Jörg Carstensen / picture alliance via Getty Images
By Carey Gillam
Bayer AG is reneging on negotiated settlements with several U.S. law firms representing thousands of plaintiffs who claim exposure to Monsanto's Roundup herbicides caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, sources involved in the litigation said on Friday.
<p>The reversal comes as U.S. courts are closed to the public because of the spreading coronavirus, eliminating the specter of another Roundup cancer trial in the near future.</p><p>Bayer, which bought Monsanto in June of 2018, has been engaged in settlement talks for close to a year, seeking to put an end to mass litigation that has driven down the company's stock, spurred investor unrest, and thrust questionable corporate conduct into a public spotlight. The first three trials led to three losses for Bayer and jury awards of more than $2 billion, though trial judges later reduced the awards.</p>
<p>Bayer made <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit-delay/bayer-says-glyphosate-settlement-talks-delayed-by-coronavirus-handelsblatt-idUSKBN21K13F" target="_blank">a public statement</a> this week saying that settlement talks have been slowed by the coronavirus pandemic, but multiple plaintiffs' lawyers said that was not true.</p><p>According to the plaintiffs' attorneys, Bayer has been going back to law firms that had already completed negotiations for specified settlements for their clients, saying the company will not honor the agreed-upon amounts.</p><p>"A lot of lawyers around the country thought they had tentative deals," said Virginia attorney Mike Miller, whose firm represents roughly 6,000 clients and won two of the three Roundup trials to date. Bayer is now demanding a "hair cut" on those deals, Miller said.</p><p>Whether or not the various firms will take the reduced offers remains to be seen. "These are uncertain economic times," Miller said. "People have to consider what's best for their clients."</p>In response to a request for comment, a Bayer spokesman provided the following statement: "We've made progress in the Roundup mediation discussions, but the COVID-19 dynamics, including restrictions imposed in recent weeks, have caused meeting cancellations and delayed this process … As a result, the mediation process has significantly slowed, and realistically, we expect this will continue to be the case for the immediate future. During this time, we will continue to do whatever we can to help combat the global COVID-19 pandemic, consistent with our vision of 'health for all, hunger for none.' We cannot speculate about potential outcomes from the negotiations or timing, given the uncertainties surrounding the pandemic and the confidentiality of this process, but we remain committed to engaging in mediation in good faith."<p>US Right to Know <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/anticipation-builds-for-settlement-of-roundup-cancer-claims/" target="_blank">reported in early January</a> that the parties were working on a settlement of roughly $8 billion to $10 billion. Bayer has acknowledged facing claims from more than 40,000 plaintiffs, but plaintiffs' attorneys have said the total number of claims is much higher.</p><p>Among the firms who had negotiated settlements for their clients are the Andrus Wagstaff firm from Denver, Colorado and the Los Angeles firm of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman. Both reached agreements last year with Bayer.</p><p>In addition, the Weitz & Luxenberg firm from New York and Mike Miller's firm recently reached what they thought were agreements on terms. Each of the firms represents thousands of plaintiffs.</p><p>The primary leverage plaintiffs' attorneys had been using in the settlement negotiations was the threat of another public trial. In the first three trials, damning <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/" target="_blank">internal Monsanto documents</a> laid bare evidence that the company knew of the cancer risks of its glyphosate-based herbicides but failed to warn consumers; ghost-wrote scientific papers proclaiming the safety of its herbicides; worked with certain regulatory officials to quash a government review of glyphosate toxicity; and engineered efforts to discredit critics.</p><p>The revelations have triggered outrage around the world and prompted moves to ban the glyphosate-based herbicides.</p><p>Several trials that were to have been held over the last several months were cancelled shortly before they were scheduled to begin when Bayer agreed to individual settlements for those specific trial plaintiffs. Two of those cases involved children stricken with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a third was brought by a woman suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Those plaintiffs, and others who have agreed to settlements in lieu of trials in recent months, are protected and are not part of the current rollback effort by Bayer, according to multiple sources involved.</p><p>Bayer is slated to hold its annual shareholders' meeting on April 28. For the first time in the company's history, the meeting will be <a href="https://www.media.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Bayer-planning-to-hold-online-only-stockholders-meeting-on-April-28-2020" target="_blank">held entirely online</a>.</p><p>The first three plaintiffs to win jury awards against Monsanto have yet to receive any money as Bayer appeals the verdicts.</p>
Read More
Show Less
The CEO of German chemicals giant Bayer, Werner Baumann, speaks during the company's annual news conference in Leverkusen, western Germany, on Feb. 27. INA FASSBENDER / AFP / Getty Images
By Carey Gillam
A California shareholder of Bayer AG on Friday filed a lawsuit against the companies' top executives claiming they breached their duty of "prudence" and "loyalty" to the company and investors by buying Monsanto Co. in 2018, an acquisition the suit claims has "inflicted billions of dollars of damages" on the company.
