- August 10, 2018, a jury dominated in favor of plaintiff Dewayne Johnson in a very historic case towards Monsanto. Johnson claimed Roundup induced his Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289 million in damages
- In accordance to the ruling, Monsanto “acted with malice or oppression” and was liable for “negligent failure” by not warning shoppers concerning the carcinogenicity of this pernicious weed killer
- Inner paperwork obtained through the discovery course of reveal the EPA colluded with Monsanto to shield the corporate’s pursuits — truly manipulating and stopping key investigations into glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential
- Brent Wisner, lead trial counsel for Johnson and hundreds of different plaintiffs, discusses a number of the most revelatory items of data introduced up throughout Johnson’s trial. Sources are additionally offered the place you’ll be able to assessment these paperwork for your self
- Evidence confirmed Monsanto buried an inner report displaying glyphosate genotoxic after which ghostwrote one other report claiming glyphosate is totally protected. This fabricated “evidence” allowed them to sidestep toxicity considerations for the subsequent 15 years
By Dr. Mercola
August 10, 2018, a jury dominated in favor of plaintiff Dewayne Johnson1,2,three,four,5 in a very historic case towards Monsanto. Johnson — the primary of over eight,000 instances pending towards the notorious chemical firm which has since been purchased by Bayer AG6,7 — claimed Monsanto’s Roundup induced his Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
In accordance to the ruling, Monsanto “acted with malice or oppression” and was chargeable for “negligent failure” by not warning shoppers concerning the carcinogenicity of this pernicious weed killer. Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289 million in damages to Johnson.
In The Highwire video above, medical journalist Del Bigtree takes a deep dive into this groundbreaking win, revealing proof introduced to the jury — e mail correspondence and company paperwork that created a complete narrative of company malfeasance and collusion with U.S. regulatory businesses — finally main the jury to give Johnson 1 / 4 of a billion dollars in damages.
- 1 Abstract of Monsanto’s Battle to Squash Evidence of Carcinogenicity
- 2 Monsanto Fought — and Misplaced — Proposition 65 Most cancers Warning Label
- 3 Evidence Exhibits EPA Colluded With Monsanto to Disguise Evidence of Carcinogenicity
- 4 Abstract of Johnson’s Case
- 5 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monsanto’s Company Tradition and Poisonous Legacy
- 6 Trial Counsels Talk about the Evidence Against Monsanto
- 7 Success Turned Monsanto’s Downfall
- 8 Public Well being Influence of Roundup Is Probably To Be Monumental
- 9 Surprising Evidence of Ghostwriting Revealed Throughout Johnson’s Trial
- 10 The Parry Report
- 11 The Williams, Kroes and Munro Report
- 12 Science Clearly Demonstrates Glyphosate Is Carcinogenic
- 13 Bayer Purchased a Nightmare
Abstract of Monsanto’s Battle to Squash Evidence of Carcinogenicity
The start of the top for Monsanto actually started in 2015, when the Worldwide Company for Analysis on Most cancers (IARC), the most cancers analysis arm of the World Well being Group (WHO) and the “gold standard” in carcinogenicity analysis, reclassified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.”eight,9
This willpower was based mostly on proof displaying the favored weed killer may cause Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lung most cancers in people, together with “convincing evidence” it may possibly trigger most cancers in animals. In response, Monsanto launched an all-out assault on IARC and its researchers, and even lobbied to strip IARC of its U.S. funding.
Then, in January 2017, the American Chemistry Council, of which Monsanto is a member, went on to type a entrance group referred to as Marketing campaign for Accuracy in Public Well being Analysis,10 the categorical function of which is to discredit the IARC and search to reform the IARC Monographs Program, which evaluates and determines the carcinogenicity of chemical compounds.11 As reported by the Union of Involved Scientists on July 11, 2018:12
“A rider [was added to] the House version of the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] appropriations bill that would prevent the National Institutes of Health from lending any financial support to IARC unless it agrees to push for reforms at IARC that have been called for by [industry ally U.S. Rep.] Lamar Smith and the House Science Committee at the bequest of the chemical industry.”
