Monsanto Papers | Secret Documents | Page Nine 2017-10-10T10:33:58+00:00

Monsanto Papers | Secret Documents | Page Nine

Issue: Regulatory & Government

82. Email Detailing Mark Martens’ Contributions: Developed Data to Gain EU Support Reporting Roundup Genotoxicity “Due to Secondary Consequences Unrelated to Glyphosate…”
No: MONGLY00905589
Date: 1/3/2002
Documents Released: 3/15/2017

Description
This document contains an email from Monsanto research scientist Stephen G. Rogers to colleagues regarding the nomination of Dr. Mark Martens to the Monsanto Fellow’s Program. The email lists among Dr. Martens’ most important contributions: “Developed the data to gain key EU scientific support that the reported genotoxicity of Roundup herbicide was due to secondary consequences unrelated to glyphosate, thereby preventing adverse effect on Roundup business.”

83. Internal Email Shows Richard Garnett’s (Monsanto EU) Long History Dealing with Issues Involving Roundup
No:  MONGLY06414231
Date: 9/23/2002
Documents Released: 3/15/2017

Description
This document contains an email correspondence that confirms Richard Garnett was assigned the task of “coordinator and filter for glyphosate issues in Europe…” Among Garnett’s listed responsibilities – assemble a team to “kill” issues related to glyphosate that popped up in the scientific literature. This job was created in response to the Sea Urchin study which showed that the Roundup ingredients acted synergistically to affect cell cycle regulation. Marc, et al. Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/cyclin B activation, Chem Res Toxicol. 2002 Mar;15(3):326-31.

84. Custodial File for Dr. Mark Martens, Former Monsanto Toxicology Director EU/Africa
No: MONGLY01870235 – MONGLY01870247
Date: unknown
Documents Released: 3/15/2017

Description
This document is the custodial file for Dr. Mark Martens, Monsanto’s Toxicology Director, Europe/Africa from 1994 to approximately 2004. The document describes Martens’ job duties as “gathering (i.e. literature search, Monsanto studies, and commissioning of toxicology studies in contract laboratories), selection and interpretation of health effects data within the European regulatory context … positioning of cancer classification issues of herbicides … and registration defense of Monsanto’s pesticides in EU member states…”

85. Richard Garnett Put in Charge of ‘Protecting Tallow Amine Formulations’ in Europe
No:  MONGLY06449761
Date: 7/11/2008
Documents Released: 3/15/2017

Description
This document contains email correspondence wherein Richard Garnett is described as being put in charge of protecting “tallow amine formulations” in Europe and to counter allegations of “synergistic effects of tallow amine with glyphosate.” Garnett was also key to managing issues with the toxicity of surfactants that have regularly arisen in Europe, but not the United States. Monsanto uses tallow amine as a surfactant in both Europe and the U.S., but Europe has been more vigilant in regulating this toxic chemical which is being banned later this year.

86. Email Confirms Monsanto’s Efforts to Overcome Regulatory Hurdles Using Political Influence
No:  MONGLY01061857
Date: 2/18/2009 – 2/22/2009
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel wherein Richard Garnett states the following with respect to gaining favorable regulatory assessment using in-vitro data: “Cannot win the battle on science alone (40% science : 60% politics) – need an experimental front, supported by a critical review of the literature, and a communication campaign to promote the message. Goal: ‘the regulatory authority must have no doubts’”. at *1.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it evinces the strategy adopted by Monsanto to overcome regulatory hurdles using the effective deployment of political influence to ensure that regulatory authorities “have no doubts” regarding the safety of glyphosate.  Indeed, the extent to which Monsanto leveraged its intimate relations with regulatory officials to support the position that glyphosate is not carcinogenic has been an important feature of general causation discovery.  The document is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported “independence” of the EPA’s evaluation of glyphosate.

87. Email Correspondence Further Confirming Monsanto’s Close Ties with Former EPA Official, Jess Rowland
No:  MONGLY02162507
Date: 1/15/2010 – 1/16/2010
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document is an email correspondence between Dr. Donna Farmer and Steven Levine discussing the EPA Endocrine Disruption Program. Mr. Levine remarks that “They have made Gary Timm from OSCP [Office of Science Coordination and Policy] the head of the program at EPA NOT Jess Roland from OPP. This is not a good development and dramatically cuts our chance our chance for success.” at *1.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it confirms Monsanto’s intimate relationship with Mr. Rowland from the EPA who assisted Monsanto in circumventing the regulatory process, a central feature of Plaintiffs’ general causation discovery concerned with proving that that the safety of Roundup has not been assessed by an impartial Office of Pesticide Program at the EPA.  The document is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported “independence” of the EPA’s evaluation of glyphosate.  The document is relevant to the credibility of Dr. Farmer and Mr. Levine.

