100.
Monsanto Executive Communicates with EPA Official Jack Housenger, Gets
Inside Track on Status of Potential Glyphosate Evaluation
No: MONGLY03064695
Date: 6/5/2015 – 6/24/2015
Documents Released: 8/1/2017
Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel
wherein Daniel Jenkins expresses concerns over the ATSDR glyphosate review
and the information garnered from Mr. Housenger at the EPA’s Office
of Pesticide Programs regarding delaying the ATSDR review: “ATSDR
Director and Branch Chief have promised Jack Housenger (Director of the
US Office of Pesticide Programs) to put their report “on hold”
until after EPA releases its preliminary risk assessment (PRA) for glyphosate…
She describes ATSDR as being VERY conservative and IARC like in this regard
as well as the fact that they are hazard based. Makes me very nervous,
but I asked Jack whether or not he was worried about ATSDR coming out
with something different and he said he wasn’t and I think he was
being genuine.” at *1, 2
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in litigation
as it indicates Monsanto’s contacts with an EPA official (a key
feature of general causation discovery in light of Mr. Rowland’s
collusive relationship with Monsanto) in furtherance of precluding glyphosate
review by ATSDR which, according to Mr. Jenkins, utilizes a process similar
to IARC and is thus likely to render a general causation evaluation adverse
to Monsanto’s commercial agenda. The document is also relevant to
Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported “independence”
of the EPA’s evaluation of glyphosate and lends reliability to IARC’s
assessment. The documents are also relevant to credibility of Mr. Jenkins
and Dr. Heydens.
101.
Email Showing Communications Between Monsanto and EPA in Furtherance of
Avoiding Roundup and Glyphosate Testing
No: MONGLY02060344
Date: 6/24/2015
Documents Released: 3/14/2017
Description
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.
.png)
.png)
.png "California Powerhouse")