Monsanto Fought — and Misplaced — Proposition 65 Most cancers Warning Label
Following the IARC’s willpower that glyphosate might be carcinogenic to people in 2015, California’s Environmental Safety Company’s Workplace of Environmental Well being Hazard Evaluation (OEHHA) introduced it meant to record glyphosate as a chemical recognized to trigger most cancers beneath Proposition 65, which requires shopper merchandise with potential cancer-causing components to bear warning labels.
Monsanto filed formal feedback with OEHHA saying the plan to listing glyphosate as a carcinogen must be withdrawn. When OEHHA refused to cave, Monsanto sued OEHHA in January 2016 to cease the glyphosate/most cancers classification. OEHHA filed a movement to dismiss the lawsuit and a Fresno, California, superior courtroom decide dominated on their behalf in February 2017.
Alas, Monsanto continued submitting authorized appeals to block the most cancers warning from being carried out. In its newest try, Monsanto tried to have a provision of the regulation eliminated that permits the OEHHA from taking scientific findings from outdoors specialists — such because the IARC — into consideration.
Mere days after Johnson’s verdict, Monsanto misplaced towards California but once more. As reported by Sustainable Pulse:13
“This decision leaves in place lower court decisions upholding a provision of the voter-approved initiative that allows outside expert scientific findings to be considered when adding chemicals to the public list of carcinogens … ‘Monsanto doesn’t have the right to decide which scientific experts are permitted to inform the public about cancer-causing chemicals.
By refusing to consider this case, the Supreme Court has allowed Proposition 65 to keep working the way voters intended when the initiative was passed in 1986,’ said Avinash Kar, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.”
That is one other piece of excellent information, as this implies California shall be in a position to require Roundup and different glyphosate-containing merchandise to bear a most cancers warning label, and since corporations not often need to undergo the additional work of creating totally different product labels for various states, this doubtless means all People will lastly be told of the truth that Roundup is carcinogenic.
Evidence Exhibits EPA Colluded With Monsanto to Disguise Evidence of Carcinogenicity
All through its authorized battles, Monsanto has relied closely on proof by the U.S. Environmental Safety Company (EPA) which, regardless of IARC findings, has continued to keep that glyphosate might be not carcinogenic to people.
Nevertheless, inner paperwork obtained in the course of the discovery means of Johnson’s case revealed the EPA colluded with Monsanto to shield the corporate’s pursuits — truly manipulating and stopping key investigations into glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential. You possibly can evaluation key paperwork from this case on the U.S. Proper to Know web site.14
A 2017 Spiegel article15 additionally delves into a few of this damning proof, which incorporates correspondence that clearly reveals Monsanto knew Roundup had security issues, and in additional methods than one:
“The Monsanto researchers also behaved irresponsibly when it comes to the question of Roundup’s absorption into the body,” Spiegel writes. “In their own animal experiments back in 2002, the company’s experts discovered that ‘between 5 and 10 percent’ of the substance penetrated the skin of rats.
The rate was much higher than expected and the result had the potential to ‘blow’ the ‘Roundup risk evaluations,’ reads one email. As a consequence, the author of the email wrote: ‘We decided thus to STOP the study.’ Laboratory animals also absorbed more Roundup ingredients through the digestive tract than had been hoped for.
Above all, the Monsanto papers show that the experts were very aware of a fact that is often lost in the public debate: In addition to glyphosate, herbicides like Roundup contain other dangerous chemicals that are necessary to enable the active ingredient to penetrate hard plant walls, among other things. These ingredients are often more harmful than the active ingredient on its own.”
Abstract of Johnson’s Case
Within the featured video, Bigtree interviews Baum Hedlund lawyer Brent Wisner, lead trial counsel for Johnson and hundreds of different plaintiffs who consider their Non-Hodgkin lymphoma — a kind of most cancers that begins in your white blood cells (lymphocytes), that are a part of your immune system — was brought on by Roundup publicity.
