Monsanto-paid Scientists lied about Financial Ties

(Sept. 6, 2019) Monsanto-paid scientists who published papers supporting Monsanto and attacking the IARC lied about their financial ties to the company. Court documents show that several of the dishonest scientists were among 16 people who signed their names to several published papers which supported Monsanto and attacked the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The occasion for the attack was the IARC’s declaring Monsanto’s glyphosate a probable carcinogen in March 2015.

Editor refuses to retract papers

The ethics-challenged editor who green-lighted the fraudulent papers (Roger McClellan) has refused to retract them. The editor claims that, were his publication to come clean and retract the papers published under the false pretense of being free of Monsanto involvement or influence, he might hurt reputations and negatively affect Monsanto’s interests in the Roundup litigation.

Secret Monsanto Minions

The secret Monsanto minions used their names and reputations in an effort to discredit the IARC after it announced in March 2015 that glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup were probably carcinogenic to people. Monsanto commissioned the so-called “scientists” specifically for the purpose of trying to make the IARC look self-serving and untrustworthy. The fallout has turned the tables and shown the truth:  Monsanto is a malignancy which is completely self-serving and untrustworthy.

Monsanto’s whole black operation to deceive the public came to light following legal discovery in one of the Roundup cancer lawsuits filed against Monsanto, which is now owned by the German chemical giant Bayer AG.

Monsanto used the power of its deep pockets to secretly influence a set of papers published in the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology.  The secret exercise of industry power was so unethical that the publisher investigated it. Those findings determined that least three of the papers should be retracted. The U.S. Right to Know web site reports that the entire Monsanto subterfuge is in evidence, according to a series of internal journal communications. The episode also implicates the editor, Roger McClellan, who still refuses to retract the papers, which declared there were no cancer concerns with Monsanto herbicides like Roundup. Emails revealed through FOIA requests show that the editor claimed a retraction could have impacted last summer’s first Roundup trial – which despite the lies resulted in a $289 million verdict – and harmed the authors’ reputations.

Lawyers representing several thousand people suing Monsanto over Roundup found the journal communications through discovery. Three trials have seen all three juries render huge punitive damages against Monsanto. All the juries sided with the plaintiffs who argued that Roundup was carcinogenic, and that Monsanto knew it was and covered up the damning evidence.

The emails show a major scientific publishing house wrestling for its soul as the editor and other employees fight over whether they should come clean on the Monsanto deception. The editor and others discuss how they should confront the problem of rank dishonesty in the published papers.

The emails were obtained as part of a deposition of Roger McClellan, the longtime editor in chief of the peer-reviewed journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology (CRT.)

Monsanto-paid Scientists lied about Financial Ties

US Right to Knows explains that CRT published the papers in question in September 2016 as an “Independent Review” of the carcinogenic potential of the weed-killing agent glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide and other brands. The five papers published as part of the review directly contradicted the findings of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. In 2015, the IARC found glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen. The 16 authors of the papers concluded that the weight of evidence showed the weed killer was unlikely to pose any carcinogenic risk to people.

The authors stated in the publication that their conclusions were free of Monsanto’s intervention. Emphatic language trumpeted their lie. The paper’s legend included this whopper: “Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.”

A Blatant Lie – $27,400 for starters

In the fall of 2017, that statement was proven to be a blatant lie. Internal Monsanto records showed extensive involvement by Monsanto scientists in the drafting and editing of the papers. Records also showed that Monsanto helped choose the authors. Internal records also showed direct payments to at least two of the so-called “independent” authors. Monsanto had a contract with author Larry Kier, for just one example, paying him $27,400 for his work on the papers.

In response to those revelations and questions from media outlets, CRT publisher  Taylor & Francis Group  launched an investigation in the fall of 2017. The newly released communications reveal that after months questioning the papers’ authors, a team of legal and ethics experts put together by Taylor & Francis concluded the authors had hidden Monsanto’s direct involvement in the papers, and had done so knowingly. The emails show some of the authors did not even fully disclose Monsanto involvement in initial questioning by Taylor & Francis during the investigation.

US Right to Know reports that the papers published under the fraudulent cover of “independent” scientists were never retracted. In September of 2018 they were only “updated” to carry an “Expression of Concern” and updates to the acknowledgements and declaration of interests. But despite Monsanto’s involvement, the papers are still titled with the word “independent,”  which we now know is blatant fraud.

The “update” might have added that the papers’ publication was “independent” of the truth of the matter, another clear example of how Monsanto money can make wrong right, black white, lies truth.

Related

Share

EPA vs. IARC fight proves EPA captured

(Sept. 4, 2019) Roundup lawsuits have uncovered internal Monsanto emails which have outed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as an industry-captured entity. The EPA vs. IARC fight proves the EPA is captured by industry. A close look at the controversy shows without a doubt that Monsanto and the biotech industry have captured the agency charged with regulating pesticides like Roundup and other poisons.

Internal Monsanto emails which plaintiffs demanded in Roundup lawsuit discovery have shown the world just how Monsanto has cultivated and exploited a cozy relationship with U.S. pesticide regulators at the EPA. The emails have shown how one scientist on the EPA payroll worked secretly with Monsanto to quash a pesticide review of glyphosate, the main active ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling poison, Roundup.

Related: Monsanto Roundup Lawsuit Attorney

In some of the three Roundup trials, all of which Monsanto has lost, Monsanto lawyers have been able to keep some evidence of the cozy EPA-Monsanto relationship out of the eyes of the jury. But Monsanto lawyers have not always been able to hide all the relevant relationship evidence through sly procedural moves. The three huge jury verdicts rendered against Monsanto for Roundup since last summer are, at least in part, a result of some juries being shown evidence which proves that the U.S. EPA has not been an objective arbiter of facts where Monsanto is concerned. In point of fact, the EPA has been shown – through the publication of irrefutable evidence in The Monsanto Papers – to be working more as a partner with the biochemical industry, rather than as a pesticide (Read: poison) watchdog for U.S. citizens.

Dr. Charles Benbrook explains

Dr. Charles Benbrookwho testified for the plaintiff in the first Monsanto Roundup trial last summer – explains in a Jan. 2019 paper just how the IARC and the EPA arrived at two diametrically opposed views regarding the cancer-causing propensities of glyphosate and Roundup.

