In the trial of a woman claiming weed killer Roundup caused her cancer, attorneys for plaintiff Sharlean Gordon used a 20-year old email written by defense witness Donna Farmer to portray the expert as misleading.
A 2003 email written by Farmer told Monsanto officials that Roundup could not boast it did not cause cancer. The email read, “You cannot say Roundup is not a carcinogen. We have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”
The trial in the 21st Circuit Court of Missouri in St. Louis County beginning its fifth week on Monday is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
“Why are you telling this jury it (Roundup) doesn’t cause cancer?” Gordon's attorney Aimee Wagstaff asked Farmer at trial on Friday.
Wagstaff added that Farmer’s email “inferred” the product did not cause cancer.
“We have a lot of studies on Roundup that say it is not genotoxic,” Farmer responded. “There is no evidence that Roundup causes cancer.”
Farmer agreed with Wagstaff that the company had done no long-term (animal test) studies to prove the substance wasn’t carcinogenic. However she said that given the weight of available testing results, it wasn’t necessary.
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, a long-time regulatory toxicologist for Monsanto, testified on May 15 and again on Friday. She 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.
“You have been a spokesperson for Monsanto,” Wagstaff said.
“I was asked to speak on the safety of Roundup, yes,” Farmer said.
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, the main ingrediant in Roundup, and cancer. Plaintiff attorneys have cited a 2015 finding by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.
Wagstaff exhibited documents that showed Monsanto officials had worked out plans to deal with the expected IARC finding before the body’s meeting was held in March of 2015.
“How did you know (IARC) would classify Roundup as a possible carcinogen)?” Wagstaff asked.
“Over 50 years IARC classified 50% of substances in categories 1, 2, or 2A (carcinogenic),” Farmer said. “We looked at it as a worst case scenario.”
Emails advised company officials to “Protect the reputation of Roundup by promoting the safety of glyphosate.”
“That means you could keep selling Roundup,” Wagstaff said.
“I wouldn’t put it that way,” Farmer said. “It was to make sure the safety of the product was communicated.”
“If the EPA decided not to regulate (approve) glyphosate, Monsanto couldn’t sell it, right?”
Farmer agreed.
A company email also advised the use of experts to influence public opinion including the writing of (pro-Roundup) blogs and op-ed news pieces, video and audio responses. One exhibited document said the company should “orchestrate an outcry” over the IARC finding that the product was a probable carcinogen.
Pesticide industry associations both in the U.S. and abroad would be urged to participate.
“We wanted to make sure the correct information was distributed to the public,” Farmer explained.
“You went on TV,” Wagstaff said. “It was an all-out media campaign.”
“Correct,” Farmer said.
“Do you know how much money was spent (media campaign)?”
“No,” Farmer said.
“Would it surprise you if it was in the millions of dollars?” Wagstaff asked.
Attorneys for Monsanto objected to the question. Circuit Judge Brian May sustained the objection.
Scientific studies can make a determination that a product is either a hazard or a risk. A hazard is something that is capable of causing cancer. A risk is an estimate of potential carcinogenic effects.
“Something could be a hazard and not a risk,” Wagstaff said.
“It depends on exposure,” Farmer said.
“Why didn’t you do the (long-term) testing so that Monsanto would know it (Roundup) doesn’t cause cancer?”
“The regulators (EPA) don’t require it,” Farmer said. “We have a lot of data on glyphosate and there is no indication it is genotoxic. The Agricultural Health Study on humans found no indication of any cancer.”
During cross examination, Monsanto attorney Christine Miller asked if IARC had reevaluated its 2015 finding given new evidence.
“No,” Farmer said.
An exhibited document indicated that a product can be given a potential carcinogenic label even when the risk is low because of unforeseen exposures or from new uses of the product that could cause a higher risk.
Farmer told Miller that short-term dose testing of 20, 30 and 90 days had been done on rodents.
“As a spokesperson what was your role?” Miller asked.
“Trying to correct misinformation,” Farmer said.
“Is Roundup genotoxic?”
“No.”
“Is it a carcinogen?”
“No.”
“Did you believe that in 2003, 2009 and today?”
“Yes.”