Greater than 500 of those instances are at present pending in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) with the U.S. District Courtroom in San Francisco.16 Whereas the MDL process is analogous to a class-action go well with in that it consolidates pretrial proceedings, every case will get its personal jury trial, and the outcomes will range relying on the power of the proof in any given case.
Johnson’s lawsuit was filed in state courtroom relatively than by means of an MDL and was granted an expedited trial due to the truth that he is nearing demise.17,18,19 In California, if the plaintiff dies, no punitive damages might be awarded, so Johnson agreed to be the primary one to take Monsanto on.
Johnson, a 46-year-old husband and father of two, sprayed an estimated 150 gallons of Roundup 20 to 40 occasions per yr whereas working as a groundskeeper for the Benicia faculty district in California, from 2012 by means of late 2015.20
Johnson was recognized with a uncommon and lethal type of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma referred to as mycosis fungoides in August 2014. He informed his physician the rash he’d developed that summer time would worsen after publicity to the herbicide. His lawsuit, filed in 2016 after he turned too ailing to work, accused Monsanto of hiding the well being hazards of Roundup.
His courtroom case, presided by Superior Courtroom Decide Suzanne Ramos Bolanos, started June 18, 2018, and ended August 10 with a ruling in his favor.21 As talked about, the jury awarded Johnson $289 million in damages — an quantity that successfully wipes out Monsanto’s reserve fund for environmental and litigation legal responsibility, which in accordance to Bloomberg22 totaled $277 million as of August 2018.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monsanto’s Company Tradition and Poisonous Legacy
Wisner can also be joined by co-counsel Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been an environmental lawyer for 30 years, who commented on Monsanto’s “antidemocratic and antihumanistic” company methods, saying:
“We really were up against an industry that has employed all of the techniques pioneered by the tobacco industry.
Over 60 years, Big Tobacco killed 1 out of every 5 of its customers who used its products as directed, was able to avoid any kind of regulatory interference, because it pioneered these techniques of ghostwriting science, compromising science, corrupting public officials, capturing the agencies that are supposed to protect Americans from pollution, and Monsanto really was part of the group that pioneered those techniques — and also of using ad hominem attacks.
Monsanto is the same company that was making DDT and masterminded and orchestrated the attack on Rachael Carson … [they] tried to personally destroy her, as she died of cancer. On agent orange, it led the fight to deny rights and deny compensation to tens of thousands of American veterans who had been exposed in Vietnam to this terrible chemical.
I’ve been suing one of Monsanto’s chemicals for 35 years, PCBs, which Monsanto is the only producer of. It contaminated the Hudson River. In more recent years, I’ve brought a series of lawsuits against Monsanto because of the PCBs put into caulking in American schools. Half the schools built between 1950 and 1977 have calking in their windows filled with PCBs.
Monsanto knew PCB was carcinogenic and an endocrine disruptor and children should never be exposed to it. And it knew PCB was about to be heavily regulated if it got banned. So, it ordered all of its sales forces to … [get rid of it by selling] it for caulking for schools. This is the mentality of a very corrupt corporate culture.”
Trial Counsels Talk about the Evidence Against Monsanto
As famous by Kennedy, till now, Monsanto has had a fame of being untouchable. Wisner lastly broke the magic spell together with his phenomenal capacity to create a complete narrative, displaying precisely how Monsanto has been in a position to get away with homicide, and producing the proof wanted to help that narrative.
As talked about, Wisner was in a position to present company correspondence and paperwork that clearly mentioned Monsanto’s incapability to show Roundup is noncarcinogenic. In truth, Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer, Ph.D., who in 2016 appeared on the TV present “The Doctors” defending the security of Roundup, years earlier had written an e-mail stating:
“The terms glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used interchangeably, nor can you use “Roundup” for all glyphosate-based herbicides anymore. For instance, you can’t say that Roundup just isn’t a carcinogen … we have now not achieved the required testing on the formulation to make that assertion.”