Note: Dr. Benbrook’s web site says he has a PhD in agricultural economics from the University of Wisconsin, an undergraduate degree from Harvard. He is a visiting scholar in the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, and a visiting professor at the University of Newcastle in the U.K.

No Evidence vs. Strong Evidence?

Dr. Benbrook explains that the EPA considers glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” By contrast, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).” EPA claims that no convincing evidence shows that “glyphosate induces mutations in vivo via the oral route.” IARC concludes that “strong evidence” shows exposure to glyphosate is genotoxic through at least two mechanisms known to be associated with human carcinogens — DNA damage and oxidative stress.

Dr. Benbrook asks, “Why and how did EPA and IARC reach such different conclusions?”

EPA Method and Results

The EPA cited 52 genotoxicity assays done by “registrants” (Monsanto and its biochem industry friends) in its 2016 evaluation of technical glyphosate. (“Technical” meaning only that glyphosate alone was studied, not one of the relevant formulations such as “Roundup”  in which it is always mixed.) The EPA also cited 52 assays that had appeared in the public literature.  Dr. Benbrook says, “Of these, one regulatory assay (2%) and 35 published assays (67%) reported positive evidence of a genotoxic response. In the case of formulated, glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs – or glyphosate mixed into a common pesticide), 43 regulatory assays were cited by EPA, plus 65 assays published in peer-reviewed journals. Of these, none of the regulatory, and 49 published assays (75%) reported evidence of a genotoxic response following exposure to a GBH.

IARC Method and Results

IARC, by contrast, considered a total of 118 genotoxicity assays in six core tables on glyphosate technical (again, alone), GBHs, and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), glyphosate’s primary metabolite. EPA’s analysis encompassed 51 of these 118 assays (43%). In addition, IARC analyzed another 81 assays exploring other possible genotoxic mechanisms (mostly related to sex hormones and oxidative stress), of which 62 (77%) reported positive results. IARC placed considerable weight on three positive GBH studies in exposed human populations, whereas EPA placed little or no weight on them.

Three Primary Conclusions

Dr. Benbrook says that EPA and IARC reached diametrically opposed conclusions on glyphosate genotoxicity for three main reasons:

(1) in the core tables compiled by EPA and IARC, the EPA relied mostly on registrant-commissioned, unpublished regulatory studies, 99% of which were negative, while IARC relied mostly on peer-reviewed studies (emphasis added) of which 70% were positive (83 of 118);

(2) EPA’s evaluation was largely based on data from studies on technical glyphosate, whereas IARC’s review placed heavy weight on the results of formulated GBH and AMPA assay (emphasis added). This means EPA studied glyphosate alone, without the surfactants (some of which have been banned in Europe) and other ingredients, which virtually all experts agree make any formulation much more toxic, perhaps as much as 1,000x more toxic.

(3) EPA’s evaluation was focused on typical, general population dietary exposures assuming legal, food-crop uses, and did not take into account, nor address generally higher occupational exposures and risks. IARC’s assessment encompassed data from typical dietary, occupational, and elevated exposure scenarios. More research is needed on real-world exposures to the chemicals within formulated GBHs and the biological fate and consequences of such exposures.

EPA vs. IARC fight proves EPA captured

In a word, the U.S. EPA leaned heavily on Monsanto-funded studies and others sponsored by the biochemical industry to make its determination. And most of those studies were perverted or truncated by their mostly useless focus on glyphosate alone. Glyphosate is virtually never applied alone, by itself, in a vacuum, without being mixed with dangerous surfactants and other substances hidden by laws which protect a corporation’s “proprietary” interests.

By contrast, the IARC relied primarily on published, non-industry funded studies. The IARC also gave studies more weight if they focused on the entire chemical cocktail concoction of products like Roundup (or some other Glyphosate-Based-Herbicide), rather than on glyphosate alone. That approach just makes sense, period. Why, like Monsanto did, test a product that is virtually never used alone? That makes no sense.

The relevant facts, testing the GBHs used in real-world situations, rather than testing isolated glyphosate (technical) as Monsanto and its minions preferred to do, make the EPA’s rubber-stamping of glyphosate not only borderline criminal – given the now ubiquitous poisoning of so much of the living earth by glyphosate – but also completely irrelevant.

Related

Share

Republicans help Monsanto

Republicans have, for several years, waged a war against the International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC is the World Health Organization’s cancer research division which declared glyphosate (in Monsanto’s Roundup) a probable carcinogen in 2015. Now, according to freshly-released documents in a report by Lee Fang for The Intercept, Republicans’ anti-IARC campaign was prompted, pushed, and aided and abetted by Monsanto’s attorneys and lobbyists.

Related: Monsanto Manipulation Machine Bayered

Lee Fang reports that documents ranging from e-mails to deposition transcripts have been made public by the law firm that represents Dewayne Johnson. He is the cancer patient and former groundskeeper who won the first Roundup lawsuit trial last August in California. A jury awarded Mr. Johnson $289 million (later reduced to $78 million).

Editor’s Note: Some democrats have also helped Monsanto. Hillary Clinton has been called the queen of Monsanto, and Barack Obama firmly backed the biotech bully from Missouri.

Republicans attack IARC, NIH for Monsanto

Mr. Fang reports that company e-mails, documents and deposition transcripts show  “Monsanto lawyers and lobbyists guided lawmakers, coordinating efforts to question the IARC’s credibility and slash U.S. support for the international body.”

In June 2015, Monsanto’s vice president of government affairs – Michael Dykes – outlined Monsanto’s plans to discredit the IARC. Mr. Dykes emailed that he had sent teams of lobbyists to talk to “key staff” at the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the State Department, and members of Congress. Monsanto executed the plan three months after the IARC had first declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen, in March 2015. At the same time, Mr. Dykes also updated his Monsanto colleagues with additional ways the company could discredit the IARC. That plan included Monsanto interests taking control of a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing where senators would ask the EPA about glyphosate’s safety.

“We will make sure Committee members ask EPA the glyphosate safety question,” wrote Dykes, who was well aware the EPA sat firmly in Monsanto’s pocket. (See: EPA Monsanto ties cancerous)

Monsanto ghostwrites for a Republican Rep.

According to Mr. Fang,  FTI Government Affairs was one of the consulting firms that has helped Monsanto discredit the IARC. FTI ghost-wrote a letter in 2016 that was attributed to Republican Rep. Rob Aderholt of Alabama.  The letter written in Mr. Aderholt’s name insisted glyphosate “does not cause cancer. ” It charged that the IARC was promoting “bunk science.”  Mr. Aderholt’s name was on that letter, but it was written by FTI lobbyists.