<p>Plaintiff Rebecca R. Haussmann, trustee of the Konstantin S. Haussmann Trust, is the sole named plaintiff in the suit, which was filed in New York County Supreme Court. The named defendants include Bayer <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-chairman-ceo/pressure-mounts-on-bayer-ceo-to-fix-legal-problems-as-chairman-quits-idUSKCN20K2SM" target="_blank">CEO Werner Baumann</a>, who orchestrated the $63 billion Monsanto purchase, and Bayer Chairman Werner Wenning, who announced last month he was <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/bayer-chairman-steps-down-in-midst-of-roundup-legal-battle-11582714274" target="_blank">stepping down</a> from the company earlier than planned. The suit claims that Wenning's decision came after Bayer improperly obtained a copy of the then-draft shareholder lawsuit "through corporate espionage."<em></em></p>
<p>The lawsuit also claims that Bayer's recent announcement of an audit of its acquisition actions is "bogus" and "part of the ongoing cover-up and intended to create a legal barrier to this case to protect Defendants from their accountability…"</p><p>The action is a shareholder derivative complaint, meaning it is brought on behalf of the company against company insiders. It seeks compensatory damages for shareholders and disgorgement of "all compensation paid to the Bayer Managers and Supervisors who participated in bringing about this Acquisition…" The suit also seeks return of funds paid to banks and law firms involved in the acquisition.</p><p>The defendants include not only Baumann and Wenning, but also some present and former Bayer directors and top managers, as well as BOFA Securities, Inc., Bank of America, Credit Suisse Group AG and the law firms of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and Linklaters LLP.</p><p>A Bayer spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.</p>
<p>The lawsuit comes a little more than a month before Bayer's April 28 annual shareholders' meeting in Bonn, Germany. At last year's annual meeting, 55 percent of shareholders <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-26/bayer-ceo-loses-key-vote-as-investors-reject-monsanto-strategy" target="_blank">registered their unhappiness</a> with Baumann and other managers over the Monsanto deal and the subsequent loss of roughly $40 billion in market value.</p><p>Bayer's purchase of Monsanto has been clouded by tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging Monsanto's glyphosate-based herbicides cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that the company deceived customers about the risks. Bayer proceeded with the acquisition even after the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen with a positive association to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and despite knowledge of the spreading legal claims.</p><p>Bayer then completed the Monsanto purchase just two months before the first Roundup cancer trial ended with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/11/one-mans-suffering-exposed-monsantos-secrets-to-the-world" target="_blank">a $289 million verdict</a> against the company. Since that time two more trials have ended in similar findings against the company with verdicts totaling more than $2 billion, though the trial judges in each case have lowered the verdicts. All are now on appeal.</p>
<p>Bayer has said there are more than 45,000 plaintiffs currently making similar claims. The company has been working to settle the lawsuits for a figure widely reported to be around $10 billion but has thus far not been successful in putting an end to the litigation.</p><p>The lawsuit claims that during 2017 and 2018, as the filing of new Roundup cancer lawsuits was escalating, the ability of Bayer management to conduct due diligence into Monsanto and the litigation risks was "severely restricted." As a result, "Bayer could not conduct the kind of intrusive and thorough due diligence into Monsanto's business and legal affairs called for under the circumstances."</p><p>The suit claims that Monsanto did not disclose a material risk from Roundup and failed to quantify any potential financial impact. Monsanto's executives "had every incentive to minimize the Roundup risk in order to get Bayer to close the deal," the lawsuit states.</p><p>The shareholder lawsuit claims that "these types of mass-tort cases… can destroy a company."</p><p>The lawsuit points to the fact that Monsanto's glyphosate herbicides are now being restricted and/or banned in many parts of the world, including in Germany.</p><p>"The Monsanto Acquisition is a disaster. Roundup is doomed as a commercial product," the lawsuit states.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/shareholder-files-suit-against-bayer-over-disastrous-monsanto-acquisition/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>. </em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Cancer Takes Toll as New Roundup Trials Near - EcoWatch ›
- Bayer Apologizes Over Secret List of Monsanto Critics - EcoWatch ›