Certainly, as Wisner notes, Roundup isn’t just glyphosate. It additionally incorporates quite a few surfactants to solubilize it and different chemical compounds, and the synergistic motion between all of those chemical compounds has truly been proven to be much more poisonous than glyphosate alone.
This was lately confirmed in exams23 carried out by the U.S. Nationwide Toxicology Program (NTP). In accordance to the NTP’s abstract of the outcomes, glyphosate formulations considerably alter the viability of human cells by disrupting the performance of cell membranes. In layman’s phrases, Roundup kills human cells.
Current analysis24,25 by the extremely revered Ramazzini Institute in Italy additionally reveals every day ingestion of glyphosate on the acceptable day by day dietary publicity degree set by the EPA alters sexual improvement in rats, produces modifications within the intestinal microbiome, and reveals genotoxic results.
Wisner made each effort to get Farmer to testify. Not solely did she evade being served, once they have been lastly in a position to catch her, Monsanto “fought tooth and nail” to forestall her from taking the stand. They finally gained, and Wisner was not in a position to get her to testify. Nonetheless, e mail correspondence to and from Farmer was revealing sufficient.
Success Turned Monsanto’s Downfall
In accordance to Kennedy and Wisner, the acute success of Roundup is finally what turned its downfall. Roundup is now probably the most extensively used agricultural chemical within the historical past of the world, and its sheer pervasiveness led to elevated scientific investigation. With that elevated scrutiny by unbiased researchers, increasingly proof of hurt was revealed.
Secondly, in 2005 Monsanto began recommending the off-label use of Roundup as a desiccant on non-GMO grains. Primarily, by spraying Roundup on the grain proper earlier than harvest, it dries the grain, making it simpler to harvest and permits the farmer larger income, as they’re penalized when grain accommodates moisture. The larger the moisture content material of the grain at sale, the decrease the worth they get.
Because of this profitable marketing campaign, farmers started spraying Roundup immediately on meals preharvest, whereas beforehand it was primarily used as weed management. For this reason we’re now discovering glyphosate in nearly every thing — it has been present in each processed meals examined, in air samples, rain samples, municipal water provides, soil samples, breast milk and urine.
In accordance to Bigtree, two current research even revealed the presence of glyphosate in a number of vaccines, together with the pneumococcal, Tdap, hepatitis B (which is injected on the day of start), influenza and MMR. The MMR vaccine had the very best quantities at zero.eight elements of glyphosate per billion.
Mockingly, one among Farmer’s speaking factors throughout her look on “The Doctors” was that IARC was wanting on the results of injected glyphosate, which isn’t the way it’s used. But now we’re discovering vaccines are contaminated with glyphosate, and is the truth is injected instantly into the physique of younger youngsters.
Kennedy notes nearly all of glyphosate used since its inception has truly been used within the final 5 years alone. And, as contamination has been detected, concern about its security has been more and more strengthened. These elements are finally what allowed Wisner to current such a compelling case towards Monsanto.
Public Well being Influence of Roundup Is Probably To Be Monumental
Remember that Johnson’s case is just the start. Each day, the regulation agency of Baum Hedlund is receiving calls from individuals asking if their most cancers may need been brought on by Roundup publicity, Kennedy says. Many are farmers, however many are additionally avid gardeners and individuals who have used the chemical extensively round their personal property.
Ultimately, he believes different illness classes could also be added to the rising mountain of lawsuits towards Monsanto. Apart from the over eight,000 instances of plaintiffs with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the proof additionally suggests glyphosate and/or Roundup could also be linked to liver most cancers (which is now occurring in youngsters), mind tumors and well being issues related to endocrine disruption.
