Monsanto Papers | Secret Documents | Page Ten

This document contains email correspondence between Jack Housenger, Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA), Daniel Jenkins (Monsanto), and Dr. William Heydens (Monsanto). Mr. Housenger reports to Mr. Jenkins that he has spoken to individuals at the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), one of whom, the branch chief, Henry Abadin, “ended up saying that they would put glyphosate on hold holding the OPP risk assessment.” at *2. Dr. Heydens acknowledges with respect to the ATSDR decision to not review glyphosate: “hopefully that keeps them from doing anything too stupid.” at *1.

Relevance
The document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it demonstrates communications between Monsanto and regulatory agencies in furtherance of efforts to preclude evaluation of Roundup and glyphosate—a feature of general causation discovery in light of Mr. Jess Rowland’s (also from the OPP) collusive relationship with Monsanto. Further, the document is relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported “independence” of the EPA’s evaluation of glyphosate. The document is also relevant to credibility of Mr. Jenkins and Dr. Heydens.

102. Email from Monsanto Exec Dan Jenkins Acknowledging Jess Rowland’s Retirement from EPA, Says Rowland ‘Could be Useful’ on Glyphosate Defense
No: MONGLY03351983 – MONGLY03351985
Date: 9/3/2015
Documents Released: 3/14/2017

Description
These documents contain an email from Dan Jenkins in which he expresses prior knowledge of Jess Rowland’s retirement from EPA in 5-6 months/ Jenkins: “Jess will be retiring from EPA in [around] 5–6 mos and could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense.”

103. Internal Monsanto Emails: Company Officials Admit to Anticipating Personal Injury Lawsuits Over Glyphosate Exposure
No: MONGLY03315608
Date: 10/5/2015
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel wherein it is stated: “As discussed on the weekly glyphosate call, the first two post-IARC glyphosate personal injury lawsuits in the U.S. were filed in late September. One case was filed in New York and another in California. We had anticipated such litigation for some time.” at *2

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it indicates that Monsanto has long expected litigation over glyphosate causing cancer. Why would Monsanto expect lawsuits when there is no risk?

104. More Communication Between Monsanto and Key EPA Official Jack Housenger Regarding Potential Government Review of Glyphosate
No: MONGLY03878138
Date: 10/23/2015-10/26/2015
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document contains email correspondence between Daniel Jenkins (Monsanto) and Jack Housenger (EPA OPP) regarding “atsdr”. Mr. Housenger informs Mr. Jenkins: “We met with cdc about a month ago. We talked about that. They are waiting for our glyphosate RA. And they agreed to share what they do.” at *2. Mr. Jenkins forwards the communication to Mr. David Heering (Monsanto), who responds: “Thanks for the update. Let us know if there is anything we can do to help.” at *1.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it demonstrates Monsanto’s interactions with a key EPA official regarding ATSDR review of glyphosate. Mr. Housenger has acted as buffer between Monsanto and other regulatory agencies to delay/preclude glyphosate reviews and this document is further indication of such efforts given Mr. Housenger’s meeting with the Center for Disease Contro (CDC) regarding ATSDR and CDC glyphosate review. Monsanto’s relationships with EPA officials has featured extensively in general causation discovery and this document is directly related to the collusion issue. The document is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported “independence” of the EPA’s evaluation of glyphosate. The documents are also relevant to credibility of Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. Heering.

105. Internal Monsanto “Goals” for Glyphosate
No: MONGLY01665908-MONGLY01665909
Date: No Date Listed, Likely Late 2015 or 2016
Documents Released: 3/14/2017

Description
In these documents, Monsanto internal memoranda outlines goals for glyphosate: “Persuade EPA to follow Europe and Canada in defending the science behind a determination that glyphosate is not carcinogenic and initiate the glyphosate preliminary risk assessment public comment without an SAP. At a minimum, persuade EPA not to announce or otherwise make final decisions regarding an SAP until after JMPR in May 2016.”

