.png "Best Law Firms 2021"){kind=icon}
.png "California Powerhouse")
.png)
.png)
.png)
33.
Toxicologist Reluctant to Conduct Studies on Glyphosate, Roundup Formulations
or Surfactant Ingredients Because Results Could Concern Monsanto
No: MONGLY00877683
Date: 7/29/1999 – 8/3/1999
Documents Released: 8/1/2017
Description
This document, from 1999, contains email correspondence from between various
Monsanto personnel wherein Dr. Donna Farmer writes: “I will not
support doing any studies on glyphosate, formulations or other surfactant
ingredients at this time with the limited information we have on the situation.” at *2.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it demonstrates reluctance by a key Monsanto toxicologist to conduct
studies on either glyphosate, Roundup formulations, or surfactant ingredients,
suggesting Monsanto was concerned with the results it would find. This
is relevant to the issue of biological plausibility of Roundup and/or
glyphosate as a carcinogen. Indeed, Monsanto maintains that it is not
biologically plausible for Roundup or glyphosate to be carcinogenic, a
central contention of the general causation litigation, but then expresses
fear of conducting studies since it will show a cancer risk. This is also
relevant to Dr. Farmer’s credibility, who is one of Monsanto’s
primary expert witnesses at the company.
34.
Dr. James Parry Glyphosate Review: ‘Evaluation of the potential genotoxicity
of Glyphosate, Glyphosate mixtures and component surfactants” – 1999
No: MONGLY01314233 – MONGLY01314270
Date: 8/1999
Documents Released: 3/15/2017
Description
In 1999, Monsanto hired Dr. James M. Parry, professor at the University
of Wales, to conduct an internal (and secret) safety review of glyphosate
and the formulated product. In the beginning of the report, Dr. Parry
identified as the first deficiency in the data: “No adequate in
vitro clastogenicity data available for glyphosate formulations.”
He, thus, recommends that Monsanto “provide comprehensive in vitro
cytogenetic data on glyphosate formulations.” He also concludes,
“My overall view is that if the reported genotoxicity of glyphosate
and glyphosate formulations can be shown to be due to the production of
oxidative damage then a case could be made that any genetic damage would
be thesholded…it may be necessary to consider the possibility of
susceptible groups within the human population.”
35.
Monsanto Toxicologist Donna Farmer: Dr. Parry Left Monsanto in a “Genotox
Hole”
No: MONGLY00878595 – MONGLY00878597
Date: 9/2/1999
Documents Released: 3/15/2017
Description
This document contains email correspondence between several Monsanto colleagues
discussing the fallout from Dr. James Parry’s report on glyphosate
(MONGLY01314233). Donna Farmer (Monsanto Toxicologist) writes: “right
now the only person I think that can dig us out of this “genotox
hole” is the Good Dr. Kier…I am concerned about leaving Perry
[sp] out there with this as the final project/his final impressions…”
Stephen Wratten (Monsanto) asks whether Dr. Parry “ever worked with industry on this sort of project?” Later, Wratten intones that the Parry report is not useful for Monsanto: “I do not see that he has stuck his neck out on anything at all controversial, and therefore, there is little value in the write-up as written that could be useful. Hope it didn’t cost much…”
36.
Email from William Heydens: Monsanto ‘Vulnerable’ on Gene Tox
After Parry
No: MONGLY03734971
Date: 9/16/1999
Documents Released: 3/15/2017
Description
This document contains an email from William Heydens to Monsanto colleagues
after reading the Parry report on glyphosate. In his correspondence, Heydens
writes after reading the report: “We want to find/develop someone
who is comfortable with the genetox profile of glyphosate/Roundup and
who can be influential with regulators and Scientific Outreach operations
when genetox issues arise. My read is that Parry is not currently such
a person, and it would take quite some time and $$$/studies to get him
there. We simply aren’t going to do the studies Parry suggests.
37.
Internal Email Shows Monsanto Aware of Surfactant Toxic Effects
No: MONGLY00878828
Date: 3/8/2000 – 3/12/2000
Documents Released: 8/1/2017
Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel
wherein it is stated with respect to Roundup surfactants: “While
the tallow amine was considered toxic at 62.5 and 15.6 ug/ml, the C12
alkyl sulfate didn’t exhibit toxicity at any of the test doses.
