs is in remission. Reshef said the prognosis for all three currently is favorable, though the cancers could re-occur.
Reshef told Saulino that Roundup inhibits growth in plants in a way that has nothing to do with humans, and proof that it does is lacking.
“Someone would have to connect the dots and I haven’t seen that,” he said. “The evidence in animal studies does not support it. My opinion is that Roundup was not the cause of the plaintiffs’ NHL.”
Reshef reviewed the medical records of the three plaintiffs and noted possible cancer causes. Cox was overweight and had been a long-time smoker as was Gentile. Davis was also overweight. Reshef said the cancers of Davis and Gentile were likely caused by cell replication errors.
Under cross examination, plaintiffs' attorney Gibbs Henderson sought to defend the IARC finding of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.
“You agree IARC is a well-known agency?” Henderson asked.
“I’m aware,” Reshef responded.
“You were paid by Monsanto.”
“Yes, for three years.”
“You received $350,000?”
“Over three years, yes,” Reshef said.
“That’s $5,000 a day.”
Reshef said it was.
“You understand that IARC panelists are unpaid volunteers?” Henderson asked.
“Correct.”
“The IARC panel has sub-committees specializing in animal studies, genotoxicity (chemical damage to DNA) and epidemiology,” Henderson said.
“Yes.”
“You’re not an expert on conducting animal carcinogenic studies to see if it causes cancer.”
‘I’m not an expert,” Reshef agreed.
“Not in genotoxicity?”
“I don’t consider myself a specialist.”
“Or an epidemiological expert?”
“I would say that’s correct,” Reshef said.
Henderson said that prior to 2019 and Reshef being retained by Monsanto, he was not aware of 200 studies he said in earlier testimony had been done on the subject of cell mutations.
“That wasn’t on my radar,” Reshef said.
Reshef agreed he had not published his own studies on the NHL of the plaintiffs such as grade B cell lymphoma.
“You disagree with the 17 scientists in the IARC study?” Henderson asked. “That there is strong evidence that glyphosate is geotoxic?”
“I would call it conflicting evidence,” Reshef said. “I disagree, I would not use the word ‘strong.’”