88. Text Messages Detailing Monsanto’s Collusion with EPA
No:  MONGLY03293245
Date: 2/11/2013 – 3/10/2016
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document contains text-message correspondence between Mr. Daniel Jenkins, various Monsanto employees, and various EPA officials regarding regulatory aspects of glyphosate.  In reference to the United States Department of Agriculture, Mr. Jenkins comments: “might want to tell them we’re going to need their support for glyphosate…We’re in for a tough ride[.]” at *2. Mr. Jenkins also comments: “Jess is doing a nice job at EPA[.]” at *1. Jennifer Listello asks: “Is there anyone we can get to in EPA?” at *3. With regard to IARC, Mr. Jenkins comments: “Got john to agree to talk about how we might work together on changing IARC communication[.]” at *4-5. Mr. Jenkins asks Ms. Mary Manibusan (formerly EPA and co-chair with Jess Rowland on CARC publication): “do you know folks at ATSDR in HHS?” Ms. Manibusan responds: “Yes. Where specifically…on Tox profiles?” After Mr. Jenkins confirms, Ms. Manibusan responds: “I know lots of people. You can count o[n] me.” Mr. Jenkins informs her that: “we’re trying to do everything we can to keep from having a domestic IARC occur w this group. may need your help… I’ll share some info, you tell me what you think we might be able to do, who you may know, etc ok?” to which Ms. Manibusan agrees. at *5. Mr. Jenkins also contacts Mr. Ty Vaughn: “I think we need to talk about a political level EPA strategy and then try to build a consensus plan w Michael on several fronts: glyphosate…we’re not in good shape and we need to make a plan[.]” at *6. Following text messaging with Mr. Jack Housenger (EPA), Mr. Jenkins comments: “Spoke to EPA: is going to conclude that IARC is wrong. So is EFSA….pushed them to make sure atsdr is aligned, said they would…they’re looking into getting a contact for me at cdc re bio monitoring” at *6-7.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it relates to Monsanto’s collusion with EPA officials (subject of extensive general causation discovery), the attempt to preclude glyphosate review by ATSDR through EPA contacts, and strategies for addressing the general causation conclusion by IARC.  It is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported “independence” of the EPA’s evaluation of glyphosate.  The document is also relevant to the credibility of Mr. Jenkins and other Monsanto personnel.

89. Monsanto EU Executive Richard Garnett Emails David Saltmiras, Hiroo Wakimori (Monsanto Japan) About TAC Study
No:  MONGLY01009950
Date: 10/10/2013
Documents Released: 3/14/2017

Description
“In response to our request to share the full report of mouse carcinogenicity study conducted with TAC’s material in order for us to include TAC’s data in the publication on glyphosate and cancer risk, TAC declined based on the lack of consensus among TAC members since FSC review is still underway and the original mouse data suggested some carcinogenic potential which was denied in the process of FSC review.”

90. Email from William Heydens to Dan Jenkins Discussing EPA Officials Going to IARC
No:  MONGLY00986901
Date: 2/20/2015
Documents Released: 3/14/2017

Description
In this document, William Heydens discusses EPA officials’ upcoming visit to IARC. Rowland is invited to participate in the IARC meeting as an observer. Heydens: “The 2 EPPA folks going as observers are Catherine Eiden & Jess Rowland. Catherine is a Special Assistant in the Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, and we all know Jess.”

91. Document Details Monsanto’s Goals After IARC Report – ‘Orchestrate Outcry with IARC Decision…’
No:  MONGLY02913526
Date: 2/23/2015
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document details a number of goals to be pursued by Monsanto prior to and following the anticipated IARC decision.  Under “Post-IARC”, the following objective is identified: “Orchestrate Outcry with IARC Decision a March 10, 2015”. at *5.

Relevance
This document is relevant and likely to be used in this litigation as it demonstrates Monsanto’s intention to discredit IARC prior to the 2A classification.  Following the classification, Monsanto galvanized a campaign to discredit and defund an international research agency which rendered a general causation opinion and found that it is biologically probable for glyphosate to act as a human carcinogen.