That misrepresented letter, says Mr. Fang, was followed by other letters from Republican Congress members demanding an investigation of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for IARC. Republicans who wrote those letters – or perhaps only signed their names as Mr. Aderholt did – included Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz (who chaired the House Oversight Committee), South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy (who succeeded Chaffetz as House Oversight chair), and Texas Rep. Lamar Smith (who chaired the House Science Committee). All of them echoed Monsanto’s on-point inquiries into IARC funding and the IARC’s designation of glyphosate as a carcinogen.

Kill the Messenger

In 2018, according to Mr. Fang’s report, Rep. Smith sent letters to cancer researchers in Norway demanding that they “correct the flaws in IARC.” Republicans further aided Monsanto when the Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee cut $2 million in IARC funding.

Monsanto-Supreme Court Connection

Republican support for Monsanto extends all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, to former Monsanto lawyer Clarence Thomas.  High court justices are supposed to recuse themselves when even the suggestion of a  conflict of interest is evident. “Justice” Thomas has twice refused to recuse himself when Monsanto cases have come before the nation’s highest court. He has also voted along Republican or corporate-controlled party lines in virtually every case he has seen in all of his 28 years on the bench.

Monsanto-EPA Connections

Monsanto has also been caught in bed with the U.S. EPA in the Roundup Lawsuit litigation. The Monsanto Papers have shown just how friendly the relationship has been between regulator and  regulated.  It is an especially important relationship on which to shine the light of truth, because Monsanto lawyers point again and again to the U.S. EPA’s refusal to look at the science behind Roundup and glyphosate – all the considerable science which has not been paid for by Monsanto. Rather than look at independent studies as the IARC did to determine glyphosate’s carcinogenicity, EPA continues to look primarily at studies bought and paid for by Monsanto.  The agency initially recognized glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential back in the 1970s when Roundup was first introduced.  The EPA then blew the whistle on the toxic poison, but then inexplicably altered its position years later and allowed it on the market.

Republicans help Monsanto

The EPA-Monsanto Collusion story should come out more fully in the next Roundup lawsuit trial, which is scheduled to begin this fall in Monsanto’s home town of St. Louis. The monster from the midway has lost all three of the Roundup trials held thus far, as more and more of the world is waking up to the horrendous damage Monsanto has done to our food and environment.

Related

Share

Bayer CEO may drive Monsanto Roundup Settlement

(August 6, 2018) Bayer’s embattled CEO may drive a Monsanto Roundup settlement. Bayer shares had fallen dramatically after three straight juries agreed that Roundup causes cancer. But those shares jumped last month after the company CEO revealed plans aimed at resolving lawsuits linked to glyphosate, reported InsuranceJournal.com. Bayer revealed that it had hired an outside lawyer to advise its supervisory board about the merits of a potential settlement. The German drug and chemical giant also set up a special committee to help resolve its Monsanto glyphosate litigation.

Bayer’s share price rose with the potential settlement news. InsuranceJournal.com further reported that a fund manager at Union Investment, one of Bayer‘s largest German shareholders, said the higher share price was likely buffeted by some stockholders anticipating an earlier settlement.

“Investors want more certainty as quickly as possible,” said Mark Manns. “But it is for management to weigh up a quick settlement against how many billions you could save by holding out [for a later settlement].” Mr. Manns added that Bayer‘s negotiation position for now was “highly unfavorable.”

13,400 Roundup (Glyphosate) Lawsuits

Bayer acquired Monsanto for $63 billion just before the first verdict against Roundup hit the company – a $289 million judgement for a California groundskeeper in August 2018. Bayer now faces more than 13,400 plaintiffs who allege Monsanto’s glyphosate weed killer caused their cancer. The corporate giant still contests that claim, despite the company’s 0-3 record in defending its Roundup poison, which is used to kill weeds and anything else not genetically modified to withstand its toxic assault, including indispensable flora in the human gut. The company also lost an $80 million verdict and a $2 billion verdict.

Another major German shareholder, Deka Investment, said that Bayer’s hiring more legal expertise was “the right step,” as the move also acknowledged shareholder criticism.

Elliott Associates, which holds  Bayer shares worth 1.1 billion euros ($1.25 billion), said that Bayer’s recent moves help resolve uncertainty linked to glyphosate and help lead to settlements with limited financial costs.

Major shareholders have criticized Bayer for its handling of the Monsanto glyphosate issue; they gave Bayer’s top management a vote of disapproval at its April 2019 annual general meeting.

One of the company’s top shareholders, Janus Henderson, welcomed the measures taken by Bayer as “sensible.” He said they may lead to an earlier-than-expected settlement.

Mr. Henderson said he expects Bayer will lose its next glyphosate trial, which is scheduled for this month in Monsanto’s old hometown of St. Louis, Missouri.

Like Bayer, Henderson is banking on the appeal processes starting later in the year  He said that process “represents [Bayer’s] best chance to change momentum in sentiment.”

Bayer CEO may drive Monsanto Roundup Settlement

The best financial scenario for Bayer at present seems to be an affordable settlement deal which allows farmers continued use of Roundup products.  But nothing is assured. The best we can hope for is that the justice system moves quickly.  People and their families injured by Roundup deserve compensation for their losses. Monsanto failed to warn them of glyphosate’s terrible toll. The company must now compensate those whom they failed to treat as sentient human beings put in harm’s way by Roundup and glyphosate.

Related

Share

Costco quits selling Roundup

(July 22, 2019) Costco announced this summer that it will quit selling Roundup.  A Costco spokesperson announced May 29 that the company is not planning to sell Monsanto’s best-selling concoction this season. Some 12,000 Roundup lawsuits now plague the beleaguered chemical company.

Costco’s decision came shortly after Monsanto lost its third straight trial tying Roundup to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A Costco spokesperson announced: “Costco is constantly reviewing its (product) lineup, and is not planning to sell RoundUp this season.”