- Bayer and BASF Ordered to Pay $265 Million to U.S. Peach Farmer ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Monsanto Roundup Cancer Trial Postponed in St. Louis, Bayer Stock Climbs
09 January
Health + Wellness
The compound of German chemicals and pharmaceuticals giant Bayer in Berlin on March 20, 2019. ODD ANDERSEN / AFP via Getty Images
By Carey Gillam
A highly anticipated Roundup cancer trial set to start later this month in the St. Louis area has been pulled from the docket, a court official said on Wednesday.
<p>The trial, which was to pit a woman named Sharlean Gordon against Roundup maker <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" target="_self">Monsanto</a> Co., was to start Jan. 27 in St. Louis County and was to be broadcast to the public. Notably, Gordon's lawyers planned to put former Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant on the stand. St. Louis was the home of Monsanto's corporate headquarters until the company was purchased by Bayer AG of Germany in June of 2018.</p><p>In taking the trial off the calendar, the judge in the case has ordered that a status conference be set for a month from now, said St. Louis County Court spokeswoman Christine Bertelson.</p>
<p>The Gordon trial was already postponed once – it originally was scheduled for August. It is one of several trials that have been postponed in the last several months as Bayer attempts to find a settlement to the mass of claims filed against Monsanto by people stricken with non-Hodgkin lymphoma they claim was caused by exposure to Monsanto Roundup and other <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate</a>-based herbicides. Bayer officials have said that Monsanto is facing more than 42,700 plaintiffs in the U.S.</p><p>Gordon developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup herbicides for 25 years at her residence in South Pekin, Illinois, and has suffered extensive debilitation due to her disease. Gordon's stepfather, who also used Roundup at the family home, died of cancer. <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Sharlean-Gordon-v.-Monsanto.pdf" target="_blank">The case</a> is actually derived from a larger case filed in July 2017 on behalf of more than 75 plaintiffs. Gordon was to be the first of that group to go to trial.</p>
<p>Monsanto and Bayer have denied that Monsanto's herbicides can cause cancer, and assert the litigation is without merit but is being fueled by greedy plaintiffs' attorneys.</p><p>According to sources close to the litigation, <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/more-monsanto-roundup-cancer-trials-expected-to-be-postponed/" target="_blank">discussions are underway</a> to postpone more Roundup cancer trials, possibly including one set to start Jan. 21 in St. Louis City Court. Attorneys for Monsanto and for the plaintiffs in the upcoming January trials declined to comment.</p><p>Shares in Bayer hit a 52-week high and were up close to 3 percent Wednesday. Investors have been pushing the company to find a way to avoid future trials and to settle the litigation.</p>
<p>In the three Roundup cancer trials held so far, unanimous juries have found that exposure to Monsanto's herbicides does cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that the company covered up the risks and failed to warn consumers. The three juries awarded a total of four plaintiffs more than $2 billion in damages, but the trial judges in each case <a href="https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-roundup-settlement/" target="_blank">have reduced the awards</a> significantly.</p><p>No damages have yet been paid as Monsanto appeals the verdicts.</p><p>Bayer's annual shareholders' meeting is set for April 28 and analysts said investors would like to see either a settlement of the litigation by that time, or at least meaningful progress in containing the liability. Bayer's <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/business/monsanto-roundup-cancer-verdict.html" target="_blank">stock took a dive</a>, losing billions of dollars in value, after the first jury verdict in August 2018, and share prices remain depressed.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/st-louis-monsanto-roundup-trial-postponed/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Monsanto Cancer Ruling Sparks Backlash Around the Globe ... ›
- Glyphosate Spin Check: Tracking Claims About the Most Widely ... ›
- More Monsanto Roundup Cancer Trials Expected to Be Postponed ... ›
- Former Monsanto CEO Ordered to Testify at Roundup Cancer Trial ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Activists stage a flash protest organized by the international movement Attac at the offices of Bayer in Paris on March 14, 2019. PHILIPPE LOPEZ / AFP via Getty Images
Update, Jan. 8: On Wednesday, St. Louis County Court spokeswoman Christine Bertelson confirmed that one trial set to start Jan. 27 has been officially postponed with no new trial date yet set. That trial was to pit a woman named Sharlean Gordon against Monsanto.
