Leroy N. Soetoro
2017-03-18 16:48:40 UTC
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-
lawsuit.html
The reputation of Roundup, whose active ingredient is the worlds most
widely used weed killer, took a hit on Tuesday when a federal court
unsealed documents raising questions about its safety and the research
practices of its manufacturer, the chemical giant Monsanto.
Roundup and similar products are used around the world on everything from
row crops to home gardens. It is Monsantos flagship product, and
industry-funded research has long found it to be relatively safe. A case
in federal court in San Francisco has challenged that conclusion, building
on the findings of an international panel that claimed Roundups main
ingredient might cause cancer.
The court documents included Monsantos internal emails and email traffic
between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that
Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics
and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection
Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundups main ingredient,
glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States
Department of Health and Human Services.
The documents also revealed that there was some disagreement within the
E.P.A. over its own safety assessment.
The files were unsealed by Judge Vince Chhabria, who is presiding over
litigation brought by people who claim to have developed non-Hodgkins
lymphoma as a result of exposure to glyphosate. The litigation was touched
off by a determination made nearly two years ago by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization,
that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen, citing research linking it to
non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
Court records show that Monsanto was tipped off to the determination by a
deputy division director at the E.P.A., Jess Rowland, months beforehand.
That led the company to prepare a public relations assault on the finding
well in advance of its publication. Monsanto executives, in their internal
email traffic, also said Mr. Rowland had promised to beat back an effort
by the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct its own review.
Dan Jenkins, a Monsanto executive, said in an email in 2015 that Mr.
Rowland, referring to the other agencys potential review, had told him,
If I can kill this, I should get a medal. The review never took place.
In another email, Mr. Jenkins noted to a colleague that Mr. Rowland was
planning to retire and said he could be useful as we move forward with
ongoing glyphosate defense.
The safety of glyphosate is not settled science. A number of agencies,
including the European Food Safety Agency and the E.P.A., have disagreed
with the international cancer agency, playing down concerns of a cancer
risk, and Monsanto has vigorously defended glyphosate.
But the court records also reveal a level of debate within the E.P.A. The
agencys Office of Research and Development raised some concern about the
robustness of an assessment carried out by the agencys Office of
Pesticide Programs, where Mr. Rowland was a senior official at the time,
and recommended in December 2015 that it take steps to strengthen its
human health assessment.
In a statement, Monsanto said, Glyphosate is not a carcinogen.
It added: The allegation that glyphosate can cause cancer in humans is
inconsistent with decades of comprehensive safety reviews by the leading
regulatory authorities around the world. The plaintiffs have submitted
isolated documents that are taken out of context.
The E.P.A. had no immediate comment, and Mr. Rowland could not be reached
immediately.
Monsanto also rebutted suggestions that the disclosures highlighted
concerns that the academic research it underwrites is compromised.
Monsanto frequently cites such research to back up its safety claims on
Roundup and pesticides.
In one email unsealed Tuesday, William F. Heydens, a Monsanto executive,
told other company officials that they could ghostwrite research on
glyphosate by hiring academics to put their names on papers that were
actually written by Monsanto. We would be keeping the cost down by us
doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to
speak, Mr. Heydens wrote, citing a previous instance in which he said the
company had done this.
Asked about the exchange, Monsanto said in a second statement that its
scientists did not ghostwrite the paper that was referred to or previous
work, adding that a paper that eventually appeared underwent the
journals rigorous peer review process before it was published.
David Kirkland, one of the scientists mentioned in the email, said in an
interview, I would not publish a document that had been written by
someone else. He added, We had no interaction with Monsanto at all
during the process of reviewing the data and writing the papers.
The disclosures are the latest to raise concerns about the integrity of
academic research financed by agrochemical companies. Last year, a review
by The New York Times showed how the industry can manipulate academic
research or misstate findings. Declarations of interest included in a
Monsanto-financed paper on glyphosate that appeared in the journal
Critical Reviews in Toxicology said panel members were recruited by a
consulting firm. Email traffic made public shows that Monsanto officials
discussed and debated scientists who should be considered, and shaped the
project.
I think its important that people hold Monsanto accountable when they
say one thing and its completely contradicted by very frank internal
documents, said Timothy Litzenburg of the Miller Firm, one of the law
firms handling the litigation.
The issue of glyphosates safety is not a trivial one for Americans. Over
the last two decades, Monsanto has genetically re-engineered corn,
soybeans and cotton so it is much easier to spray them with the weed
killer, and some 220 million pounds of glyphosate were used in 2015 in the
United States.
People should know that there are superb scientists in the world who
would disagree with Monsanto and some of the regulatory agencies
evaluations, and even E.P.A. has disagreement within the agency, said
Robin Greenwald, a lawyer at Weitz & Luxembourg, which is also involved in
the litigation. Even in the E.U., theres been a lot of disagreement
among the countries. Its not so simple as Monsanto makes it out to be.
--
Donald J. Trump, 304 electoral votes to 227, defeated compulsive liar in
denial Hillary Rodham Clinton on December 19th, 2016. The clown car
parade of the democrat party has run out of gas.
Congratulations President Trump. Thank you for ending the disaster of the
Obama presidency.
Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp.
ObamaCare is a total 100% failure and no lie that can be put forth by its
supporters can dispute that.
Obama jobs, the result of ObamaCare. 12-15 working hours a week at minimum
wage, no benefits and the primary revenue stream for ObamaCare. It can't
be funded with money people don't have, yet liberals lie about how great
it is.