The announcement came closely on the heels of Monsanto’s latest trial loss over Roundup, a $2.055 million verdict for a couple who both developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma following years of Roundup exposure. Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a couple in their seventies, have both been diagnosed with lymphoma. Alva suffers from a non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that has moved into his bones and spine. Alberta has brain cancer linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The decision not to carry RoundUp is not one that most giant box stores have followed. Home Depot, Walmart, Target, Kroger and others continue to sell Monsanto’s toxic pesticide despite the many Roundup lawsuits which followed cancer warnings issued by the World Health Organization. In 2015, the WHO declared that glyphosate – Roundup’s only listed active ingredient, despite much evidence that shows Roundup’s surfactants greatly increase the toxicity of the entire Roundup cocktail – is a “probable carcinogen. ” The WHO arrived at its conclusion after reviewing approximately 1000 independent studies, none of which were sponsored by Monsanto.

Retailers that sold people Roundup have not been named so far in the lawsuits against Monsanto, nor has the U.S. EPA, which regulates (if one can call it that) Roundup and glyphosate for consumer, commercial or agricultural use. So far, most Roundup lawsuit petitions have not named any of these peripheral parties in the more than 12,000 new lawsuits that have been filed to date against Bayer AG, which now owns Monsanto.

Curiously, the U.S. EPA first banned glyphosate more than 30 years ago, then inexplicably reversed its decision. Roundup remains on most shelves today despite the growing body of scientific evidence linking Roundup and lymphoma, along with Monsanto’s three huge legal losses over the product. The company is now 0-3 in Roundup cancer trials.

Meanwhile, Monsanto and Bayer AG continue to repeat their claim that “four decades of extensive science” prove Roundup is safe. Recent evidence suggests, however, that at least some of that “science” may have been forged. Unsealed documents released as part of another court case suggest Monsanto may have faked its own safety studies to produce its own corrupt science.

According to US Right to Know,the third Roundup-cancer case to go to trial  revealed several damning facts about Monsanto.  They include:

  • Monsanto spent millions of dollars to develop covert PR campaigns. The money financed ghostwritten studies and stories aimed at discrediting independent scientists whose work found Monsanto’s poison products were not as safe as Monsanto advertised them to be.
  • When the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry sought to evaluate glyphosate toxicity in 2015, Monsanto engaged the assistance of EPA officials to delay that review.
  • Monsanto enjoyed a close relationship with certain industry-compromised EPA officials who have repeatedly backed Monsanto assertions about the safety of its glyphosate products.
  • Monsanto’s internal worker safety recommendations called for wearing a full range of protective gear when applying glyphosate herbicides; but Monsanto failed to warn the public to do the same.
  • As part of the third trial, evidence showed Monsanto hired a corporate intelligence company “to take the temperature on current regulatory attitudes for glyphosate.” That company’s report indicated that a domestic policy advisor at the White House said: “We have Monsanto’s back on pesticides regulation. We are prepared to go toe-to-toe on any disputes they may have with, for example, the EU. Monsanto need not fear any additional regulation from this administration.”

Monsanto\EPA Collusion

Other shocking news also came out of the third trial against Monsanto: emails were released showing EPA officials may have colluded with Monsanto to help slow the release of the dangers of the pesticide from the public. EPA also fed Monsanto consistent updates.

So why does the EPA continue to allow the sale of Roundup?  Why do many retailers continuing to sell it, given glyphosate’s research-based link to genetic damageAlzheimer’s disease, and a wide range of other health issues that include ADHD, Alzheimer’s Disease, autism, birth defects, celiac disease, colitis, heart disease, inflammatory bowel syndrome, kidney disease, liver disease, Parkinson’s Disease?

Glyphosate Unsafe at any Dose

Another study released by the US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) Education Fund, cites research that shows as little as 1 part per trillion of glyphosate can stimulate breast cancer and disrupt the body’s delicate hormonal system.

The Global Glyphosate Study found that the so-called “safe” amounts set by the EPA aren’t actually safe at all and are instead linked to microbiome imbalances and DNA damage. A microbiome is the sum of all the microbes in the body. It differs from person to person, creating a sort of microscopic “fingerprint.” While our understanding of microbiomes is still new and incomplete, an imbalanced microbiome may be a risk factor for many possible diseases.

Fourth Roundup Trial

The fourth Roundup cancer trial is slated for this fall in St. Louis, Monsanto’s hometown.

Related

Share

Judge calls Monsanto “reprehensible,” refuses to toss Jury Verdict

 (July 16, 2019) Calling Monsanto “reprehensible” for concealing the cancerous hazards of Roundup, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria refused to toss out a jury verdict against the chemical giant this week.

Judge Chhabria oversaw the Roundup trial in which a jury, in March 2019, ordered Monsanto to pay Ed Hardeman $80 million.

Monsanto more concerned with silencing safety concerns than ensuring Roundup Safe

The judge said a punitive award is appropriate because trial evidence “easily supported a conclusion that Monsanto was more concerned with tamping down safety inquiries and manipulating public opinion than it was with ensuring its product is safe.”

Mr. Hardeman alleged in his 2016 lawsuit petition that he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after spraying Roundup for 26 years around his 56-acre property. His northern California land included hiking trails dotted with poison oak, which Mr. Hardeman said he dosed heavily with Roundup. Then he woke one morning with a golf-ball sized lump on his neck, and was soon diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, around Christmas 2014.  Monsanto’s lawyers say he has been in remission for four years after taking chemo “therapy.”

In reviewing the case at Monsanto’s request, the judge did agree this week to reduce the $80 million verdict to $25 million. He said he found the punitive damages award “unreasonably high.” At the same time, Judge Chhabria said he agreed with the plaintiff’s side that the roughly $5 million in compensatory damages awarded to Ed Hardeman was sufficiently supported by the trial evidence. However, the judge called the jury’s $75 million punitive damages award against the Bayer AG unit “constitutionally impermissible.”

Judge: Monsanto’s Conduct Reprehensible

“The jury’s punitive damages award was approximately 15 times the size of the compensatory damages award,” said the judge. “Monsanto’s conduct, while reprehensible, does not warrant a ratio of that magnitude, particularly in the absence of evidence showing intentional concealment of a known or obvious safety risk.”

Judge Chhabria found that the $75 million in punitive damages exceeded the constitutional limit set by the due process clause which prohibits “grossly excessive” punitive damages. He reduced the punitive damages award to $20 million, which changed the total amount to around $25.3 million.

The California jury unanimously found Monsanto liable for failing to warn that glyphosate, Roundup’s only listed active ingredient, could cause cancer. The jury awarded Mr. Hardeman more than $80 million, shocking the chemical giant in the first federal bellwether trial.