By Carey Gillam
Discussions are underway to postpone one or more highly anticipated Roundup cancer trials set to start in January, including trials scheduled for St. Louis, the former hometown of Roundup herbicide maker Monsanto Co., according to sources close to the litigation.
<p>Court dockets still show trials <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/" target="_blank">scheduled for later this month</a> in St. Louis and in California courts, and court officials say they are still planning for the trials to take place on the designated dates. But multiple legal sources said the opposing sides were nearing agreements that would put off the trials by several months, if not longer. Attorneys for Monsanto and for the plaintiffs in the upcoming January trials declined to comment.</p><p>The talk of trial delays is not unexpected. Bayer AG, the German company that bought Monsanto in June 2018, successfully negotiated the <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/speculation-over-settlement-soars-as-roundup-cancer-trial-postponed/" target="_blank">postponement of several trials</a> that had been set for the fall of 2019 after losing each of the three trials held to date. Each involved plaintiffs who claimed their cancers were caused by exposure to Roundup and other Monsanto <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate</a>-based herbicides.</p><p><a href="https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-roundup-settlement/" target="_blank">The juries </a>found not just that the company's herbicides can cause cancer, but that Monsanto knew about the risks and hid the information from consumers. Bayer has estimated more than 42,700 people have filed claims in the U.S. against Monsanto, which is now a wholly owned unit of Bayer.</p><p>Bayer and a team of plaintiffs' attorneys have been pursuing a potential settlement of the litigation that could amount to well more than $8 billion, the legal sources said.</p>
<p>Bayer has been particularly uneasy about trials scheduled for St. Louis, where former Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/former-monsanto-ceo-ordered-to-testify-at-roundup-trial-in-person/" target="_blank">has been subpoenaed to testify</a> and the trial of plaintiff Sharlean Gordon was to be broadcast to the public. In the three previous trials, all held in California, Monsanto executives have given testimony through depositions and have not had to take the stand in front of juries.</p><p>"Trial postponements make perfect sense right now," said Susquehanna Financial Group analyst Tom Claps. "I believe that it is in everyone's best interest to stay out of the courtroom at this time, especially when negotiations seem to be progressing in a positive manner."</p><p>Amid the maneuvering, more cases continue to stack up. Lawyers for Monsanto were in court Monday in Independence, Missouri to set a schedule and trial date for a newly filed lawsuit brought by a woman suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma she claims she developed due to her residential use of Roundup.</p><p>Gregory Chernack of the Washington, DC-based Hollingsworth law firm, one of Monsanto's long-serving defense firms, told the judge in Independence that Monsanto wanted the case consolidated with roughly 30 others being overseen by a different judge in Kansas City, Missouri. Attorneys for plaintiff Sheila Carver objected to the suggestion, and asked the judge to go ahead and set a trial date. Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Jennifer Phillips decided to give the parties 30 days to file motions on the matter.</p>
<p>Bayer's annual shareholders' meeting is set for April 28 and analysts said investors would like to see either a settlement of the litigation by that time, or at least meaningful progress in containing the liability. Bayer's <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/business/monsanto-roundup-cancer-verdict.html" target="_blank">stock took a dive</a>, losing billions of dollars in value, after the first jury verdict in August 2018, and share prices remain depressed.</p><p>"Bayer's stock has reacted negatively to each of the three trial verdicts. Therefore, Bayer does not want to face more negative trial headlines from losing another trial, especially while it is engaged in good faith settlement discussions," said Claps.</p><p>There are multiple factors at play, however, including the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the appeals that are pending for each of the three trials. If an appellate court were to overturn the jury findings of Monsanto's liability, it would weaken the plaintiffs' bargaining power for a global settlement. Conversely, the company's position would be weakened if the jury verdicts are upheld on appeal. But no decision is expected <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/monsanto-comes-out-swinging-in-appeal-of-johnson-verdict/" target="_blank">on the appeals</a> for several more months at least.</p><p>In December, the U.S. Department of Justice took the rare step of <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">intervening in the litigation</a> to <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/12/EPA-amicus-brief-supporting-Monsanto-in-Hardeman-appeal.pdf" target="_blank">side with Monsanto</a> and Bayer in the appeal of one of the verdicts.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/more-monsanto-roundup-cancer-trials-expected-to-be-postponed/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Former Monsanto CEO Ordered to Testify at Roundup Cancer Trial ... ›