Certainly, except for its carcinogenic potential, unbiased analysis has related glyphosate-based herbicides with a rising listing of disturbing well being and environmental results. For instance, glyphosate has been proven to:
Surprising Evidence of Ghostwriting Revealed Throughout Johnson’s Trial
Of their interview, Bigtree and Wisner talk about a number of the most revelatory items of data introduced up throughout Johnson’s trial. As talked about earlier, you’ll be able to assessment many of those so-called “Monsanto Papers” on the U.S. Proper to Know web site.28
You may also learn “Spinning Science & Silencing Scientists: A Case Study in How the Chemical Industry Attempts to Influence Science,”29 a minority employees report dated February 2018, ready for U.S. Home members of the Committee on Science, Area and Know-how.
For instance, in a November 1, 2015, e-mail, William Heydens, security lead for Monsanto, writes to John Acquavella, a former worker: “I thought we discussed previously that it was decided by our management that we would not be able to use you or Larry [Kier] as panelists/authors because of your prior employment at Monsanto …” to which Acquavella responds, “We call that ghostwriting and it is unethical.”
In accordance to Wisner, after IARC revealed its findings on glyphosate, Monsanto “orchestrated a public outcry” by convening a “panel of independent experts” who reviewed the info and revealed an evaluation of the proof. “The problem was, they were written by Monsanto employees and former employees,” Wisner says.
Within the e-mail change above, Heydens needed to take away Acquavella’s identify from the report so that folks wouldn’t know he was a part of it, and Acquavella was reminding him that this technique, which is called ghostwriting, is unethical, and that they might not do this.
In the long run, the report did record Acquavella as an writer, nevertheless it particularly states that Monsanto had no affect over the report and didn’t write any a part of it. But e-mail correspondence exhibits Heydens actively writing and modifying it. All of this proof was proven to the jury, and these outright lies are finally what prompted them to award punitive damages totaling 1 / 4 of a billion dollars.
In “The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the Scientific Well,”30 a paper revealed in The Worldwide Journal of Danger & Security in Drugs, June 2018, Leemon McHenry writes:
“The documents reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products …
The use of third-party academics in the corporate defense of glyphosate reveals that this practice extends beyond the corruption of medicine and persists in spite of efforts to enforce transparency in industry manipulation.”
The Parry Report
As talked about, correspondence by Farmer reveals Monsanto had by no means truly carried out any carcinogenicity or security research on the Roundup formulation. In 1999, Dr. James Parry, a geneticist at Swansea College on the time (he died a yr later), was employed by Monsanto to consider the genotoxic potential of glyphosate.
After reviewing the obtainable analysis, Parry discovered that “glyphosate is capable of producing genotoxicity both in vivo and in vitro by a mechanism based upon the production of oxidative damage.” In his report, generally known as The Parry Report, he additionally famous that: “On the basis of the study of Lioi et al … I conclude that glyphosate is a potential clastogenic,” which means a mutagenic agent that may break, delete, add or rearrange chromosomes.
In different phrases, Monsanto’s personal professional was telling them that they had a significant issue. Parry famous that the actual hazard seems to be the synergistic impact between glyphosate and different chemical compounds within the components, such because the surfactants, and he informed the corporate that they had to research the formulated product as an entire. He additionally listed particular forms of research he felt wanted to be finished.
Inner e mail correspondence reveals different Monsanto scientists mentioned methods during which they could have the ability to “move Dr. Parry from his position” that glyphosate was poisonous. Parry, who had signed a secrecy settlement with the corporate, by no means revealed these findings. What did Monsanto do?
They prevented the toxicity points just by by no means doing any of the analysis on the formulation. A September 16, 1999, e-mail from Heydens, himself a Ph.D. toxicologist, reads partially:
“We want to find/develop someone who is comfortable with the genotox profile of glyphosate/Roundup and who can be influential with regulators and Scientific Outreach operations when genotox 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 …”
The Williams, Kroes and Munro Report
What’s extra, Monsanto buried The Parry Report. Regulators have been by no means knowledgeable of its contents. Shortly after The Parry Report was concluded, one other report was revealed, referred to as the Williams, Kroes and Munro Report, which was supposed to be a complete assessment of the genotoxic profile of glyphosate. It discovered no issues in any respect, concluding glyphosate is totally protected.
