Attorneys representing a plaintiff who said use of the Monsanto weed killer Roundup caused her to develop cancer presented a toxicologist on Thursday who said the chemical glyphosate in the product is toxic.
Defense attorneys for Monsanto however countered by citing studies they used to disagree, attempting to make the point that cancer is almost always caused by naturally occurring cell mutations.
Plaintiff Sharlean Gordon of Illinois is suing Monsanto 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.
The trial in the 21st Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri in St. Louis County is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
DLBCL accounts for only 4% of cancers, or found in about 20 out of 100,000 people.
At issue is glyphosate, the plant killing chemical in Roundup, and whether or not it is toxic to humans. Both human and animal (mice) tests have been done with mixed results.
Fidelma Fitzpatrick, an attorney representing Gordon, questioned Dr. Martyn Smith, a professor of toxicology with the UC Berkeley School of Public Health. Smith said Gordon’s cancer resulted from abnormal cells multiplying and outgrowing healthy cells.
“Ms. Gordon’s cancer is in the lymphocytes, right?” Fitzpatrick asked.
“Right,” Smith answered.
Smith was asked if his opinion had changed at any time about glyphosate being a carcinogen.
“No,” he answered.
He said the most reliable studies have been those that measured glyphosate in urine samples taken in human beings. He said in one study the urine of agricultural workers in Ecuador where Roundup had been used to kill cocaine plants in the drug wars was compared to that of coffee plant workers who had not been exposed to the chemical.
“What was the conclusion?” Fitzpatrick asked.
“The people in the area sprayed with Roundup had a higher incidence of DNA strand rate,” Smith said.
“It causes damage to cells?”
“Yes.”
Smith conceded that people in Ecuador have diet differences than those in the U.S. and other different factors. He noted that the best studies to date have been done on living people, not on mice.
“Do you have an opinion that glyphosate is genotoxic?” Fitzpatrick asked.
“Yes,” Smith agreed.
“In Roundup?”
“Yes.”
“Is the evidence strong?”
“Yes.”
“Is Roundup genotoxic to lymphocytes?”
“Roundup is definitely genotoxic to lymphocytes,” Smith said. “It induces oxidative stress in humans and damages genes that are tumor suppressors, like turning off a switch.”
Smith said one of the best studies to date was in March 2023 when two researchers, Dr. Vicki Chang and Gabriella Andriotti, took urine samples from a number of people and found an increased amount of damage in the DNA of the individuals.
During this and past Roundup trials, plaintiff attorneys have relied on a finding by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in which glyphosate was listed as a “probable carcinogen.”
Defense attorney have countered with an Agricultural Health Study from 2018 that found no link between the substance and cancer.
“You are aware of criticism of the Agricultural Health Study?” Fitzpatrick asked.
Smith said that study looked at thousands of test participants but did not measure urine samples.
“They just asked people questions,” Smith said. “The paper doesn’t have actual measuring.”
Smith said this was his first time testifying in a Roundup trial and he was being paid $750 per hour.
On Friday, Monsanto attorney Christine Miller told Smith he was not present in the court to tell the jury that Roundup without any doubt caused Gordon’s cancer.
“True,” Smith agreed.
Miller called attention to Smith’s association with the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT), advertised as a nonprofit for “charitable, scientific, testing for public safety and literacy.”
“Isn’t it true that CERT gets money from court settlements?” Miller asked.
“I don’t know,” Smith answered.
Smith said he served on the nonprofit’s board of directors for a year.
“You were paid by CERT to serve as an expert witness, true?” Miller asked.
“I have in the past,” Smith said.
Miller exhibited a document that read, “Those who are obese are three times more likely to develop NHL, also from an association between NHL and family history, and the human T-cell lymphatic virus.”
“The risk factors for NHL remain unidentified, correct?” Miller asked.
Smith agreed.
Another document said “NHL is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in the western world. There is a possibility that obesity may increase the risk of NHL and DLBCL in particular.”
Smith agreed with Miller that the document had made no reference to Roundup.
“A finding of genotoxicity does not (automatically) mean cancer,” Miller said.
“There has to be a consequence to the genotoxicity,” Smith agreed.
“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that glyphosate is not genotoxic.”
“That’s what they concluded,” Smith said.
Miller exhibited a document that said Health Canada, a government health agency in that country, had found that glyphosate was not genotoxic and was unlikely to pose a cancer risk.
“You’re not aware of any worldwide regulatory agency who agrees with you that glyphosate is genotoxic,” Miller said.
Smith began to mention European countries such as Portugal that found it toxic and was interrupted by Miller who said “Move to strike,” meaning remove the comment from the record.
Circuit Judge Brian May agreed.
Miller told Smith his comments on the testing of agricultural workers in Ecuador made no provision for cultural differences from the U.S. including such things as personal income, indoor plumbing and sanitation.
“These may influence it (toxic risk), right?” Miller asked.
“Yes,” Smith said.