- Cancer Takes Toll as New Roundup Trials Near - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Guido Cavallini / Cultura / Getty Images
By Stacy Malkan
If you like to give friends and family the gift of knowledge about our food, we're here with recommendations for 2019 books and movies that illuminate the issues close to our hearts. At U.S. Right to Know, we believe that transparency – in the marketplace and in politics – is crucial to building a healthier food system for our children, our families and our world. Kudos to the journalists and filmmakers who are exposing how powerful food and chemical industry interests impact our health and the environment.
<p>Here are our recommendations for best-of-the-year food books and movies. You can also receive a signed copy of the award-winning 2017 book by our colleague, Carey Gillam, <em>Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science</em>, for a monthly <a href="https://www.patreon.com/usrtk" target="_blank">sustainer donation to U.S. Right to Know through Patreon</a> or you can <a href="https://usrtk.org/donations/donate-to-usrtk/" target="_blank">donate directly to USRTK here</a>. </p>
<p><strong>Eating Tomorrow: Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the Battle for the Future of Food</strong><br>By Timothy A. Wise, <a href="https://thenewpress.com/books/eating-tomorrow" target="_blank">The New Press</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Holiday gift-giving solved: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/EatingTomorrow?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#EatingTomorrow</a>!<br><br>Olivier De Schutter: "There is a battle for the future of food, and Eating Tomorrow shifts the frontlines.”<a href="https://twitter.com/drvandanashiva?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@drvandanashiva</a>: “Eating Tomorrow is a wake-up call about the future of food."<br>Ricardo Salvador: “Wise’s writing is riveting." <a href="https://t.co/f0nXjqc4Y2">pic.twitter.com/f0nXjqc4Y2</a></p>— Timothy A. Wise (@TimothyAWise) <a href="https://twitter.com/TimothyAWise/status/1201922126208520192?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 3, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Scholar <a href="https://twitter.com/TimothyAWise" target="_blank">Timothy A. Wise</a> shows the world already has the tools to feed itself, without expanding <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/industrial-agriculture">industrial agriculture</a> or adopting <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/">genetically modified</a> seeds. Reporting from Africa, Mexico, India and the U.S., Wise details how agribusiness and its philanthropic promoters have <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/11/01/battle-future-food-africa" target="_blank">hijacked food policies to feed corporate interests,</a> and argues that policies promoted by the Gates Foundation-funded Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) are <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/11/01/battle-future-food-africa" target="_blank">failing to deliver productivity and income improvements</a> for small-scale farmers in Africa. Wise also takes readers to remote villages to see how farmers are rebuilding soils with ecologically sound practices without chemicals or imported hybrid or genetically engineered seeds.</p><p>"Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on fertilizer and hybrid seed subsidies by Kenya and other African countries over the past few years have gone down the drain, a new book argues," writes Julius Segei in Kenya's largest independent newspaper, the <a href="https://mobile.nation.co.ke/news/New-book-says-farm-input-subsidies-deepen-poverty/1950946-5360172-e4pg2hz/index.html" target="_blank">The Daily Nation</a>. "The scholar's verdict that there is little evidence of any green revolution coming to Africa more than 10 years after AGRA is likely to kick up a storm in agriculture and development circles."</p>
