A regulations compliance official for Monsanto testified the company had done extensive testing of its weed killer Roundup to make sure it was safe for use by humans.
“Glyphosate is not volatile,” Donna Farmer a 32-year employee and toxicologist with Monsanto told a jury October 10.
The trial in the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri Court is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
Lawyers for Monsanto have a successful string of victories defending the company in nine Roundup lawsuits after a set of losses in California totaling almost $2.4 billion in plaintiff damages. Last month a 21st St. Louis Judicial Court decision by Judge Brian May tossed out a similar lawsuit via a directed verdict, a finding that evidence in the case was insufficient for a jury to find the company negligent and liable.
John Durnell is suing Monsanto alleging that Roundup caused his cancer. He started using the product in 1997 killing weeds in a neighborhood project and 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.
In this and past Roundup trials, Farmer has been an important witness because she was a lead officer is making sure the product complied with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations, as well as being a public spokeswoman on its alleged safety.
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 accuracy of the finding saying it was conducted by 17 scientists who considered 1,000 studies in determining that glyphosate causes cancer.
Attorneys for Monsanto have portrayed the IARC judgement as flawed and superficial, 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 have maintained.
The EPA to date has found the chemical to be non-toxic for use by humans.
Plaintiff attorneys are using a strategy of exhibiting emails and inter-company memos to establish what they claim was the company’s avoidance of studies that found Roundup to be likely toxic, or worked actively to mislead the public that it wasn’t.
During Tuesday’s session, Roe Frazer Durnell’s attorney exhibited a 2003 document in which Farmer told company officials, “You can’t say Roundup is not a carcinogen we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make this statement though there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.”
Farmer indicated the written communication was being taken out of context. Frazer responded that Farmer’s defense attorneys could ask her about that and moved on to new questioning.
Under cross examination by defense attorney Shayna Cook, Farmer said the company had done all the necessary tests to ensure EPA compliance.
“Did Monsanto do the tests (including on laboratory mice) over the years?” Cook asked.
“Yes,” Farmer said.
“Are the studies required for EPA approval?”
“Yes.”
“Did you evaluate for toxicity?”
“Yes.”
Cook asked if surfactant, an ingredient in Roundup a soapy-like substance that causes the chemical to stick to plant leaves, was also similarly approved. Farmer agreed, noting that a company other than Monsanto produced the surfactant.
Farmer said in 1991 the EPA put Roundup on its “non-carcinogen” list.
“It had the most favorable rating at that time,” she added.
“Has the EPA ever classified Roundup as a possible or probably carcinogen?” Cook asked.
“No.”
Farmer said Roundup which includes impurities that are byproducts was 97 percent pure.
“Is this common?” Cook asked.
“It’s well known,” Farmer answered. “You see it (byproducts) in all pesticides.”
“What is the EPA’s role?”
“They want to know what the other 3 percent (byproducts) are. They look at the quality and safety of the product.”
“Did Monsanto provide EPA with information on the impurities?”
“Yes.”
Farmer said the ingredients include formaldehyde, but a “very small amount.”
“Did the EPA ever express concern about formaldehyde?” Cook asked.
“No,” Farmer said. “The EPA is fully aware of it.”
Also found in the ingredients are ethaline oxide and arsenic, though again in trace amounts Farmer explained.
Farmer said glyphosate had been the object of a “multitude of studies.”
“If the impurities in Roundup caused cancer would it show up in the studies?” Cook asked.
“Yes,” Farmer responded.
Farmer said her statement (exhibited by Frazer) that it could not be said (with certainty) that Roundup didn’t cause cancer was based on a lack of long-term exposure studies. However a document exhibited by Cook said that “Based on (existing) tests, it could be concluded there was no risk if instructions on the label were properly followed.”
Farmer denied the company fabricated science reports by using ghost writers or Monsanto employees posing as independent scientists.
“Are there rules?” Cook asked.
“Yes,” Farmer said. “To be an author (science paper), you need to provide a significant contribution to an article.”
“Has any (regulatory) agency concluded that Roundup is a probable carcinogen?”
“No.”
Farmer said company officials were surprised by the IARC finding that Glyphosate was a probable carcinogen. She said the company provided information on the results of studies to IARC to assist them in their finding before it was made.
“We knew the safety better than anyone,” Farmer said.
Farmer added that company officials had sought to be “very public” in supporting the safety of glyphosate.
Circuit Judge Timothy Boyer is presiding.