Guess which report was despatched off to regulators and utilized by the EPA to help its conclusion that glyphosate is unhazardous? You guessed it: The Williams, Kroes and Munro Report, issued in 2000. Throughout trial, Wisner burdened to the jury that each one of that is clear proof of malice. It proves the corporate had a acutely aware disregard for human well being.
The Williams, Kroes and Munro Report additionally seems to have been of Monsanto’s personal making. In an e-mail to Farmer dated February 19, 2015, Heydens writes:
“A less expensive/more palatable approach might be to involve experts only for the areas of contention, epidemiology and possibly MOA [mode of action] (depending on what comes out of the IARC meeting), and we ghostwrite the exposure tox & genotox sections.
An option would be to add Greim and Kier or Kirkland to have their names on the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit and sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams, Kroes & Munro, 2000.”
As famous by Wisner, not solely did Monsanto bury The Parry Report, which revealed that they had a critical well being drawback on their palms, they ghostwrote a report that claimed the exact opposite. That fabricated “evidence” allowed them to sidestep toxicity considerations for the subsequent 15 years. “That is fraud … That’s evil,” Wisner says. The jury clearly agreed.
Science Clearly Demonstrates Glyphosate Is Carcinogenic
“I’m 34 years old. I will try these cases until I’m 90 if I have to,” Wisner says. “If I have to put Bayer in bankruptcy, I will. We have the goods here, and it just shows rampant corporate malfeasance.” Monsanto, in the meantime, insists there are 800 research produced during the last 40 years displaying glyphosate and Roundup is protected.
“It’s garbage,” Wisner says. “The 800 studies they’re talking about are not about whether it causes cancer. They’re looking at stuff that you have to look at — does it cause eye irritation, does it cause your hair to change color, does it cause skin rashes — all these volumes of tests that test all these random things …
But when it comes to cancer, there’s only been about 13 animal studies and about six or seven epidemiology studies. And when you actually look at the data, actually look at the science, and I showed this jury every single one of those studies.
I walked through them one by one … and with the exception of two or three, they are positive … They show clear correlation. They show that glyphosate causes tumors … creates tumors in mice, that it’s causing Non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans …”
One notably highly effective research confirmed that when individuals are uncovered to Roundup by way of pores and skin contact (the people on this research had been doused with Roundup by way of aerial sprayings), there’s clear proof of genetic injury. Each single person who had been uncovered to the aerial spray confirmed proof off this genetic injury.
Bayer Purchased a Nightmare
Clearly, Bayer has bought a nightmare, and could also be struggling some purchaser’s regret proper about now. Certainly, nearly each single individual on the planet is now ingesting and being injected or indirectly is uncovered to Roundup, and the proof of great well being penalties simply retains rising. The legal responsibility is nearly past comprehension. Time will inform whether or not Monsanto’s poisonous legacy will put Bayer out of enterprise.
Within the meantime, it is up to every of us to take no matter precautions we will to keep away from publicity. That consists of avoiding utilizing Roundup and different glyphosate-based herbicides at house, convincing native corporations to cease utilizing it in public areas and round faculties, and by shopping for natural foodswhenever attainable and taking steps to detoxify our our bodies.
Wisner brings up extra proof introduced in courtroom, and I extremely advocate watching the interview in its entirety. Contemplating the proof, it is actually no marvel Wisner gained this case, and it certainly doesn’t bode nicely for Bayer-Monsanto, seeing how there are various hundreds extra instances identical to it ready within the wings.
And, in accordance to Wisner, he has lots of of paperwork which are much more damning than these introduced to bear throughout Johnson’s trial, which was rushed to trial. So, he is assured he’ll proceed to win these instances and, hopefully, change the world for the higher.