The collection of documents known as The Monsanto Papers or The Monsanto Secret Documents are available, here, and explained in detail. Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman is one of the leading law firms representing people across the nation in lawsuits against Monsanto. These personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits claim that exposure to the herbicide weed killer, Roundup, causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
These documents, obtained via Discovery (pre-trial civil procedure allowing the parties to obtain evidence from each other) allow people to see what is happening “behind the curtain” of secrecy that normally shrouds ongoing litigation. You will find links to internal Monsanto emails, text messages, company reports, studies and other memoranda.
Monsanto Papers Chart – Released on 8-1-17
Monsanto Papers Chart – Released on 4-24-19 (Read press release)
Master Chart of Combined Monsanto Papers – Updated on 4-24-19
(Quick search with keyboard shortcut Control+F on a PC or Command+F on a Mac to search any word in this chart)
- Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism & Excretion
- Discrediting IARC Kate Kelland Interaction with Monsanto
- Discrediting Seralini
- Freedom to Operate
- Ghostwriting, Peer-Review & Retraction
- Media and PR Response
- Regulatory & Government
- Surfactants, Carcinogenicity & Testing
The Monsanto Papers tell an alarming story of ghostwriting, scientific manipulation, collusion with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and previously undisclosed information about how the human body absorbs glyphosate. These documents, which Monsanto does not want you to see, provide a deeper understanding of the serious public health consequences surrounding Monsanto’s conduct in marketing Roundup.
Declassifying Monsanto’s Secret Documents
It is important for the public, regulatory agencies, and scientists to be fully informed of the processes which occur behind the thick veil of corporate unaccountability that have a direct impact on public and environmental health. This way, regulators can make informed decisions, the public is provided the opportunity to know what it is consuming (and at what cost), and scientists are able to build upon transparent data as well as know how much weight to place on research that may have an undue corporate profit motive behind it.
In fact, these documents were released in part to aid the efforts of the European regulators and the California Office of Health Hazard Assessment, who are currently in the midst of making imperative decisions regarding glyphosate registration/classification. The damning tale that these documents tell over how Monsanto has handled the issues over the ostensible safety of its widely-used product will provide regulators across the globe with access to key information that should inform their vital decision-making processes. We sincerely believe that it is imperative for the litigation process to be as transparent and open to public scrutiny as possible, particularly since every aspect of this case has repercussions for society as a whole.
On March 13, 2017, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that certain documents obtained by plaintiffs in the Monsanto Roundup multidistrict (MDL) litigation could be unsealed. Subsequently, the judge published them on March 14 and March 15 on the website for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These were the very first evidence to be declassified.
On June 30, 2017, Baum Hedlund, along with the leadership of the Roundup multidistrict litigation (MDL), challenged the protection of another group of documents, in an effort to make them available to the public. In a meeting to discuss the matter, Monsanto told the plaintiffs’ attorneys to “go away” and that the company would not voluntarily agree to de-designate any documents.
Pursuant to Paragraph 16.3 of the Protective Order in the MDL, Monsanto was required to file a motion seeking continued protection of those documents challenged by the Plaintiffs’ June 30, 2017 letter within 30 days. In failing to file such motion within 30 days, i.e., July 31, 2017, Monsanto “automatically waive[s] the confidentiality designation for each challenged designation.” Id. ¶ 16.3. And, since Monsanto did not file any motion seeking continued protection of the documents, it waived confidentiality over them. The documents are now officially public and Baum Hedlund is excited to share them with the world. This second group of documents was first published on the Baum Hedlund website on August 1, 2017.
We sent the August batch of Monsanto secret documents to (1) the EPA Office of Inspector General, Arthur Elkins, Jr., who is presently investigating whether there was illegal collusion between EPA and Monsanto; (2) the California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which listed glyphosate as a substance known to the state of California to cause cancer on July 7, 2017 and is soliciting comments from Baum Hedlund and others to advise about whether glyphosate should be given a safe-harbor; and (3) the European Parliament members, who, on July 4, 2017, sent a letter to the judge overseeing the MDL litigation, requesting documents as the EU considers whether it will renew registration of glyphosate for sale in Europe.
On April 24, 2019, we released a new batch of 300+ declassified documents obtained during discovery. We also added several new categories. In addition, we have provided a new Master Chart which contains the documents released in 2017, plus the new group.
The pages below, only describe the documents released prior to April 24, 2019. It is best to use the charts above to quickly search by keyword or topic. With each document, you will find a corresponding description, which briefly summarizes the key points raised, as well as commentary describing the relevance of the documents to the ongoing Roundup litigation. Only the August 2017 batch of documents contain the relevance information. Our commentary on the relevance of these documents may contain allegations cited in the Roundup litigation.
The Monsanto Papers below are in chronological order within four categories only:
- Ghostwriting, Peer-Review & Retraction: pages one – four
- Surfactants, Carcinogenicity & Testing: pages five – seven
- Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism & Excretion: page eight
- Regulatory & Government: pages nine and ten