Jury Unanimous over Failure to Warn, Negligence, Design Defect
After deliberating for a day, five women and one man found Monsanto liable on a failure-to-warn claim, a negligence claim, and a design defect claim. The six awarded Mr. Hardeman $200,967 in economic damages, roughly $5 million in future and past noneconomic damages, $75 million in punitive damages.

Bayer spokesperson Christopher Loder called Judge Chhabria’s decision to slash the punitive damages award a “step in the right direction.” Mr. Loder also repeated again Monsanto’s oft-repeated claim that the damage awards are not supported by “reliable evidence and conflict with both the weight of the extensive science that supports the safety of Roundup, and the conclusions of leading health regulators in the U.S. and around the world that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.” He also said that Bayer plans to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit.

Judge rejects Monsanto Bid to Toss Jury Verdict

On July 12, Judge Chhabria denied Monsanto’s bid for a new trial. He said there was no reason to overturn the jury’s verdict on Mr. Hardeman’s design defect claim because sufficient evidence supported a finding that Roundup is defective under California law when sold without a warning.

The judge also rejected Monsanto’s argument that the jury saw an “inaccurate view” of the scientific and regulatory landscape around Roundup.

Judge: Monsanto limited Evidence, made its own bed
“This argument is fundamentally about the scope of the trial,” the judge said. “While Monsanto is correct that the jury wasn’t presented with the entire regulatory landscape, that is primarily a function of the evidentiary parameters Monsanto itself requested, and was largely granted, in response to motions in limine.”

Monsanto is also fighting two other huge trial losses over Roundup. Prior to Mr. Hardeman’s March 2019 verdict, an August 2018 trial resulted in a $289 million judgment against Monsanto for school groundskeeper DeWayne Johnson, a verdict later slashed to $78 million. In the third Roundup trial, in May 2019, a jury awarded a husband and wife a $2.055 billion verdict. Alva and Alberta Pilliods’ case is one of approximately 13,400 pending. Most are consolidated in multidistrict litigation (MDL Court) before Judge Chhabria.

Judge calls Monsanto “reprehensible,” refuses to toss Jury Verdict

The case is Hardeman v. Monsanto Co. et al., case number 3:16-cv-00525, and the MDL is In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, case number 3:16-md-02741, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Related

 

Share

Monsanto Money Buys Science

(July 12, 2019) Monsanto money buys science. The embodiment of the way Monsanto works to buy whatever scientific “expert” opinions it needs is readily seen in the person of one Dr. Nina V. Federoff. This woman has been outed as a shameless industry shill by Stacy Malkan of U.S. Right to Know. Ms. Malkan’s exposé titled, “Nina Fedoroff: Mobilizing the authority of American science to back Monsanto” is an impressive piece of journalism in an age when good journalism grows increasingly rare. Most journalism simply does not pay well unless one writes for Monsanto or some other corporation that can afford to pay a  promoter like Henry I. Miller or shameless others of his ilk.

Ms. Malkan follows the money to show just how Dr. Federoff has, for years, served her Monsanto and GMO benefactors. The doctor does so by never divulging the fact that she has been rewarded in one form or another by Monsanto and other corporations of its ilk that promote the genetically modified (Read: genetically perverted) food industry.  For more on the subject, please see “Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives, based on a book of the same name by Jeffrey M. Smith.

Ms. Malkan demonstrates how Dr. Federoff has promoted chemical industry giants like Monsanto, as well as all things GMO, while posing as a disinterested third-party “expert.” Federoff has done her work for Monsanto – like the execrable Michael Taylor before her – not only by moving through the revolving door that runs between government “service” and industry employment, but also by posing as someone with a talent for the truth when it comes to Monsanto and genetically perverted food.

Dr. Federoff is a perfect example of all that is rancid and wrong in Washington D.C. She does her dirty work in the dark for an industry that makes its money by killing things, and she does it while pretending to work in the light as a disinterested third party. A principal factor in her duplicity is her failure to disclose her industry ties, her vested interest in promoting Monsanto and GMOs. She routinely pretends to operate independently of her corporate benefactors. She virtually never reveals who is paying her to promote (or defend) Monsanto and GMOs, but her ruse begins to unravel when every position she ever held has been nothing but a promotion for the chemical and GMO industries that poison the world with toxic pesticides like Roundup.

Using the AAAS to advance agrichemical industry policy objectives

As Ms. Malkan reports, during her 2011-2012 run as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and as Chair of the Board of Directors from 2012-2013, Dr. Fedoroff worked with agrichemical industry allies to advance key policy objectives. She worked to keep genetically engineered foods unlabeled. She worked to defeat a proposal by the U.S. EPA that would have required additional data on the health and environmental impacts of genetically engineered crops which are classified as pesticides. She wants us eating pesticides without our knowing it, wants us blindly eating without question or knowledge whatever her corporate benefactors choose to “produce.”

AAAS helped persuade voters to oppose GMO labeling

In 2012, the AAAS Board of Directors under Dr. Fedoroff’s chairmanship, moved to convince California voters to vote against GMO-food labeling. California’s Proposition 37 was a ballot initiative to label GMOs. A review of the many political statements made by AAAS found no other examples of the organization trying to influence voters ahead of a state election. The AAAS and Dr. Fedoroff refused to respond to USRTK requests for comment. USRTK works to promote labeling,which 90 percent of U.S. citizens polled have said they prefer.

The AAAS board’s statement opposing GMO labeling contained inaccuracies, according to longtime AAAS members. Several of them denounced the anti-labeling statement as a “paternalistic” attack on consumer rights that misled the public by omitting important scientific and regulatory context.

AAAS goes to Bat for Industry

Curious similarities appeared in language used by the AAAS and the industry-funded campaign to defeat Proposition 37. “Is a major science group stumping for Monsanto?” Michele Simon asked in Grist. Ms. Simon, noted Ms. Malkan, described the board’s statement as “non-scientific but very quote-worthy,” and noted that the accompanying AAAS press release contained “talking points” that matched No on 37 campaign literature.

AAAS Lack of Transparency

In a 2013 letter to Science magazine, another group of 11 scientists raised concerns that the AAAS board’s statement on GMO foods “could backfire.” They wrote, “we are concerned that AAA’s position represents a poorly informed approach to communicating science …  appearing to be less than transparent is a really bad idea for the scientific community.”

