Attorneys on Tuesday used a Florida toxicologist called as an expert witness for plaintiff Sharlean Gordon to give strength to a 2015 finding by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), that glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
“There is sufficient evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in lab animals and causes a significant increase in tumors,” Dr. Charles Jameson told the St. Louis County jury.
Jameson said glyphosate can also cause cancer in humans.
Later in the day, defense attorneys would attack the IARC finding as only a “hazard assessment,” a determination that something is perhaps capable of causing cancer. This differs from a “risk assessment” they said, which looks at actual levels of exposure to a substance.
Glyphosate is the primary ingredient in Roundup, Monsanto’s weed killer product.
Gordon is suing on claims that Roundup 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 the cancer went into remission but recurred requiring further treatments. Gordon was told by doctors in 2009 that she was cured.
The lawsuit seeks damages for medical bills, anxiety, physical pain and suffering caused by the disease including the continuing worry today that it could again recur.
DLBCL accounts for only 4% of cancers, or found in about 20 out of 100,000 people.
The trial is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
In this and past Roundup trials plaintiff attorneys have relied on the IARC finding that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen” in humans. Defense attorneys have countered with a 2018 Agricultural Health Study that found no link between the chemical and cancer.
In addition, defense attorneys have relied on a finding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that found no cancer link.
Defense attorneys also have sought to portray the IARC finding as a frivolous exaggeration, declaring all kinds of substances as possibly toxic, a determination made in just a few days at a conference held in Lyon, France. They contend there is no hard evidence glyphosate is a carcinogen and that many other substances were listed by IARC as possible cancer causers including drinking hot drinks, eating red meat and working night hours.
Jameson, an expert on the environmental causes of cancer and a member of the IARC panel, was brought in to counter those claims and explained the workings of IARC.
“IARC is part of the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) and it was established to study the environmental causes of cancer,” Jameson said. “It is funded by the WHO, also the National Cancer Institute, the EPA and several other organizations.”
Jameson said 1,300 scientists from around the world reviewed the data to make their findings.
“We looked at four to six chemicals at one time,” he said. “This was a way to get together with world-class scientists. Some of them look at carcinogens differently than we do in the U.S.”
“Has there been more information that has come out since 2015?” asked Aimee Wagstaff, attorney for plaintiff Gordon.
“Yes, a significant amount,” Jameson said.
“Has IARC gone back and reevaluated its glyphosate finding in the last eight years?”
“No.”
Jameson said the IARC body would reevaluate glyphosate’s labeling as a class 2A (probable) carcinogen if new information warranted it.
He said the IARC carcinogen labeling created an immediate storm of criticism online and from the media.
“Criticism came out even before the (IARC) meeting,” Jameson said. “They asked us, why are you looking at that (glyphosate)?”
“In your 30 years with IARC was there as much criticism with other substances?”
“No, never,” Jameson answered. “Monsanto asked me for all my notes and papers. It looked like they budgeted tens of millions of dollars to combat the IARC finding.”
Jameson conceded there was little evidence that glyphosate caused cancer in humans, but even though scientists didn’t have the entire picture there was still enough credible evidence that it does cause cancer.
Jameson explained IARC’s reasoning in also declaring hot drinks, red meat and late night work hours as possible carcinogens.
“In countries in South America like Peru they continuously drink tea boiling hot. This irritates the mouth and has resulted in a high incidence of esophageal cancer,” Jameson said. “Red meat, when you grill (barbecue) red meat, the fat falls down on the coals and makes hydrocarbons that evaporate back into the meat.”
“Stomach cancer?” Wagstaff asked.
“Yes,” Jameson said.
Jameson added that working at night under bright fluorescent lights for long periods can cause some cancers though evidence is limited.
Wagstaff exhibited a photo showing a group of scientists at the IARC meeting. Some of the participants worked for the EPA, the agency that had found no link between glyphosate and cancer.
“The panel vote (glyphosate as a carcinogen) was unanimous,” Jameson said.
On cross examination, Monsanto attorney Mark Ouweleen told Jameson that it was possible for a test mouse that had not been exposed to a toxin to develop cancer.
“That’s correct,” Jameson said.
“Cancer can be developed without being exposed?”
“It naturally occurs,” Jameson agreed.
“Humans can get cancer without being exposed.”
“Naturally,” Jameson responded.
“About one in three people will develop cancer in their lifetime,” Ouweleen said.
“I don’t know the number but spontaneously, yes,” Jameson answered.
“Nearly everybody’s life has been impacted by cancer.”
“Absolutely,” Jameson said.
Ouweleen said the IARC determination on glyphosate as a probable cancer cause was based on looking at it as a “hazard.”
“You can have a hazard without it being a risk,” he said. “IARC did a hazard assessment. A risk assessment IARC did not do.”
“True,” Jameson said. “IARC did not do a risk analysis.”
Ouweleen noted that in the IARC classifications the pesticide DDT was ranked the same as the drinking of hot water.
IARC did not do lab studies,” he said.
“True,” Jameson said.
“They (IARC) took studies others people had done and used those, fair?”
“Yes.”
“IARC has not reviewed all of the data that has come out since 2015.”
Jameson agreed that more recent data was not available to IARC researchers.
Ouweleen exhibited a document from IARC that read, “A positive association has been observed for NHL.”
“It doesn’t say cause (glyphosate causes cancer),” Ouweleen said.
“Yes,” Jameson responded.
The IARC document further read that, “Chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out,” meaning there is a possibility for error in IARC findings.
“That’s in the IARC preamble,” Jameson explained.
Ouweleen cited a number of studies in which no cancer tumors had been found in the organs of test male and female mice.