106. Monsanto Executive Confirms in Email to CropLife America That Company Pressured EPA Not to Convene Scientific Advisory Panel on Glyphosate
No: MONGLY03379079
Date: 2/2/2016
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document contains email correspondence between Monsanto regulatory affairs employee Mr. Daniel Jenkins and members of Croplife America wherein Mr. Jenkins informs Ms. Janet Collins (Croplife) that Monsanto has been urging the EPA to not convene the Scientific Advisory Panel to review the EPA’s 2016 glyphosate issue paper: “Find it troubling that he’s saying it publicly, as we are urging them not to. It’s a very bad move to be so equivocal, especially when EFSA is so definitive and hopefully JMPR will be soon too.” at *2

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it shows Monsanto pressuring the EPA to preclude review of the issue paper which found it biologically improbable that glyphosate is a human carcinogen. Monsanto’s role with respect to the EPA and influence at the agency has been subject of extensive discovery during the general causation stage and this document is a further reflection of Monsanto’s motives for leveraging its relationship with the EPA to dissuade repeated examination of glyphosate. The document is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported “independence” of the EPA’s evaluation of glyphosate. The document also goes to the credibility of Mr. Jenkins.

107. Email Showing Monsanto Executive Used Relationships at EPA to Delay Scientific Advisory Panel Review on Glyphosate
No: MONGLY03859549
Date: 2/12/2016
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel wherein Jeremy Stump discloses details of a meeting he and Mr. Jenkins had with EPA officials “Jim Jones and Jack Housenger earlier this afternoon.” at *1. With respect to glyphosate, “They wouldn’t give a clear answer on when they might announce SAB/P…We argued that they should wait on making any announcements given upcoming JMPR and possibly other gov’t determinations.” at *2. Mr. Heering responds: “Did they comment on the suggestion to wait on announcing the SAP/B until after JMPR and other country announcements?” at *1.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it demonstrates Monsanto’s efforts through its relationships at the EPA to delay the Scientific Advisory Panel review of EPA’s 2016 glyphosate Issue Paper. Monsanto’s influence at the EPA in furtherance of regulatory approval of glyphosate through dissuading review has featured extensively in 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. The documents are also relevant to credibility of Mr. Stump, Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. Heering.

108. Email Details Monsanto’s Financial Support of Glyphosate Research Without Disclosing Company’s Interest
No: MONGLY02056568
Date: 3/10/2016 – 4/22/2016
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel wherein Dr. Goldstein entertains the prospect of a “glyphosate symposium”, which is “acceptable but direct Monsanto support would likely be a bad idea.” at *1. The full proposal from Allister Vale begins on the second page and it is explicitly stated that “[f]unding via the Glyphosate Consortium would be a way of taking this kind of meeting forward. Given the hands off arrangement you mention I am confident it would be possible to put together a team of clinical / medical toxicologists to be primarily responsible for the organization. However, to make this work, neither I nor they could be in receipt of direct funding from Monsanto or the Glyphosate Consortium.” at *2.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it demonstrates Monsanto’s involvement and financial support of glyphosate research initiatives without disclosing Monsanto’s interest. Such research initiatives propagate scientific discourse about glyphosate which is relied upon by researchers when formulating causation opinions. Such evaluations will thus not be able to weigh the conflicts of interest inherent in the data—an issue related to determining whether it is biologically plausible for glyphosate to act as a human carcinogen. The reliability of scientific literature and consensus, especially consensus built on manipulation, is highly relevant to the issue of general causation.

109. Internal Email Shows Monsanto’s Reaction to French Ban of Roundup Surfactant – Consequences of Ban Could ‘Have Global and Trade Impact’
No: MONGLY03401522
Date: 3/29/2016 – 4/6/2016
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel wherein David Carpintero discusses the French ban of Roundup tallowamine surfactant: “We are expecting the letter of intention from French regulator ANSES very soon, and it might point to ‘imminent health risk’ regarding the use of tallowamine. We do not agree with the withdrawal but we will abide. We simple would need the argumentation for the ban/withdrawal to not be based on ‘human health’ but other on considerations like precautionary principle. The consequences of this ban if referring to human health risks have the potential to go beyond France and would potentially have global and trade impact. It is therefore of essence that any intention to ban does not refer to imminent human health risk.” at *2.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it relates to a regulatory agency concluding that it is biologically plausible for Roundup to pose a health risk. This document relates directly to general causation.

