An epidemiologist with the UCLA School of Public Health told a jury on Thursday that a chart displayed by defense attorneys attempting to show that Monsanto’s week killer Roundup doesn’t cause cancer is inaccurate.
“What does this tell you?” Aimee Wagstaff, attorney for plaintiff Sharlean Gordon, asked.
“There is an increased risk from the use of glyphosate,” Dr. Beate Ritz answered. “I came to the conclusion that glyphosate caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL).”
Glyphosate is a primary ingredient in Roundup.
Ritz, who specializes in environmental-caused diseases, was called as an expert witness by attorneys representing Gordon. Ritz said she formed her conclusions by researching numerous glyphosate studies.
Gordon is suing Monsanto over the Roundup she claims caused her to develop NHL, also called large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), a rare cancer of the blood. Diagnosed with the disease in 2006, Gordon underwent treatments and was told by doctors in 2009 that she was cured. The lawsuit seeks damages for medical bills, anxiety and suffering caused by the disease including the continuing worry that it could recur.
The trial in the 21st Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri in St. Louis County is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
The chart displayed by defense attorneys showed that Roundup use by customers had gone up dramatically during the 1990s, portrayed as a sharply rising line. Cases of NHL shown at the bottom of the chart were drawn as a horizontal line symbolizing no increase in NHL cases. Defense attorneys argued that a greater use of Roundup should also cause a spike in NHL cases.
“Is the defense attorney chart misleading in your opinion?” Wagstaff asked.
“It is visually misleading,” Ritz answered.
Ritz said she had done her own chart that showed a rise in NHL during the time Roundup use increased. She added that the defense chart demonstrated that statistics on the numbers of NHL cases could be manipulated.
Ritz told Wagstaff she had not testified as an expert witness in Roundup litigation before.
She was asked to define non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
“It’s a cancer of the white blood cells,” Ritz said. “That’s our immune system that saves us from infection, the system that keeps cancer cells in check. In this cancer the cancerous cells start to divide and displace other cells that we need, they take over.”
On Friday, Monsanto defense attorney Mark Ouweleen with the Chicago-based Bartlit Beck law firm questioned Ritz’s interpretation of the defense chart.
“You had a problem with the scale the (defense) chart used,” Ouweleen said. “The depiction that the case numbers of NHL (not increasing) was misleading. You suggested using a different measurement scale.”
“Yes,” Ritz agreed.
Ouweleen said an Agricultural Health Study in 2018, federally-funded by the National Cancer Institute, looked at the health of 54,000 users of Roundup over a period of years, and it received no funds contributed from the pesticide industry.
Ritz agreed.
Ouweleen displayed a document citing the Andreotti Report, part of the Agricultural Health Study. The report looked at glyphosate use and cancer incidence. A passage in the report said, “In this large study no association was apparent between glyphosate and solid tumors.”
Ouweleen asked Ritz if she understood the passage.
“Yes,” Ritz answered.
In past Roundup trials, the Agricultural Health Study and its finding of no link between glyphosate and cancer had been cited often by defense attorneys while plaintiff attorneys have relied on a finding by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). That finding made in 2015 described glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” to humans. Defense attorneys have attacked the IARC finding as superficial, not realistic, only a listing of potential hazards.
During questioning Ritz conceded there is no absolute proof that glyphosate causes cancer. Asked if she would be as concerned with other pesticides as she was with glyphosate, Ritz responded she would be concerned.
“But we may not have as much data," she said. “I go with what IARC determined. I’m not an authority on every pesticide in the world. I would never say we have epidemiological proof. We don’t give people a toxin and wait to see if they get sick, or like in clinical medicine where you give a medicine. These (glyphosate studies) are observational.”
Ouweleen said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mission is to protect the public health and is funded by the U.S. Government.
Ritz agreed.
“The EPA can find and use the same studies that you used,” Ouweleen said.
“Yes,” Ritz said.
Ouweleen said that a 2017 EPA paper had concluded, “It (glyphosate) is not likely to be a carcinogen to humans.”
“You disagree with that?” Ouweleen said.
“Totally,” Ritz answered.
“You published over 300 papers and not one covered any association between Roundup and glyphosate,” Ouweleen said.
“Correct,” Ritz said.
“How much do you make per hour on this case?” Ouweleen asked.
Ritz said she had been making $550 per hour and today was raised to $750.
On re-cross examination Wagstaff asked Ritz, “Did anything discussed today change your opinion?”
“No,” Ritz said.
Ritz said her studies on the subject of Roundup being a carcinogen had strengthened over the past eight years.