Issue: Surfactants, Carcinogenicity & Testing…continued

36. Monsanto Internal Email: Company Executive Admits to Low Level of Formaldehyde in Roundup
No: MONGLY00990361
Date: 3/13/2015 — 3/17/2015

Description
This document contains an email from Dr. William Heydens to Mr. Josh Monken (Monsanto) wherein Dr. Heydens admits to the "Low level presence of formaldehyde" (carcinogen by inhalation) in Roundup; and "Low level presence of NNG (N-nitroso-glyphosate) in Roundup — many N-Nitroso compounds are carcinogenic."

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as a Monsanto toxicologist contradicts Monsanto's claim that it is not biologically plausible for glyphosate nor the Roundup formulation to be carcinogenic.  This document suggests the opposite.  It is also relevant to credibility of Dr. Heydens.

37. Monsanto Executive Admits Studies Demonstrate Formulated Roundup ‘Does the Damage'
No: MONGLY00885526
Date: 4/19/2002 — 4/25/2002

Description
This document is an email correspondence between Drs. William Heydens and Donna Farmer, wherein the two discuss various studies which observed adverse effects by the formulated Roundup product.  Specifically, Dr. Farmer acknowledges: "[t]he interest point is glyphosate all basicially [sic] had no effect the formulated product did — does this point us to the coformulants — sufactants? [sic]" at *2.  Dr. Heydens also admits, after discussing with Monsanto consultant John Desesso, that "we are in pretty good shape with glyphosate but vulnerable with surfactants. . . What I've been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is OK but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage." at *1.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it is an indication that Monsanto was cognizant of the adverse effects of surfactants or was otherwise uncertain of the effects of surfactants in the formulated Roundup product with cancer. It is further directly relevant to general causation as Monsanto's toxicologists (deposed during general causation discovery) discuss Monsanto's position that it is not biologically plausible for glyphosate to pose adverse health effects, a central feature of this litigation which is challenged by Plaintiffs. This is also relevant to Drs. Farmer's and Heyden's credibility, who are some of Monsanto's primary expert witnesses at the company.

38. Email Exchange Shows Former Monsanto Expert Confirmed Biological Plausibility of Glyphosate as Carcinogen
No: MONGLY06486905
Date: 4/17/1999 — 4/19/1999

Description
This document contains email exchanges between various Monsanto personnel wherein Dr. Donna Farmer summarizes the findings of Monsanto's expert, Dr. James Parry: "Dr. Parry concluded on his evaluation of the four articles that glyphosate is capable of producing genotoxicity both in vivo and in vitro by a mechanism based upon the production of oxidative damage." at *3.

Relevance
The document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it contains conclusions by a former Monsanto expert in support of the biological plausibility of glyphosate to cause cancer—namely through glyphosate's genotoxic potential and its capacity to precipitate oxidative stress. This is also relevant to Dr. Farmer's credibility, who is one of Monsanto's primary expert witnesses at the company.

39. Email Detailing Monsanto Suspicions That Formulated Roundup Can Lead to Tumor Production
No: MONGLY01183933
Date: 8/6/2015 — 8/7/2015

Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel regarding the Roundup formulation and the respective effects of glyphosate and surfactants, wherein Dr. William Heydens states that "surfactant in the formulation will come up in the tumor promotion skin study because we think it played a role there." At *3.

Relevance
The document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it once again demonstrates suspicions by Monsanto that it is biologically plausible for the formulated product to promote tumors. This is also relevant to Dr. Heyden's credibility, who is one of Monsanto's primary expert witnesses at the company.

40. Monsanto Executive Expresses Long-Held Concerns Over IARC Testing Glyphosate
No: MONGLY01208470
Date: 9/18/2014

Description
This document contains an email from Dr. Donna Farmer to Dr. John Acquavella.  Dr. Farmer notes: "Just wanted to let you that what we have long been concerned about has happened. Glyphosate is on for an IARC review in March of 2015." at *1.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it demonstrates Monsanto's long-term concerns about glyphosate being tested by an independent research agency which rendered a general causation conclusion regarding the potential for glyphosate to cause cancer.  That Monsanto knew IARC could come to its scientific conclusion, lends support to the appropriateness of that opinion.  It also suggests reliability, an element under Daubert. This is also relevant to Dr. Farmer's credibility, who is one of Monsanto's primary expert witnesses at the company.