Dr. Fedoroff was an early supporter of the industry-backed “‘No’ on 37” campaign. She was listed on an industry website in June 2012 as one of four scientists representing the “scientific and academic community” who opposed GMO labeling. The industry campaign later asked Dr. Fedoroff to help recruit more academics to their cause, which she did, according to an October 1, 2012 email to Meghan Callahan of BCF Public Affairs.

Helped kill data requirements for pesticide-producing plants

While serving as AAAS president in 2011, Dr. Fedoroff worked with agrichemical industry allies and an industry lobbyist to stop the U.S. EPA from requiring companies to provide additional health and safety data for genetically engineered foods that are classified as pesticides. The USRTK web site presents detailed emails showing just how low Dr. Fedoroff was willing to go to please her corporate masters.

Please see Ms. Malkan’s entire US Right to Know story to see just how Dr. Fedoroff operates at the behest of Monsanto and others.  Her being outed by USRTK is one more nail in Monsanto’s coffin as it tries to continue fooling the public regarding its carcinogenic Roundup and its promotion of toxic GMO “food.”

Related

Share

Fourth Roundup Trial set for Monsanto’s Hometown

(July 9, 2019) After losing the first three Roundup trials by decisive, unanimous jury verdicts in California, Monsanto is set to face its fourth Roundup trial next month in the company’s hometown. Whether Roundup cancer plaintiffs or Monsanto will enjoy any edge in a Roundup trial staged in St. Louis is an open question.

Which side has the edge in St. Louis?

Some may feel the plaintiff’s side has the edge in St. Louis. Unlike the three California trials, Monsanto employees can be forced to appear on the witness stand in the Missouri venue. In addition, recent legal history at the gateway to the West has seen several juries levy large verdicts against corporate defendants.

On the other hand, Monsanto has donated lots of (tax deductible) monies to local charities, and it may be difficult for the plaintiff’s side to find a juror in the area who either hasn’t worked for the chemical giant, or who doesn’t know a family member, friend, or acquaintance who has.

Plaintiff Sharlean Gordon

The plaintiff in the fourth trial is Sharlean Gordon, a cancer-stricken woman in her 50s. Her case – Gordon v. Monsanto – begins Aug. 19 in St. Louis County Circuit Court. The venue is located just a few miles from the St. Louis-area campus that long functioned as Monsanto’s world headquarters, until Bayer bought Monsanto in June 2018. Ms. Gordon’s case was filed in July 2017, in a petition that includes more than 75 plaintiffs. Hers is the first case in the first group in St. Louis to go to trial.

According to her lawsuit petition, Ms. Gordon purchased Roundup and used it for at least 15 continuous years, through approximately 2017. She was diagnosed with a form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2006.  She has suffered two stem cell transplants, and, at one point in her treatment, spent a year in a nursing home. She is now so debilitated that it is difficult for her to walk or even  move at all.

Roundup-non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Link

Sharlean Gordon’s case — like that of some 12,000 others filed around the U.S. — alleges that using Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused her to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Ms. Gordon’s lawyer called the evidence against Monsanto, along with the company’s conduct, “the most outrageous I’ve seen in my 30 years of doing this. (The) things that have gone on here, I want St. Louis juries to hear this stuff.”

Ms. Gordon’s trial will be followed by a September 9 jury trial also set for St. Louis County, in a case brought by plaintiffs Maurice Cohen and Burrell Lamb.

Monsanto 0-3 vs. Roundup Plaintiffs

The August and September trials follow a stunning $2 billion jury verdict decided against Monsanto on May 13, 2019. In that case, an Oakland, California jury awarded married couple Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who both suffer from cancer, $55 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion each in punitive damages.

Monsanto Covered Up Evidence

The Pilliod trial jury found that Monsanto has spent years covering up evidence that Roundup, along with its only listed active ingredient – glyphosate – cause cancer.

That latest ($2 Billion) verdict came just over a month after a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $80 million in damages to Edwin Hardeman, who also developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup. In the first Roundup trial last summer in San Francisco, a jury ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million to groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson. Mr. Johnson was diagnosed with terminal cancer after he used Monsanto’s top-selling poisons in his school groundskeeper’s job.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers in the California cases were unable to compel Monsanto scientists and executives to testify because they had to travel more than 100 miles or out of the state where they live or work. In St. Louis, that dynamic changes dramatically. Plaintiffs’ attorneys in the St. Louis trials plan to subpoena several Monsanto scientists to appear on the witness stand to answer questions directly in front of a jury.

Monsanto / Bayer Investor Confidence Shattered

The three huge trial losses have left Monsanto and its German owner Bayer AG under heavy criticism from angry investors and shareholders. Monsanto’s unsettled investors have pushed share prices to their lowest levels in nearly seven years. Monsanto’s poison Roundup problems have erased more than 40 percent of Bayer’s market value.

Some angry investors are calling for Bayer CEO Werner Baumann’s head. Mr. Baumann pushed for Bayer’s Monsanto acquisition, which closed in June 2018 just as the first Roundup trial was starting.

Bayer maintains that no valid evidence proves a cancer causation link with Monsanto’s herbicides. Bayer says it believes it will win on appeal. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, however, has ordered Bayer to begin mediation talks aimed at potentially settling the sprawling mass of lawsuits that includes roughly 13,400 plaintiffs in the United States alone.

All the plaintiffs are cancer victims or family members of same. All allege Monsanto engaged in a plethora of deceptive tactics to hide the risks of its poison herbicides. Charges include Monsanto’s manipulating the scientific record with ghostwritten studies, colluding with regulators, using outside people and organizations to promote the safety of Monsanto products while making sure they appeared to be acting independently of the company.

Roundup Lawsuits in Canada

Meanwhile, the Roundup litigation that began in the U.S has crossed into Canada. A Saskatchewan farmer leads  a class action lawsuit against Bayer and Monsanto. His allegations mirror those brought in the U.S. lawsuits.