<p><strong>The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception</strong></p><p>By David Michaels, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-triumph-of-doubt-9780190922665?cc=us&lang=en&" target="_blank">Oxford University Press (available January 2020)</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TheTriumphofDoubt?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TheTriumphofDoubt</a> won't be available until February. Instead of using Amazon, you can pre-order it with a 30% discount from <a href="https://t.co/GIjwdBSPKq">https://t.co/GIjwdBSPKq</a> with promo code ASFLYQ6 2/<a href="https://t.co/ChmlLcLCHE">https://t.co/ChmlLcLCHE</a></p>— David Michaels (@drdavidmichaels) <a href="https://twitter.com/drdavidmichaels/status/1207300889863770114?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>David Michaels' new book offers an insider's look at how corporations manufacture doubt in <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/">science</a>: bogus studies, congressional testimonies, think-tank policy documents and more. He provides new details of high-profile cases involving car manufacturing, professional sports, the food we eat and the air we breathe. Michaels, the former assistant secretary of labor under President Barack Obama, writes that the anti-science policies of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration are not new, but rather the outcome of decades-long campaigns by the tobacco and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> industries to stop regulation of deadly products. "This book is written to get you angry enough to want to learn how to defend yourselves, your communities, and our vulnerable planet," writes consumer advocate Ralph Nader. "Let it grip you toward detection and defiance." </p>
<p><strong>Dark Waters</strong>, feature film in theaters now, starring <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkRuffalo?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" target="_blank">Mark Ruffalo</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvAOuhyunhY" target="_blank">(link to trailer)</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">By making <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DarkWaters?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DarkWaters</a>, we hope that the film brings more awareness to a massive public health threat that DuPont wanted to cover up. <a href="https://t.co/nuj4zeR3Fg">https://t.co/nuj4zeR3Fg</a></p>— Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkRuffalo/status/1203687893950185473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>A tenacious attorney, <a href="https://twitter.com/robertbilott" target="_blank">Rob Billot</a>, uncovers a dark secret that connects a growing number of unexplained deaths to one of the world's largest corporations. As the evidence in the film shows, DuPont was aware of the dangers of its Teflon ingredients for many years. While trying to expose the truth, Bilot soon finds himself risking his future, his family and his own life.</p><p>In these kinds of movies, "you know going in that you're going to see a story about how bad things are thanks to corporate influence over government as well as the economy," <a href="https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dark-waters-movie-review-2019" target="_blank">writes movie critic Roger Ebert</a>, "but the extent of the corruption is still shocking, highlighting the implicit question: why fight, if the bad guys have already won? The answer, of course, is that you should fight because it's the right thing to do." Dark Waters is "an effective outrage machine," writes Michael O'Sullivan <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/mark-ruffalo-is-the-dogged-attorney-who-took-on-dupont-in-the-fact-based-dark-waters/2019/11/26/019cc15c-0a3a-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html?arc404=true" target="_blank">in The Washington Post</a>, but the movie "doesn't aspire to be something it's not. Like Bilott himself, it gets the job done, not by showboating, but by laying out the facts."</p>
<p><strong>Kid Food: The Challenge of Feeding Children in a Highly Processed World</strong><em><br></em>By Bettina Elias Siegel, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/kid-food-9780190862121" target="_blank">Oxford University Press</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Many of you have asked if KID FOOD will be released as an audiobook. YES! Here’s a preorder link—along with details re: my East Coast book tour, which starts THIS WEEK! <a href="https://t.co/UBnfH6I9Yw">https://t.co/UBnfH6I9Yw</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/AvivaGoldfarb?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AvivaGoldfarb</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/marionnestle?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@marionnestle</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/pam_koch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@pam_koch</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/dietdetective?