110. Emails between EPA officials and Monsanto Executive Dan Jenkins
No: MONGLY02054538 – MONGLY02054540
Date: 3/31/2016
Documents Released: 3/14/2017

Description
These documents contain correspondence between EPA official Khue Nguyen (Chemical Review Manager) and Monsanto executive Dan Jenkins. Nguyen outlines questions for an upcoming meeting as part of registration review for glyphosate.

111. Email Further Demonstrating Monsanto’s Intimate Relationship with Jess Rowland, Former EPA Official
No: MONGLY02358772
Date: 4/1/2016 – 4/4/2016
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document contains an email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel wherein James M. Nyangulu writes to Dr. William Heydens about meeting with Jesudoss Rowland, formerly of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP): “I reached out to Jess Rowland this morning. He is willing to talk tomorrow, however he has back to back meetings from 9:301:ill 1.1.30 am. He has given me his cell phone number for us to text him once we know what time we would like to meet him. He wanted to check with the Product Manager (PM) for MON102100 (not a good thing…. PM likely to deny the meeting). I discouraged him and hopefully he won’t check with the PM.” at *1.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it reaffirms Monsanto’s intimate relationship with Mr. Rowland. This issue has been the subject of extensive general causation discovery thus far and is one of the central features of this litigation as Monsanto’s collusive relationship with Mr. Rowland encouraged a finding by the EPA that glyphosate is not a carcinogen. Indeed, the document demonstrates that Monsanto leveraged its relationship with Mr. Rowland to circumvent the Product Manager’s likely denial of such meeting. The document is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported “independence” of the EPA’s evaluation of glyphosate. The documents are also relevant to the credibility of Dr. Heydens.

112. Internal Email: Monsanto’s Political Influence Could Be Used as Motivator for IARC to ‘Change Their Current Inappropriate Practices’
No: MONGLY03558820
Date: 4/28/2016 – 7/6/2016
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto employees wherein John Lynch states: “To date I have eight industry associations, plus CropLife Canada, who have expressed interest in engaging in further discussions on how to collaborate as a more substantial critical mass, representing a significant chunk of Canada’s GDP and innovation investments, to capture the attention of the federal government and encourage an approach to motivate IARC to make adjustments to their current inappropriate practices.” at *2.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it demonstrates efforts by Monsanto to leverage political influence in an attempt to impact the procedures of a research agency (IARC) which arrived at a general causation opinion adverse to Monsanto’s commercial agenda.

113. Email Correspondence Between Monsanto and EPA Over EU Cancer Data for Glyphosate (Monsanto Provides Japanese Study)
No: MONGLY03410604 – MONGLY03410607
Date: 5/2016 – 6/2016
Documents Released: 3/14/2017

Description
In these documents EPA official Khue Nguyen asks Monsanto personnel for access to EU cancer data for glyphosate. Nguyen is put in contact with a representative from Monsanto Japan who will coordinate to provide EPA with Japan’s Food Safety Commission (FSC) Assessment Report.

114. Monsanto Talking Points in Preparation for Meeting with EPA Director Show Attempt to Preclude Glyphosate Review
No: MONGLY03550799, MONGLY03550800
Date: 8/9/2016
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

Description
These documents contain a set of “talking points” in anticipation of Monsanto’s meeting with EPA director Gina McCarthy. The talking points include: “There is already enough for EPA to act without a SAP”; “If she pushes back on reviews by other agencies Hugh needs to question her as to why they then considered IARC’s flawed classification and again, why are you convening an SAP when your own internal scientists have confirmed the safety of glyphosate”; “Why is this being politicized?” at *2.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it demonstrates Monsanto’s attempt to preclude a review by the Scientific Advisory Panel of the 2016 EPA glyphosate Issue Paper which offered a general causation opinion regarding glyphosate carcinogenicity. It also shows Monsanto’s effort to discredit IARC to the EPA, so it goes to reliability issues.