More Monsanto Secret Documents: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
65. Email Showing Monsanto's Established Relationships with EPA Officials Involved with CARC Report on Glyphosate
No: MONGLY01179968
Date: 3/30/2015 — 7/1/2015
Description
This document contains email correspondence between Monsanto and former EPA
Office of Pesticide Programs employee, Mary Manibusan (now exponent employee). Ms. Manibusan discusses her
role as "co-chair with Jess Rowland" on the EPA CARC report; "lead toxicologist on a global pesticide review";
and service "on multiple internal review committees" in an attempt to "offer any assistance to support Monsanto
product registrations and registration reviews" at *3.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it relates to Monsanto's relationships with former EPA officials that were involved in producing the CARC
report partially authored by Mr. Jess Rowland—a report which concluded that it is biologically improbable
for glyphosate to act as a human carcinogen. Indeed, Mr. Rowland, the circumstances of the CARC assessment,
and the role of EPA officials following their tenure at the agency has featured extensively in general causation
discovery. This document lends support to the allegation that EPA officials, after aiding Monsanto
at the agency, would then leave EPA and start working for Monsanto.
66. Internal Monsanto Document: Company Goals to ‘Invalidate Relevance of IARC' and ‘Prevent Future Bad IARC Decisions…'
No: MONGLY03316369
Date: 3/24/2015
Description
This document is titled: "IARC Follow Up Demonstrating Safety of Glyphosate"
and details a number of goals including "invalidate relevance of IARC"; "prevent future bad IARC decisions
on pesticides/GMOs"; and "Make sure determination doesn't get more widely adopted within WHO". at *1.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it confirms Monsanto's intention to discredit an international research agency which rendered a general
causation opinion that was adverse to Monsanto's commercial agenda.
67. Internal Monsanto Email Further Confirming Relationship with Former EPA Official Jess Rowland
No: MONGLY03327609
Date: 3/25/2015 — 4/27/2015
Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto employees
regarding the organization of a panel in collaboration with the International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy
Research (ICABR). Mr. Eric Sachs (Monsanto) proposes to "call Jess Rowland tomorrow" in order to enquire
about Mr. Rowland's availability as a panelist addressing "regulators more robust risk assessment process".
at *1. The panel was initiated in light of the "recent publicity about Round-up and cancer…" at *10.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it pertains to Monsanto's relationship with Mr. Rowland (subject of extensive discovery during general
causation stage) and efforts by Monsanto to address the general causation conclusion by IARC. The document
is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported "independence" of the EPA's
evaluation of glyphosate.
68. 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
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 Collings
(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.
69. Internal Email: Monsanto Lobbying Efforts in U.S. to Pressure WHO to ‘Clarify' IARC Classification of Glyphosate
No: MONGLY02953363
Date: 6/5/2015
Description
This document contains a forwarded email which outlines Monsanto's regulatory
strategy with respect to "addressing widespread confusion in the wake of the IARC classification…" at *1.
"Recent Actions" include "significant outreach within the U .S. government to secure its engagement with
the WHO in an effort to obtain that clarification. We have briefed key staff at EPA, USTR, USDA and
the State Department as well as members of Congress." at *2.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it demonstrates Monsanto's lobbying activities through the U.S. government in order to pressure the WHO
to "clarify" the IARC classification. Monsanto's governmental influence has featured extensively in
general causation discovery and motions practice and this particular effort is directed at influencing the
organization which offered a general causation conclusion with respect to glyphosate carcinogenicity.
The document is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported "independence"
of the EPA's evaluation of glyphosate.
70. Email Details Monsanto's Financial Support of Glyphosate Research Without Disclosing Company's Interest
No: MONGLY02056568
Date: 3/10/2016 — 4/22/2016
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.
71. 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
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.
72. Document Details Monsanto's Goals After IARC Report — ‘Orchestrate Outcry with IARC Decision…'
No: MONGLY02913526
Date: 2/23/2015
Description
This document details a number of goals to be pursued by Monsanto prior to and
following the anticipated IARC decision. Under "Post-IARC", the following objective is identified:
"Orchestrate Outcry with IARC Decision a March 10, 2015". at *5.
Relevance
This document is relevant and likely to be used in this litigation as it demonstrates
Monsanto's intention to discredit IARC prior to the 2A classification. Following the classification,
Monsanto galvanized a campaign to discredit and defund an international research agency which rendered a
general causation opinion and found that it is biologically probable for glyphosate to act as a human carcinogen.
73. 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
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.
74. Internal Monsanto Emails: Company Officials Admit to Anticipating Personal Injury Lawsuits Over Glyphosate Exposure
No: MONGLY03315608
Date: 10/5/2015
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?
75. List of Studies IARC Relied on for Glyphosate Monograph
No: MONGLY00947788
Date: 2/25/2015
Description
This document contains a list of studies/articles/reports relied upon by both
IARC and Monsanto in supporting and challenging the "2A Probable Human Carcinogen" classification respectively.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it indicates the scientific literature assessed by IARC and relied upon by Monsanto in discrediting the
IARC general causation conclusion.
More Monsanto Secret Documents: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8