On Monday. plaintiff attorneys rested their case and attorneys defending Monsanto took over presenting their own expert witnesses. A toxicologist took the stand and said weed killer Roundup is not toxic.
“Does Roundup cause cancer?” Monsanto attorney Chris Miller asked.
“No,” responded Donna Farmer.
Farmer is a long-time regulatory toxicologist for Monsanto.
Defense attorneys later in the day attempted to explain what they apparently believed could be a possibly troublesome part of their case. In 2003, Farmer in an email exhibited by the defense told company officials, “You can’t say Roundup is not a carcinogen we have not done the necessary testing. There is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.”
Farmer said the 2003 statement was made before newer testing reinforced a finding that the chemical was not toxic, and indicated it was simply an expression admitting at the time there wasn’t 100% proof that it wasn’t toxic.
The trial in the 21st Circuit Court of Missouri in St. Louis County is bring streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
Plaintiff Sharlean Gordon 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 in remission after 2009 but she still has to visit doctors checking for a possible recurrence.
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.
Farmer has been an important expert witness for Monsanto in past Roundup trials because she is a top official whose job it is to see that regulatory agency requirements that the product is safe are satisfied.
“We do what regulators require,” Farmer told the courtroom. “We follow all the rules.”
“Does Monsanto do (safety) studies the regulators don’t require?” Miller asked.
“Yes.”
“Also on surfactant?”
“Yes.”
Roundup consists of glyphosate the substance plaintiff attorneys maintain causes cancer and surfactant, plus water. Plaintiff attorneys claimed the surfactant plus glyphosate makes the product more toxic than glyphosate alone.
Farmer said the surfactant is a soapy-like substance that spreads the glyphosate over a plant leaf rather than causing it to bead up and roll off the leaf.
“It’s kind of like body wash (surfactant),” Farmer said. “It spreads out and reduces surface tension.”
“This jury has been told by plaintiff lawyers that the surfactant makes the glyphosate penetrate the human skin. Is that true?” Miller asked.
“No,” Farmer said. “Absorption studies with human skin showed very little absorption. It was miniscule in both diluted and concentrate (Roundup).”
“How does glyphosate kill plants?”
“It blocks the building blocks that a plant needs to grow,” Farmer explained. “It can cause eye irritation (spray) but it is not toxic. Glyphosate is less toxic than table salt.”
Farmer said chemical testing on the substance had been done as well as field and lab testing. Testing looked at possible mutation of DNA and the effects of the substance on chromosomes. She added that DNA has a natural function to repair itself.
“How many genotoxicity tests were done?” Miller asked.
“There were 83,” Farmer answered. “There was no synergy between glyphosate and surfactant. All had low toxicity.”
Farmer said long-term animal studies on the product were not performed by Monsanto because they were not necessary. The available testing showed no cause for concern.
Miller exhibited a chart that showed regulatory agencies that had declared Roundup safe including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Health Canada, the Europe Center for Environmental Human Health (ECHH) and others.
During this and other Roundup trials, defense attorneys have relied heavily on an Agricultural Health Study in 2018 funded by the National Cancer Institute and an EPA finding that no association existed between glyphosate and cancer. Plaintiff attorneys have cited a 2015 finding by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.
Farmer said IARC was not a regulatory agency like the EPA but rather a research institute.
“IARC spent a week looking at four pesticides,” she said. “The EPA spent five years looking at just glyphosate.”
Under cross examination, Gordon's attorney Aimiee Wagstaff focused on media training that Farmer had been involved with to respond to the upcoming IARC meeting in 2015. Also to counter perceived (anti-Roundup) threats from the news media.
“This (media training) was before IARC met?” Wagstaff asked.
“Yes,” Farmer answered.
“You said it was helpful to you.”
“Yes.”
“You thought that IARC had a history of negative rulings?”
“I do,” Farmer said.
Wagstaff exhibited company documents that said dealings with the media should be conducted telling the pro-Roundup story with passion. "Practice what you say to media,” the document read. The document also suggested statements to be used to inform reporters or the public, for example, “If I could leave you with one thing it is (followed by a pro-Roundup conclusion).”
Another directive said to, “Speak comfortable and confident under pressure.”
Company documents from 2000 identified perceived threats to Roundup from state attorneys general, widespread negative public perception, a possible desire by EPA to cut pesticide use and a mounting negative campaign by the Oregon-based Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP).
A further exhibited document said Monsanto's number one goal in 2004 was to secure its base (pro-Roundup opinion) and support its science.
“Nowhere does it say safety (in the document),” Wagstaff said.
“It’s not written but it’s implied,” Farmer said.
“Nothing in that document relates to safety.”
“I would disagree,” Farmer said.