Related

Share

Monsanto Manipulation Machine bared (Bayered)

(June 4, 2019) The Monsanto manipulation machine has been bared (or Bayered) by Carey Gilliam and several other journalists the company has attacked for questioning the safety of Monsanto’s products.  Internal company emails and documents reveal an elaborate campaign to attack independent journalists who have uncovered Monsanto’s endless campaigns to fool the public about the nature and safety of pesticides like Roundup and the company’s genetically-modified “food.” The document trail shows how Monsanto attacks some journalists and manipulates others. It all depends on whether those individuals report the truth of Roundup’s fraudulent acceptance by the EPA and the weed killer’s links to cancer, or whether they help Monsanto maintain its captured-regulatory cloak of legitimacy and the alleged indispensability of the company’s poison products.

Monsanto Misinformation Unmasked

Monsanto has been unmasked in the Roundup cancer litigation as a master purveyor of misinformation and propaganda.  Independent journalists such as Carey Gilliam (author of the shocking Monsanto exposé Whitewash) and others have discovered that Monsanto has set up several entities it disguises as “objective” organizations comprised of professional “experts” or academic “scientists.” The company creates these cutouts to pose as purveyors of truth in a narrative they sell as a world gone mad with “lawyer-driven litigation.”

Roundup Lawsuits plague Monsanto

Roundup cancer lawsuits now plague Monsanto like its Roundup-generated super weeds plague more and more farm fields. More than 13,400 suits have been filed so far. The company’s response to its trouble is the same in the media as it is in the fields – to throw more poison at it. Or in the case of the Roundup information war, to spread ever-increasing amounts of vitriol.

And when that approach fails, as it has repeatedly in every Roundup cancer trial so far, Monsanto moves to just flat-out lie, to tell the people and the judges trying the cases that the science is proven, that hundreds of  legitimate, worthwhile studies show Roundup is safe, that all the world’s regulatory agencies agree that Roundup is safe and doesn’t cause cancer, with the outlier exception of the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

And then this company has the gall to again and again lean on the U.S. EPA’s failure to identify Roundup as a probable carcinogen. It leans on the EPA even when internal emails from key employees of that agency have been outed as all but colluding with Monsanto to stifle safety testing. And then add in the fact that the EPA first green-lighted Roundup on the basis of studies done by a company convicted of fraud for promoting phony studies. Monsanto has built a house of cards, and the wind is blowing toward Missouri.
Three Juries, Three Unanimous Verdicts against Monsanto

All of Monsanto’s propaganda may play well with the company’s friends in Washington D.C. and with the unawares public, but people who have seen real evidence have danced to a different tune than the off-key repetition of Monsanto’s Roundup defense. All three juries in the three Roundup-cancer trials so far have ruled unanimously that Monsanto’s best-selling weed killer Roundup causes cancer. Those juries have all done so despite a massive undertaking by Monsanto to attack  journalists and scientists who question Roundup’s safety profile, while leading and/or rewarding those who help defend the company.

Over the past year, evidence of Monsanto’s deceptive efforts to defend the safety of its top-selling Roundup herbicide has been bared for all to see. Through the three civil trials – one in federal and two in state courts –public release of Monsanto’s internal communications has revealed conduct that all three juries have found so unethical as to warrant large punitive damage awards.

Monsanto Ghostwriting, Regulator Collusion, Media Manipulation

Internal emails have shown how Monsanto scientists casually discuss ghostwriting scientific papers and suppressing any science that contradicts the company’s strident defense of Roundup. Internal documents have also revealed cozy relationships with regulators that suggest collusion.

These documents – which Monsanto fought hard to keep confidential – also give a taste of  Monsanto’s media deceptions, beyond the company’s now well-known policy of manipulating science and regulators. Carey Gilliam of U.S. Right to Know reports that the documents show Monsanto’s most insidious deceit yet may be its strategic manipulation of the media.

Monanto Consultant poses as Reporter

Ms. Gilliam writes, “We recently learned that a young woman falsely posing as a freelance BBC reporter at one of the Roundup cancer trials was in fact a ‘reputation management’ consultant for FTI Consulting, whose clients include Monsanto. The woman spent time with journalists who were covering the Hardeman v Monsanto trial in San Francisco, pretending to do reporting while also suggesting to the real reporters certain storylines or points that favored Monsanto.”

Monsanto publishes “Objective” Academics Review

Monsanto enlisted Reuters, a mainstream publication, to manufacture a story which attacked a member of the IARC which declared Roundup a probably carcinogen in 2015. According to Carey Gilliam, a Reuters reporter for 17 years, Monsanto used an organization called Academics Review to publish two scathing articles about Ms. Gilliam’s work at Reuters when she wrote about Monsanto’s GMO crops and Roundup. Monsanto complained that the reporter should not be including the views of Monsanto’s critics.  Academics Review trumpeted those complaints under the guise of being an independent association.

Internal Monsanto documents show Academics Review is the brainchild of Monsanto. It was designed to respond to “scientific concerns and allegations” while “keeping Monsanto in the background so as not to harm the credibility of the information,” as Ms.Gilliam noted that one November 2010 email from Monsanto executive Eric Sachs stated. According to a March 11, 2010 email chain, Academics Review was established with the help of a former director of corporate communications at Monsanto who set up his own public relations shop and a former vice president of a biotech industry trade association of which Monsanto was a member.

Monsanto’s American Council on Science and Health

Monsanto also likes to point to the American Council on Science and Health as an arbiter of Roundup evidence and all things GMO, but ACSH is anything but a disinterested party. Internal documents show Monsanto money and marching orders behind the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). This entity absurdly claims to be independent of industry while it publishes articles attacking journalists and scientists whose work contradicts Monsanto’s agenda. And the crying shame is that sham articles written by Monsanto’s ACSH have appeared in USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes.

Ms. Gilliam writes:  “ACSH has published several articles aimed at discrediting not just me but also Pulitzer-prize-winning New York Times reporter Eric Lipton, who ACSH calls a “science birther”, and former New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom, who ACSH accused of “irresponsible journalism” shortly before she left the paper. Both reporters had written articles exposing concerns about Monsanto. The New York Times’ Danny Hakim has also been targeted by ACSH for writing about Monsanto. “Danny Hakim Is Lying To You,” reads one of several posts by ACSH about Hakim.”

Internal Monsanto emails show ACSH seeking and receiving financial commitments from Monsanto. One email string from 2015 between the company and ACSH details the “unrestricted” financial support ACSH desires while laying out the “impacts” across social media ACSH is achieving. “Each and every day we work hard to prove our worth to companies like Monsanto…” the ACSH email states. A separate email chain among Monsanto executives states “You WILL NOT GET A BETTER VALUE FOR YOUR DOLLAR than ACSH.”

