Arguments concluded on Oct. 19 in a Missouri court where a man is suing Monsanto claiming that its weed killer Roundup caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer.
Both plaintiff attorneys and those defending Monsanto would agree that it’s impossible to say with 100 percent certainty that Roundup did or did not cause John Durnell’s cancer. A 12-member jury will decide if the chemical most likely caused it.
The three-week trial has been streamed live on 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 decision by 21st St. Louis Judicial Court 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.
Durnell is suing Monsanto alleging Roundup caused his cancer. Diagnosed in 2020, he started using the product in 1996 killing weeds in a St. Louis neighborhood home beautification program maintaining green space for the Soulard Restoration Project. He first noticed a pain and a knot in his groin. Diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, he underwent chemotherapy treatments. His cancer currently is in remission.
During the run of the trial, plaintiff attorneys have contended that glyphosate, a main ingredient in Roundup, is a toxic carcinogen as well as additives to the formula which include formaldehyde and arsenic. Defense attorneys have countered that the additive byproducts are in such small amounts that they are not a threat and are of the same kind that can be found normally in soil and water.
Lawyers for the plaintiff have relied on a finding in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that glyphosate is a “probable” carcinogen.
Attorneys for Monsanto 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 a project of the United Nations World Health Organization is not a regulatory agency like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, defense attorneys have maintained.
Defense attorneys used as their major supporting argument an Agricultural Health Study conducted in 2018 funded by the National Cancer Institute. That study tracked over 50,000 farmers who used Roundup as a pesticide. Its findings concluded there was no relationship between the chemical’s use and cancer.
During closing arguments Roe Frazer Durnell’s attorney said that since the case was not a criminal hearing, all the jury had to decide was that Roundup more likely than not caused his client’s cancer.
“John sprayed (Roundup) over a long period of time,” Frazer said. “He did it because he was a volunteer (neighborhood gardener) improving the life of everyone who lived there (St. Louis).”
Frazer indicated that two of the defense’s expert witnesses Dr. Matthew Matasar a New York oncologist and Dr. Christian Tomasetti an oncologist for the California-based City of Hope Cancer Center were largely motivated by money.
“Matasar negotiated his deal with Monsanto and got up to $5,000 per day,” Frazer said. “They’re all about making money.”
Frazer said Donna Farmer the company’s regulatory director admitted that Monsanto couldn’t say Roundup doesn’t cause cancer because the necessary testing had not been done.
He said Monsanto had not lived up to the company’s credo, “Integrity is found for all we do. We don’t just meet regulations we exceed them.”
Frazer said a study of mice had found those exposed to glyphosate had 640% greater incidence of tumors than did normal (unexposed) mice.
“The Agricultural Health Study they (defense) like to parade around didn’t even consider the (Roundup) formulation,” Frazer said.
Frazer said the company, faced with mounting evidence of Roundup as a carcinogen, set out to find a scientist who would make a judgement the chemical was harmless. They found Dr. James Parry a toxicologist specializing in genetics and asked to him to review some scientific papers. Parry suspected that glyphosate was potentially carcinogenic and recommended to Monsanto officials to do more studies which they refused to do.
“Parry gave advice to Monsanto it never followed,” Frazer said.
He described Tomasetti as simply a mathematician.
Frazer said company officials paid consultants to writer science papers favorable to Roundup that were called “ghost written” papers.
“Monsanto admits to it,” Frazer added. “Farmer got an award (from the company) for doing it.”
Frazer said IARC’s finding that glyphosate was a “probable” carcinogen was a result of a unanimous vote (17 scientists). Roundup contained toxic impurities including formaldehyde, dioxin, nitrosamines, arsenic and surfactants (a soapy substance makes the chemical cling to and absorb into a plant).
“Farmer just waved it off,” Frazer said. “Why don’t they put it (carcinogens) on the label? They’ll say the EPA didn’t require them to.”
Frazer asked the jury for compensation for his client for physical pain, mental suffering, grief, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life and emotional distress.
“What is reasonable, what is fair, is at your discretion,” he said.
Michael Brown Monsanto’s attorney asked the jury to take a hard look at the evidence that would show Roundup had done Durnell no harm.
He indicated that documents shown by the plaintiffs were only “snippets” of information produced out of context to mislead, that company officials never avoided testing the product and that all regulations had been adhered to.
Brown told the jury the plaintiffs had alleged insufficient testing “to enrage you.”
“We brought you true experts,” Brown said. “Natural DNA errors cause cancer.”
Brown said that random (cell) copy errors accounted for 95% of all NHL cases.
“The older you get, it increases the risk, just from living,” he said. “I feel badly for Mr. Durnell having to go through this. Thankfully he is in remission. But it’s nobody’s fault.”
Brown said cancer results from environmental conditions, hereditary factors or cell replication errors.
“It just happens,” he added. “It has nothing to do with glyphosate.”
Brown said Durnell’s own treating physician oncologist Dr. Hsiao-Ou Hu had said that such (natural) cell mutations can occur and Matasar commented that the overwhelming majority of NHL cases happen through cell errors.
“Matasar was the only specialist (in court) in the diagnosis and treatment of NHL,” Brown said. “He’s the man on this issue.”
Brown recalled that the Agricultural Health Study covered 25 years and tracked 50,000 Roundup users including farmers---and found no corresponding increase in the number of new NHL cases.
“These people (farmers) were doing it (using Roundup) for a living day in and day out,” Brown said. “The rate of NHL did not go up higher.”
No association between glyphosate and NHL was found by the Ag Study Brown said. Matasar had also testified that not a single study had led to a conclusion that exposure to Roundup caused lymphoma.
Another defense witness Dr. Robert Tarone a former math statistician with the U.S. National Cancer Instituter called the plaintiffs’ case the “cherry picking” of evidence to achieve the highest risk and the results they liked. He called such thinking biased and added, “I can’t even guess their (plaintiffs) motives.”
Brown disputed the IARC finding of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.
“IARC focused on small, older studies,” he said.
Brown noted that no public health agency had concluded that Roundup caused cancer including the National Cancer Institute, the EPA, Health Canada and similar agencies in New Zealand and Australia.
Brown said Durnell never looked at warnings on the Roundup bottle including avoiding getting it in the eyes and washing after use.
“Did an oncologist come in here and tell us it causes cancer, the answer to that is no,” Brown said.
He added that lab and diagnostic testing, pathology reports and genetic testing had all found negative for a cancer association.
“Does Roundup contribute to cancer the answer is no. We hope you’ll look at the evidence,” Brown told the jury. “Give us a fair shake in the jury room.”