While both of these compounds produced a marginal response which didn’t
meet the test criteria for a robust positive, they did elicit an effect
which was judged to be an equivocal, but test article-related effect.” at *5.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it indicates that Monsanto was aware of the toxic effects of the tallow
amine surfactant in the formulated Roundup product. This admission expressly
contradicts Monsanto’s position that there is no biologically plausible
basis for Roundup to be considered a carcinogen.
38.
Monsanto Scientist Admits Potential for Data Coaching in Monsanto Glyphosate
Exposure Study
No: MONGLY07080361
Date: 7/5/2000
Documents Released: 8/1/2017
Description
This document is a study “site visit” from July 7, 2000 of
the “Farm Family Exposure” study. Dr. John Acquavella (Monsanto
employee at the time) and John Cowell conduct the site visit. The report
indicates numerous deficiencies with the study, including: “Protocol
amendments had not yet been forwarded to the study team from Exponent;
Many of the urines were very spotty and we found one day’s urine
that was obviously doctored. As at the Minnesota field site, the field
team is not reviewing the urines carefully and there is little, if any,
coaching of the farm families; There were some obvious errors or missing
entries in the questionnaires.” at *7-8.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it outlines significant deficiencies—including use of potentially
doctored or “coached” data—with a study evaluating glyphosate
exposure and the biological plausibility of glyphosate as a carcinogen.
This goes to the credibility and reliability of the study, which is relied
upon extensively by Monsanto to mount its general causation defense.
39.
Monsanto Internal Email: Employee Expresses ‘Serious Concern’
Over Plausibility of Roundup Formulation Carcinogenicity
No: MONGLY00923065
Date: 2/12/2001 – 2/13/2001
Documents Released: 8/1/2017
Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel
wherein Dr. Mark Martens states: “I don’t know for sure how
suppliers would react – but if somebody came to me and said they
wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react – with serious concern.
We have to really think about doing formulations even if they are not
on the market . . . glyphosate is still in there and could get caught
up in some false positive finding. at *1.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it contains explicit concerns by Monsanto regarding the biological
plausibility of the formulated product to cause cancer.
40.
Monsanto Finds Levels of N-nitrosoglyphosate (NNG) Exceed the Limit of 1 ppm
No: MONGLY04683604
Date: 2/20/2001
Documents Released: 3/15/2017
Description
This document contains email correspondence between Eric Haupfear (Monsanto
Director of Process Technology) and others in monitoring NNG levels of
glyphosate. In 2000, Haupfear found that the levels of NNG exceeded the
limit of 1 ppm due to a manufacturing defect.
“Concentration of NNG in Glyphosate: (0.0000143 / 10.24) = 1.4 ppm!!”
41.
Email Exchange Responding to Dr. James Parry’s Request to Test Propachlor
(Monsanto Herbicide)
No: MONGLY00905534
Date: 4/10/2001
Documents Released: 3/15/2017
Description
In this document, Monsanto executive William Heydens expresses concern
over Dr. James Parry’s request to evaluate Propachlor, an herbicide
that Monsanto holds the patent to. Mark Martens writes that one of the
advantages of letting Parry test Propachlor is that will “keep prof
Parry happy which will make him a good proponent of glyphosate.”
Heydens disagrees: “Please don’t do anything until we discuss this. Data generated by academics has always been a major concern for us in the defense of our products.”
42.
Donna Farmer: Mark Martens’ Work with Dr. James Parry “Almost
Landed Us with Parry Calling Glyphosate Genotoxic”
No: MONGLY00891769
Date: 9/10/2001
Documents Released: 3/15/2017
Description
The document contains email correspondence between Donna Farmer (Monsanto
Toxicologist) and Daniel Goldsten. Farmer includes a previous correspondence
in which William (Bill) Graham tells colleagues: “One of the problems
with email – everyone can start running around looking for solutions.
Can we keep this to a limited number of people as we have the opinions
and the solutions in Europe.”
The email also references Mark Martens’ work with Dr. James Parry, a highly respected expert in genotoxicity. According to Farmer: “Mark was not managing that well and that almost landed us with Parry calling glyphosate genotoxic….so we had to do these additional studies to make him happy and if it had not been for Larry Kier we would be in dog…….”
