On Thursday, a 10-member jury decided that lawyers for three plaintiffs who claimed their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was caused by Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup had failed to prove their case; and agreed with defense attorneys that the cancers were probably caused by naturally occurring unlucky mutated cell replications.
The verdict was unanimous.
Plaintiff attorneys had asked for $10 million for each of the plaintiffs for medical bills, pain and suffering, and mental anguish related to the diseases. In addition they requested another $1 million for each of the plaintiffs' spouses.
Judge Brian May thanked the jury members for their service at the close.
“You are part of a (court) system and it’s a good system,” May said.
The month-long trial in the 21st Missouri Judicial District Court was streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
The plaintiffs Marty Cox, Cheryl Davis and Gary Gentile had 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. Under treatment their cancers are currently in remission.
During closing arguments, plaintiffs' attorney Gibbs Henderson said they used a product that was dangerous and were given no warning because Monsanto had developed a defective product and engaged in negligent conduct.
“The plaintiffs were not given a choice,” he told the jury. “All three said they would have found a different way to control weeds if they had known glyphosate causes cancer.”
Henderson said a finding of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015 that glyphosate was a “probable” carcinogen to humans was arrived at by unpaid volunteer scientists with no monetary or political agenda.
“It (IARC finding) goes over all existing animal studies,” Henderson said. “The conclusion was there was sufficient strong evidence in genotoxicity (DNA damage). What is significant about IARC? These were (17) independent scientists. The critical component is it did not rely on industry published data.”
IARC had classified glyphosate as a Class 2 carcinogen, the same as the pesticide DDT, Henderson said.
Henderson cited Dr. William Sawyer and Marc Braunstein, plaintiffs' experts who both testified there was a probable cause of NHL from glyphosate.
“I think there’s sufficient evidence,” Braunstein had said earlier in the trial.
Henderson said that while there is no 100 percent certainty of glyphosate causing cancer, reasonable certainty is a determining factor.
“Were the scientists at IARC paid? No,” Henderson said. “Was Dr. Ran Reshef (oncology professor defense witness) paid, yes.”
Henderson said that another defense witness Dr. Cristian Tomasetti during testimony changed his numbers of the percentage of likely cause of NHL from outside environmental factors such as Roundup spraying. From approximately 8% to 3%.
“His numbers fluctuated,” Henderson said. “He went to lunch and then said it was 3% (not 8% as before). He said he’d known this for some time. What, two hours?”
Henderson questioned why Dr. Eric Duncavage, a pathology professor with Washington University in St. Louis, had appeared as a witness for the defense. Duncavage brought a microscope to the stand and exhibited glass slides of the cells of the three plaintiffs.
“He said I’m not aware it’s ever been reported (NHL visible on slides),” Henderson said. “No one disagrees with the diagnosis of the plaintiffs. He could not see what caused the disease on the slides.”
Henderson exhibited company emails he said showed that officials of Monsanto had worked to influence a finding of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that there was no link between glyphosate and NHL.
In one email, William Heydens, a company official said, “We simply aren’t going to do the (carcinogenetic) studies Dr. Parry (James Parry, a consultant hired by Monsanto in the 1990s) suggests.
Henderson said the officials sought to deflect Parry from asking for more data.
“They chose to turn him around,” Henderson said.
Henderson said a number of studies such as the McDuffie Study (2001) and the Eriksson Study (2008) had found an increased cancer risk from glyphosate. Instead of testing the product as it should, disclosing the findings and warning of the EPA, Henderson said company officers thought about profits instead of public safety.
“Monsanto has been thinking about money for decades,” he said.
Manuel Cachan, attorney for Monsanto, indicated the plaintiffs' presentation was one of obsessing about company emails.
“I want to talk about science,” Cachan said. “The central question is whether the plaintiffs have proven that NHL was a result of their use of glyphosate. The answer is a resounding no, not even close.”
Defense lawyers during the trial had said cells dividing, making replication errors and mutating, copying other mutating cells, out of control account for the great majority of NHL cancers.
Cachan exhibited a graphic that showed a pyramid with random cell replication errors at the top, followed by human studies, then animal studies, and genotoxicity studies (NHL damage) at the bottom.
“Human studies matter the most,” Cachan said. “There was no association (between cancer and glyphosate use).”
Cachan described Dr. William Sawyer, an expert witness for the plaintiffs, as a professional court witness who has appeared in over 100 trials and has made $2.5 million.
“He twice failed board exams in toxicology,” Cachan said. “He got contradicted (testifying) 30 times. He continues to be hired. Why is that?”
Cachan said another plaintiff witness, Dr. Chuck Benbrook (pesticide consultant for the Center for Sustaining Agriculture), wasn’t even a scientist, but a mathematician who made $1.3 million testifying.
Cachan exhibited a graphic that compared the salaries with those of the defense expert witnesses, Duncavage at $50,000 and Dr. Adana Llanos (Rutgers epidemiology professor) at $100,000.
He said the two and Reshef all agreed the human data gathered did not show glyphosate as a cause of NHL cancer.
“There is no association between Roundup and NHL,” Cachan said.
He added that Braunstein, a specialist on lymphoma, and a plaintiff witness had agreed he could not say with certainty that glyphosate caused NHL.
Cachan accused the plaintiff lawyers of using studies that had not been adjusted for the possibility of other external pesticides other than Roundup, or other external factors as a possible cancer cause.
“This (trial) is about glyphosate,” Cachan said. “You have to adjust for other pesticides.”
While attorneys for the plaintiffs built their case largely around the IARC finding, those defending Monsanto cited in addition to the EPA judgment a 2018 (Andreotti) report, part of an Agricultural Health Study, an ongoing study of genetics, lifestyle and AG factors and how the farming industry is impacted. That study decided there was no link between glyphosate and cancers such as NHL.
Cachan said the AG study had shown virtually no difference in NHL cases between those who never used glyphosate (1.45% got NHL), those who used it for 198 days in a year (1%) and those who used it for 4,340 days (1%).
“There was no evidence in mice that it (glyphosate) causes tumors, and not in rats. It was totally weak,” Cachan said. “The EPA said it’s not carcinogenic.”
Cachan attacked the IARC finding.
“They (plaintiff lawyers) talk about IARC like it’s some great thing,” he said. “They have 17 scientists who came to a resort town in France (Lyon). They studied five other chemicals, separate. It was 17 looking at glyphosate for one or two days. It was laughable.”
Cachan said non-carcinogenic findings had been made by hundreds of researchers and that IARC seemed to consider almost every substance or situation a potential hazard risk from baloney sandwich meat to late-night work hours.
He disputed accusations from the plaintiff attorneys that company officials had secretly ghost-written studies to back their non-toxic claims, and said Monsanto for years had done hundreds of its own studies and the company's involvement in outside studies had always been fully disclosed.
“They (plaintiffs) can’t prove their case,” Cachan told the jury. “Of NHL cases 96% happen naturally and unpredictably. It’s human nature to ask why? It’s not Roundup.”