A co-inventor of the Monsanto Roundup product called QuikPRO was questioned by plaintiff attorneys on its alleged dangers on Wednesday, in a lawsuit filed by a professional landscaper who used the product on St. Louis properties including the grounds of Monsanto’s headquarters.
“It’s (QuikPRO) a poison,” plaintiff attorney Bailey Glasser said.
“I would disagree with the word poison,” Andrew Dyszlewski, senior research scientist for Monsanto responded.
Plaintiff Nathan Evans claims his exposure to QuikPRO, a more potent weed killer version of Roundup, used for business and industrial purposes, caused him to develop Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, a cancer of the white blood cells. Evans’ cancer is currently in remission.
The trial in its second day in the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
Plaintiff attorneys are seeking to show that Monsanto officials opted to market the allegedly more dangerous QuikPRO product in 2001, containing 74% glyphosate, the chemical they claim causes cancer. This to maintain market share and profits after a patent for the company’s less powerful hand-held Roundup spray expired in 2000 (allowing imitators to come in with similar products). The hand-spray for private use in yards first marketed in 1974 contained 2% glyphosate.
Dyszlewski had been with Monsanto for 34 years and retired in February.
“The label (QuikPRO) says it’s toxic to aquatic animals, see that?” Glasser asked.
“Yes,” Dyszlewski said.
“You can’t use it on soybeans it would kill the soybeans.”
“It would be illegal to use it (QuikPRO) on crops,” Dyszlewski agreed.
“The definition of poison is it can injure or kill, agree?”
“Correct,” Dyszlewski said.
Defense attorneys said QuikPRO only accounted for 1% of Monsanto’s glyphosate business. Glasser displayed a chart that showed the company’s sales. Out of $60 billion, the QuikPRO profit was $500 million.
“That’s a large amount,” Glasser said.
“Okay,” Dyszlewski agreed.
“QuikPRO is big business.”
“It is big business and some sales years can be tremendous and others not so much, but I’m a lab rat,” Dyszlewski said. “I’ve never seen these (sales) numbers. I have no knowledge of the sales. I would like to see the true numbers. We have to make money we’re not a charitable organization.”
Dyszlewski agreed the chemical property of the product was intended to destroy a plant’s cell structure and that the product had been banned in Europe.
“This is a product for the U.S.,” he said.
Dyszlewski also agreed that absorption means a substance can move inside plants or animals, but stopped short of conceding that QuikPRO could penetrate human skin.
“I have no knowledge of that,” he said. “What was important to me was that the product worked and killed weeds, and that it conformed to Monsanto standards.”
“You know formaldehyde (part of QuikPRO) is a carcinogen?”
“It’s been called that,” Dyszlewski said.
Glasser said nitrates in the product are also toxic and asked Dyszlewski why he had not investigated its potential risks on the human body.
“I’m not an epidemiologist,” Dyszlewski said. “How it causes cancer is complicated I don’t have that expertise. There are lots of different causes genetic and environmental.”
Glasser displayed emails from company officials in the 2001 time period in which they expressed unease about the new QuikPRO product. In one Vance Terry said, “Are we sure we want this on the Monsanto portfolio?”
Another email expressed concern about toxicity as a “skin absorber” and said some officials were “not interested in accepting the risk.”
Annette Kirk, a company officer, said she thought Monsanto was “throwing stewardship to the wind.”
However, Richard Morris of Monsanto said in an email that QuikPRO was a "number one opportunity to grow and defend our Roundup professional franchise.”
“We’re talking about landscapers (using QuikPRO) and professional applicators?” Glasser asked.
“Yes,” Dyszlewski said.
Glasser said Monsanto had never done a cancer study on QuikPRO. Again Dyszlewski said that was outside his area of expertise.
On cross examination, Monsanto attorney Asha Spencer asked Dyszlewski if Monsanto was a science-based company.
“Yes,” he said.
“Were all the (Monsanto) products approved by regulatory bodies?”
“Yes the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) was involved."
“Regulatory agencies for other countries also?”
“Absolutely.”
“Were you involved in safety testing?”
“No,” Dyszlewski answered. “Toxicology was, we had approved safety testing.”
“Do you trust your toxicology department?”
“I do. You have to do a lot of safety studies. A lot of detail goes to the EPA before you can get a (product) registration.”
“Did you get approval from states?”
“Yes, and federal agencies.”
“Do you have any concern about a cancer risk with QuikPRO?”
“No,” Dyszlewski said.
“Do you use QuikPRO?”
“Yes, I used it twice, in April and May.”
Dyszlewski said nitrate levels in QuikPRO are below the maximum set by the EPA and hundreds of hours of testing insured that it was below the limit.
“It’s the safest product on the market today,” he said. “It’s as safe as we can make it.”