41. Internal Email from 2008: Monsanto Executive Long Aware of Glyphosate Link to non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
No: MONGLY01179185
Date: 10/14/2008

Description
This document contains email correspondence wherein Dean Nasser (Monsanto) sends a "Beyond Pesticides" publication to Dr. Donna Farmer.  The publication references a study which found positive association between glyphosate and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.  Dr. Farmer responds: "We have been aware of this paper for awhile and knew it would only be a matter of time before the activists pick it up… how do we combat this?" at *1.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it indicates Monsanto has been aware of the links between glyphosate and NHL for a considerable amount of time. Furthermore, as Dr. Farmer indicates, Monsanto aim to "combat" the biological plausibility of glyphosate as a carcinogen only when the information gains significant public attention.  This is relevant since it lends support to Plaintiffs' assertion that Monsanto has taken deliberate actions to influence scientific literature by attacking any study showing a link between Roundup and cancer. This is also relevant to Dr. Farmer's credibility, who is one of Monsanto's primary expert witnesses at the company.

42. Internal Email Shows Monsanto Aware of Surfactant Toxic Effects
No: MONGLY00878828
Date: 3/8/2000 — 3/12/2000

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.

43. Monsanto PowerPoint Presentation Shows 2010 Regulatory Goals in Germany to ‘Push Back on Data Requests'
No: MONGLY02721133
Date: 9/1/2005

Description
This document is a PowerPoint presentation which details Monsanto's regulatory goals for 2010. The strategy in Germany was to "Defend POEAs" and "push back on data requests." at *10.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it demonstrates Monsanto's unwillingness to cooperate with national regulatory agencies in providing comprehensive data for the registration of Roundup.  This is particularly relevant since Monsanto routinely relies on the evaluations of foreign regulatory agencies to support its claim that Roundup does not cause cancer.  The lack of data regarding the safety of the formulated product (in this instance the surfactant POEA) is related to the issue of regulatory agencies reaching an informed consensus on the carcinogenicity of Roundup.  An important feature of general causation discovery has entailed the extent to which Monsanto circumvented proper regulatory safe guards.

44. Monsanto Internal Email: Technical Expert Denied Glyphosate Registration Due to ‘Formaldehyde in Our Glyphosate'
No: MONGLY01051709
Date: 9/30/2013- 10/22/2013

Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel regarding glyphosate registration and the presence of formaldehyde: "…our renewal has been rejected by technical expert due to the content of formaldehyde in our glyphosate." at *5.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation given that it pertains to a central general causation issue—the denial of glyphosate registration by a regulatory agency due to the presence of a carcinogenic chemical in glyphosate (formaldehyde).  This is also relevant to biological plausibility issues.

45. Monsanto Consultant Acknowledges Relevance of Other Roundup Ingredients in Judging Plausibility of Glyphosate Carcinogenicity
No: ACQUAVELLAPROD00008909
Date: 1/23/2015

Description
This document contains email correspondence between Drs. Donna Farmer and John Acquavella, wherein Dr. Acquavella discusses the response from DeRoos, who carried out an epidemiological study on glyphosate, to Monsanto's comments regarding the dose thresholds cited by Monsanto as relevant for carcinogenicity. Dr. Acquavella reflects with respect to DeRoos' comments: "the issue of the human findings representing relevant routes of exposure (whatever that means) and being interpretable in and of themselves. Perhaps Tom should be prepared regarding the other ingredients in Roundup formulations being relevant for judging glyphosate." at *1.

Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as Monsanto's former employee and consultant recognizes the potential relevance of other ingredients in Roundup formulations in assessing the biological plausibility of glyphosate as a carcinogen.  It also lends support to the DeRoos study, which is relied upon by experts on both sides.  The document is also relevant to credibility of Monsanto's primary witness, Acquavella.