Monsanto Manipulation Machine bared (Bayered)

How legitimate are publications like USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes when they are willing to not only conceal Monsanto’s ties to dummy organizations like ACSH, but also  to help promote the same myths Monsanto writes about itself in publications across the world?  Judges and juries are figuring this company out. If they can wade through the well-paid-for propaganda Monsanto continues to unleash in mainstream publications, the rest of the country will eventually figure it all out, too.

Related

 

Share

Roundup Cocktail threatens Monsanto

The Roundup cocktail that has killed living things for decades now threatens its Monsanto creator.  One is reminded of Macbeth’s pausing to consider the fallout before he murders Duncan: “That we but teach bloody instructions which, being taught, return to plague the inventor.”  Monsanto has taught a lot of bloody instructions through the years, all over the world. And now the company that kills for a living may fast be approaching its day of reckoning, despite whatever its well-paid lawyers and executives endlessly repeat about jury appeals as the company loses each new trial in spectacular fashion.

Or consider a Frankenstein metaphor – Monsanto as mad scientist creating an ugly monster that destroys its creator. All metaphors break down on close inspection, but this one might not be hyperbole, given the enormous verdicts against Monsanto that Roundup has wrought so far.  What seemed unthinkable just six months or a year ago is now eminently thinkable: The toxic Roundup cocktail may yet destroy its creator. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Bayer is worth less now than the $63 billion it paid for Monsanto about a year ago.

The WSJ wrote on Monday, May 20, 2019:

“Bayer’s market capitalization has shrunk by more than 40% to roughly $59.13 billion. Worried that liabilities from the weedkiller are going to rise, investors have abandoned the stock, sending the shares into a downward spiral.”

Monsanto loses a third Roundup Trial, now 0-3 against Roundup Users

The latest Roundup trial – which brought a staggering $2 Billion verdict against Monsanto – has revealed to the world the glaring EPA loophole which allowed Monsanto to unleash Roundup on the world. It is a loophole that was clearly designed by chemical industry executives working through  back doors with “our” government regulators.  It was clearly not designed by regulators working first and foremost with the health of the public, the birds, bees, animals, and the land in mind. This glaring loophole has helped corporations escape liability in most environmental or product liability cases for many decades.

The Glyphosate Loophole

The regulatory loophole is so large and glaring that it is difficult to imagine it being allowed by any sane agency, government, or people. This loophole allows a company to list and test for safety only whatever that company decides to call an “active ingredient.” Roundup, as well as virtually any pesticide or poison you can think of (including the fluorosilicic acid dumped into most of the nation’s drinking water), has a twisted and tortured regulatory history.  In the case of Roundup, Monsanto was allowed to tell the EPA that glyphosate is its only active ingredient, and that the others were virtually irrelevant. The company had gotten away with that ruse – using a see-no-evil, speak-no-evil, hear-no-evil EPA – since the 1970s. All that has finally changed with the Roundup trials. The world is apparently waking up as juries are finally being allowed to hear the truth. The EPA classifies an ingredient as “inert” if it does not do the actual weed-killing, but that classification doesn’t mean the ingredient is not relevant, or doesn’t make the entire cocktail more toxic.

Inert Ingredients Matter

The obvious truth is that ALL the ingredients in a given toxic cocktail matter. The truth is that a company’s calling an ingredient “inert” doesn’t necessarily make it so. That’s what three juries have discovered as Monsanto has lost all three trials over Roundup so far – for $289 million, $80 million, and $2 billion. Monsanto has lost those trials principally because all three juries have been able to hear evidence of how the entire toxic cocktail called Roundup is at least 50x more toxic than glyphosate alone. (Who’d have thunk it? Not the US EPA, which still backs Monsanto.)  As the Pilliods’ lawyer put it before the jury which reached the $2.06 billion verdict, Roundup isn’t just glyphosate. It includes other “highly more toxic” components that “have a synergistic effect with glyphosate.”

University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias noted: “The trial judge let in a lot more in the third trial than [was let in] in the first two.  (It) seems like they heard more, and more of it was bad.”

Roundup Ingredient banned in Europe

Mr. Tobias noted that Alameda Superior Court Judge Winifred could again allow plaintiffs to reveal to the jury that a surfactant in the toxic Roundup cocktail, polyoxyethylene tallow amine, known as POEA, is banned in Europe.  POEA helps the Roundup liquid spread across leaves’ waxy surfaces and coat them instead of beading up. The Pilliod case jury was the first to learn of the European ban.  Just as it coats living plants, Roundup coats the human skin in similar fashion, then leeches into the bones and the lymph, where it triggers non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Just as the plants are unable to uptake vitamins and minerals to keep them alive after Roundup surfactants attach and attack, eating Roundup-contaminated GMO food attacks the human gut and damages its ability to uptake needed nutrients.

(Many obese and even morbidly obese people are sadly living nutrient-deprived lives as a result.  No matter how much they eat, they are sadly always hungry because their bodies are unable to uptake vital nutrients.)

Monsanto Rebuttal

Monanto’s lawyers’ rebuttal at trial was to claim that dozens of studies were done on surfactants and that they were all found safe. What entities performed those studies, what company paid for them, and how they were designed were all questions that came up in court and were tackled by the plaintiff’s side. Again and again plaintiffs showed in all three trials that Monsanto paid for virtually all of the studies which suggest Roundup might be safe to use. Monsanto lawyers, meanwhile, repeated over and over that hundreds of studies have shown glyophosate is safe, though virtually all of those studies were done by Monsanto or were paid for my Monsanto, or were done by scientists or researchers with vested interests in Monsanto.

The Pilliods’ lead attorney Brent Wisner told the jury that Monsanto knew for a long time that combining glyphosate with the surfactant is more genotoxic and has a “synergistic effect.” He said Monsanto knew as much as early as 2000, that the company had heard it from a consultant whose findings Monsanto then dismissed for not helping support the company.

Internal Monsanto emails showed Monsanto religiously avoided switching to a known safer surfactant in the U.S. for fear that the change would look like an acknowledgement that Roundup  was dangerous.  Switching would have alerted the world, leading to Roundup bans everywhere, and it might have led to the exact types of lawsuits the company now finds itself fighting.

Monsanto claimed the change in Roundup’s European formula was for “market tastes.”  The jury clearly didn’t buy it.

Related

Share