Attorneys for John Durnell in his lawsuit against Monsanto claiming the company’s weed killer Roundup caused his cancer portrayed a long-time company employee as a mouthpiece whose job it was to explain away the company’s negligence.
“You cannot say that Roundup doesn’t cause cancer (100% certainty) because you haven’t done the studies,” Roe Frazer Durnell’s attorney said.
“Yes,” Donna Farmer answered.
Farmer agreed that long-term studies had not been done that could prove that Roundup doesn’t cause cancer. However, she stated that the U.S. Environmental Agency had found the product to be safe for use by the public and that Monsanto had complied fully with all regulations.
A 32-year employee and toxicologist with Monsanto, Farmer was tasked with making sure that Roundup complied with regulations from agencies such as the EPA. She said the company had done the appropriate science to make sure the weed killer was safe for use.
The trial, which began last week in the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri Court, is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
In recent months, lawyers for Monsanto have appeared to be on a winning streak successfully defending the company in nine Roundup lawsuits after a string of losses in California totaling almost $2.4 billion in plaintiff damages. Last week, a 21st St. Louis Judicial Court ruling by Judge Brian May tossed out a lawsuit via a directed verdict, a finding that evidence in the case was insufficient for a jury to find the company negligent and liable.
Durnell started using the product in 1997 killing weeds in a neighborhood project. He first noticed a pain in his groin and a knot in that location. Diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, he underwent chemotherapy treatments. His cancer is currently in remission.
Plaintiff attorneys are asking a jury to grant punitive damages for their client for his medical treatments, pain and suffering including future regular doctor visits (the cancer is not cured), and the ongoing anxiety the disease may reoccur. The attorneys also want Monsanto punished economically to prevent others from getting cancer from using Roundup.
The trial in St. Louis takes on a special significance because it has been the location of Monsanto’s headquarters.
As in past Roundup trials a center-point of contention between rival attorneys is a finding in 2016 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that glyphosate an ingredient in Roundup is a “probable” carcinogen. Plaintiff attorneys stand by the finding. They said it was conducted by 17 scientists who considered 1,000 studies in determining that glyphosate causes cancer.
Attorneys for Monsanto portray the IARC judgement as frivolous, one of many such findings (eating red meat, drinking ultra-hot beverages and working late hours were also found to be possible carcinogens).
IARC is not a regulatory agency like the EPA, defense attorneys maintained.
A representative from Monsanto and the EPA attended the IARC hearing as observers.
Farmer appeared as a witness on Tuesday and Thursday along with Dr. Christian Aronson, a Minnesota-based hospice and palliative medicine specialist. During questioning Frazer exhibited numerous documents to make the point that available evidence shows that glyphosate causes cancer.
“You do not need statistical significance to have an increased (cancer) risk,” a document read. “Recent meta-analysis shows an increased NHL risk between 27 to 50%. This is very compelling evidence.”
Frazer presented a document that said the use of Roundup from its introduction on the market in 1974 had skyrocketed, from 1.4 million pounds annually to 40 million pounds in 1995, the majority used by farmers.
Frazer said Farmer’s job was to speak about the science of glyphosate to the public and had been on television to discuss it.
Farmer agreed.
“One of your goals was to defend glyphosate,” Frazer said.
“Yes,” Farmer answered.
Frazer said Farmer had learned a media interview technique called “blocking and bridging.” He indicated it was designed to make the idea that Roundup is harmless more believable.
“If a person was skeptical, it would make them (public) believe it,” Frazer said. “You were making the science personal.”
Farmer indicated there was no attempt to mislead.
“I would not put it that way,” she said.
Frazer said that Roundup contained other carcinogens in addition to glyphosate including surfactants, a soapy-textured chemical used to help the substance cling to a plant leaf, formalin, arsenic and formaldehyde.
“This (formaldehyde) is used to embalm bodies,” Frazer said.
Farmer explained that additives such as these were in Roundup only in trace (small) amounts of the kind that could also be found in soil and in water.
“Trace amount is an impurity,” she said. “The regulatory agencies are aware of this.”
In the 1990’s Monsanto hired an independent scientist Dr. James Parry as a consultant to perform a test on the possible “genotoxic” concerns about Roundup. Parry’s report was that there appeared to be possible genotoxicity with the chemical and suggested the company do further studies. A Monsanto scientist William Heydens responded to the report by saying, “We simply aren’t going to do the studies that Parry suggests.”
Frazer said the decision to use Parry further as a consultant was discussed among Monsanto personnel, whether to expand or terminate his involvement.
“It was recommended that before you ask him (Parry) to get more deeply involved reviewing literature involving glyphosate, you ask him to review a subset of articles (four studies),” Frazer said. “That was the intention. You’re going to kick the tires a little bit before you decide to buy the car (expand Parry’s involvement) right?”
“No, I wouldn’t use that example,” Farmer said. “If you’re going to hire a consultant, you want to know if they’re a high quality consultant to do the critical reviews.”
Frazer exhibited a Monsanto code of conduct document in which it was stated the mission of the company was to “do right” and that ethical, religious and cultural concerns would be “respected.”
“It’s in the code of conduct, right?” Frazer asked.
“It’s in,” Farmer said. “It says customers.”
“Like Durnell?”
“Yes.”