92. List of Studies IARC Relied on for Glyphosate Monograph
No:  MONGLY00947788
Date: 2/25/2015
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document contains a list of studies/articles/reports relied upon by both IARC and Monsanto in supporting and challenging the “2A Probable Human Carcinogen” classification respectively.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it indicates the scientific literature assessed by IARC and relied upon by Monsanto in discrediting the IARC general causation conclusion.

93. Monsanto Consultant Dr. Tom Sorahan Discusses Role as Observer on IARC Monograph 112 (Glyphosate)
No:  MONGLY00977035, MONGLY00977036
Date: 3/14/2015
Documents Released: 3/14/2017

Description
The documents contain correspondence between Dr. Tom Sorahan (Monsanto consultant), Donna Farmer (Monsanto Toxicologist) concerning the IARC Vol 112 Working Group. Dr. Sorahan, who was an observer for the 112 Monograph, told Farmer and others cc’d on the email: “…I think questions the epi sub-panel asked me about my recent multiple myeloma paper (Sorahan, 2015) were instrumental in not having multiple myeloma included on the charge sheet.”

94. PowerPoint Presentation Showing Monsanto’s Efforts to Influence State of California on Glyphosate ‘No Significant Risk Level’
No:  MONGLY03320237
Date: 3/24/2015
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document is a PowerPoint presented by Monsanto to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment on October 7, 2015 regarding the imposition of a No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for glyphosate as an exemption to the requirement under Proposition 65 that Roundup be labeled as known to the State of California to cause cancer following adoption by California of IARC’s classification.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it demonstrates efforts by Monsanto to limit OEHHA’s consideration of data in determining the appropriate NSRL to animal bioassays with high exposure doses, thus leading to the calculation of a high NSRL.  An exemption from the Proposition 65 labeling requirement would mean that Monsanto are able to avoid the practical effects (having to label Roundup as known to the state to cause cancer) of IARC’s general causation conclusion as adopted by OEHHA under proposition 65.  The document also contains admissions by Monsanto about whether glyphosate can cause cancer.

95. Internal Monsanto Document: Company Goals to ‘Invalidate Relevance of IARC’ and ‘Prevent Future Bad IARC Decisions…’
No:
  MONGLY03316369
Date: 3/24/2015
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document is titled: “IARC Follow Up Demonstrating Safety of Glyphosate” and details a number of goals including “invalidate relevance of IARC”; “prevent future bad IARC decisions on pesticides/GMOs”; and “Make sure determination doesn’t get more widely adopted within WHO”. at *1.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it confirms Monsanto’s intention to discredit an international research agency which rendered a general causation opinion that was adverse to Monsanto’s commercial agenda.

96. Internal Monsanto Email Further Confirming Relationship with Former EPA Official Jess Rowland
No:  MONGLY03327609
Date: 3/25/2015 – 4/27/2015
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto employees regarding the organization of a panel in collaboration with the International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).  Mr. Eric Sachs (Monsanto) proposes to “call Jess Rowland tomorrow” in order to enquire about Mr. Rowland’s availability as a panelist addressing “regulators more robust risk assessment process”. at *1. The panel was initiated in light of the “recent publicity about Round-up and cancer…” at *10.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it pertains to Monsanto’s relationship with Mr. Rowland (subject of extensive discovery during general causation stage) and efforts by Monsanto to address the general causation conclusion by IARC. The document is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported “independence” of the EPA’s evaluation of glyphosate.

97. Email Showing Monsanto’s Established Relationships with EPA Officials Involved with CARC Report on Glyphosate
No:  MONGLY01179968
Date: 3/30/2015 – 7/1/2015
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document contains email correspondence between Monsanto and former EPA Office of Pesticide Programs employee, Mary Manibusan (now exponent employee). Ms. Manibusan discusses her role as “co-chair with Jess Rowland” on the EPA CARC report; “lead toxicologist on a global pesticide review”; and service “on multiple internal review committees” in an attempt to “offer any assistance to support Monsanto product registrations and registration reviews” at *3.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it relates to Monsanto’s relationships with former EPA officials that were involved in producing the CARC report partially authored by Mr. Jess Rowland—a report which concluded that it is biologically improbable for glyphosate to act as a human carcinogen.  Indeed, Mr. Rowland, the circumstances of the CARC assessment, and the role of EPA officials following their tenure at the agency has featured extensively in general causation discovery.  This document lends support to the allegation that EPA officials, after aiding Monsanto at the agency, would then leave EPA and start working for Monsanto.

More Monsanto Papers: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10