Obama increased total debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the eight
years he was in office, and sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood queer
liberal democrat donors.
lawsuit.html
The reputation of Roundup, whose active ingredient is the worlds most
widely used weed killer, took a hit on Tuesday when a federal court
unsealed documents raising questions about its safety and the research
practices of its manufacturer, the chemical giant Monsanto.
Roundup and similar products are used around the world on everything from
row crops to home gardens. It is Monsantos flagship product, and
industry-funded research has long found it to be relatively safe. A case
in federal court in San Francisco has challenged that conclusion, building
on the findings of an international panel that claimed Roundups main
ingredient might cause cancer.
The court documents included Monsantos internal emails and email traffic
between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that
Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics
and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection
Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundups main ingredient,
glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States
Department of Health and Human Services.
The documents also revealed that there was some disagreement within the
E.P.A. over its own safety assessment.
The files were unsealed by Judge Vince Chhabria, who is presiding over
litigation brought by people who claim to have developed non-Hodgkins
lymphoma as a result of exposure to glyphosate. The litigation was touched
off by a determination made nearly two years ago by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization,
that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen, citing research linking it to
non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
Court records show that Monsanto was tipped off to the determination by a
deputy division director at the E.P.A., Jess Rowland, months beforehand.
That led the company to prepare a public relations assault on the finding
well in advance of its publication. Monsanto executives, in their internal
email traffic, also said Mr. Rowland had promised to beat back an effort
by the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct its own review.
Dan Jenkins, a Monsanto executive, said in an email in 2015 that Mr.
Rowland, referring to the other agencys potential review, had told him,
If I can kill this, I should get a medal. The review never took place.
In another email, Mr. Jenkins noted to a colleague that Mr. Rowland was
planning to retire and said he could be useful as we move forward with
ongoing glyphosate defense.
The safety of glyphosate is not settled science. A number of agencies,
including the European Food Safety Agency and the E.P.A., have disagreed
with the international cancer agency, playing down concerns of a cancer
risk, and Monsanto has vigorously defended glyphosate.
But the court records also reveal a level of debate within the E.P.A. The
agencys Office of Research and Development raised some concern about the
robustness of an assessment carried out by the agencys Office of
Pesticide Programs, where Mr. Rowland was a senior official at the time,
and recommended in December 2015 that it take steps to strengthen its
human health assessment.
In a statement, Monsanto said, Glyphosate is not a carcinogen.
It added: The allegation that glyphosate can cause cancer in humans is
inconsistent with decades of comprehensive safety reviews by the leading
regulatory authorities around the world. The plaintiffs have submitted
isolated documents that are taken out of context.
The E.P.A. had no immediate comment, and Mr. Rowland could not be reached
immediately.
Monsanto also rebutted suggestions that the disclosures highlighted
concerns that the academic research it underwrites is compromised.
Monsanto frequently cites such research to back up its safety claims on
Roundup and pesticides.
In one email unsealed Tuesday, William F. Heydens, a Monsanto executive,
told other company officials that they could ghostwrite research on
glyphosate by hiring academics to put their names on papers that were
actually written by Monsanto. We would be keeping the cost down by us
doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to
speak, Mr. Heydens wrote, citing a previous instance in which he said the
company had done this.
Asked about the exchange, Monsanto said in a second statement that its
scientists did not ghostwrite the paper that was referred to or previous
work, adding that a paper that eventually appeared underwent the
journals rigorous peer review process before it was published.
David Kirkland, one of the scientists mentioned in the email, said in an
interview, I would not publish a document that had been written by
someone else. He added, We had no interaction with Monsanto at all
during the process of reviewing the data and writing the papers.
The disclosures are the latest to raise concerns about the integrity of
academic research financed by agrochemical companies. Last year, a review
by The New York Times showed how the industry can manipulate academic
research or misstate findings. Declarations of interest included in a
Monsanto-financed paper on glyphosate that appeared in the journal
Critical Reviews in Toxicology said panel members were recruited by a
consulting firm. Email traffic made public shows that Monsanto officials
discussed and debated scientists who should be considered, and shaped the
project.
I think its important that people hold Monsanto accountable when they
say one thing and its completely contradicted by very frank internal
documents, said Timothy Litzenburg of the Miller Firm, one of the law
firms handling the litigation.
The issue of glyphosates safety is not a trivial one for Americans. Over
the last two decades, Monsanto has genetically re-engineered corn,
soybeans and cotton so it is much easier to spray them with the weed
killer, and some 220 million pounds of glyphosate were used in 2015 in the
United States.
People should know that there are superb scientists in the world who
would disagree with Monsanto and some of the regulatory agencies
evaluations, and even E.P.A. has disagreement within the agency, said
Robin Greenwald, a lawyer at Weitz & Luxembourg, which is also involved in
the litigation. Even in the E.U., theres been a lot of disagreement
among the countries. Its not so simple as Monsanto makes it out to be.
--
Donald J. Trump, 304 electoral votes to 227, defeated compulsive liar in
denial Hillary Rodham Clinton on December 19th, 2016. The clown car
parade of the democrat party has run out of gas.
Congratulations President Trump. Thank you for ending the disaster of the
Obama presidency.
Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp.
ObamaCare is a total 100% failure and no lie that can be put forth by its
supporters can dispute that.
Obama jobs, the result of ObamaCare. 12-15 working hours a week at minimum
wage, no benefits and the primary revenue stream for ObamaCare. It can't
be funded with money people don't have, yet liberals lie about how great
it is.
Obama increased total debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the eight
years he was in office, and sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood queer
liberal democrat donors.