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@dietdetective</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/greenlightbklyn?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@greenlightbklyn</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/audible_com?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@audible_com</a> <a href="https://t.co/XvhBk6Nppv">pic.twitter.com/XvhBk6Nppv</a></p>— Bettina Elias Siegel (@thelunchtray) <a href="https://twitter.com/thelunchtray/status/1193934908726661120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 11, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/thelunchtray?lang=en" target="_blank">Bettina Elias Siegel</a>, a leading voice on children's food, critically examines how America's food culture exploits children and misleads parents. Siegel exposes predatory food-industry techniques for marketing directly to children and convincing parents that highly-processed products are "healthy." She provides extensive coverage of America's school-food program — including why, even after Obama-era reforms, school meals are still so often dominated by processed foods, many of them bearing popular junk-food trademarks. "This is a gorgeously written, heartfelt, and deeply compelling manifesto arguing why and how we must do better at feeding our kids more healthfully at home, in schools, and on the soccer field," <a href="https://www.foodpolitics.com/2019/10/weekend-reading-kid-food/" target="_blank">writes Marion Nestle</a>, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. "It should inspire all of us to get busy and start advocating for better kid-food policies — right now."</p>
<p><strong>Modified: A food lover's journey into GMOs<br></strong>By Aube Giroux, feature length documentary <a href="https://www.modifiedthefilm.com/" target="_blank">now available for purchase or rent online</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Long time JGI friend Aube Giroux has won a <a href="https://twitter.com/beardfoundation?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@beardfoundation</a> award for her beautiful film Modified! Congratulations <a href="https://twitter.com/Aubergineblog?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Aubergineblog</a> - very well deserved! <a href="https://t.co/GPxO6YvkyZ">https://t.co/GPxO6YvkyZ</a></p>— Jane Goodall 🇨🇦 (@JaneGoodallCAN) <a href="https://twitter.com/JaneGoodallCAN/status/1123227249367449600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 30, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>In this beautiful, moving, award-winning documentary, <a href="https://www.instagram.com/kitchenvignettes" target="_blank">filmmaker Aube Giroux</a> and her mother embark on a personal investigative journey to find out why GMOs are not labeled on food products in the U.S. and Canada, despite being labeled in 64 countries around the world. Interweaving the personal and the political, the film is anchored around the filmmaker's relationship to her mom, a gardener and food activist who battled cancer during the film's production. Fueled by their shared love of food, the mother-daughter team discovers the extent to which the agribusiness industry controls our food policies, and makes a strong case for a more transparent and sustainable food system. The winner of four Audience Favorite Awards and the 2019 James Beard Foundation Broadcast Media Award for best documentary, Modified is "<a href="https://medium.com/@joan_baxter/award-winning-film-modified-premieres-at-santa-barbara-international-film-festival-a-review-b806cc00a56f" target="_blank">beautiful beyond words … compelling and compassionate</a>," writes the journalist Joan Baxter.</p>
<p><strong>Et le monde devint silencieux: Comment l'agrochimie a détruit les insectes<br>And The World Became Silent: How Agrochemistry Destroyed Insects</strong><em><br></em>by Stéphane Foucart, <a href="https://www.seuil.com/ouvrage/et-le-monde-devint-silencieux-stephane-foucart/9782021427424" target="_blank">Editions du Seuil (in French)</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="fr" dir="ltr">[Événement] Stéphane Foucart <a href="https://twitter.com/sfoucart?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@sfoucart</a>, journaliste <a href="https://twitter.com/lemondefr?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@lemondefr</a>, présente son ouvrage sur l’industrie des pesticides auprès des étudiants dauphinois <br>« Et le monde devint silencieux » <a href="https://twitter.com/EditionsduSeuil?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EditionsduSeuil</a> 🐝 <br><br>📍<a href="https://twitter.com/Paris_Dauphine?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Paris_Dauphine</a> <br>➡️ <a href="https://t.co/MpYXfDr1Db">https://t.co/MpYXfDr1Db</a> <a href="https://t.co/N127Gb3Ir1">pic.twitter.com/N127Gb3Ir1</a></p>— Univ Paris Dauphine-PSL (@Paris_Dauphine) <a href="https://twitter.com/Paris_Dauphine/status/1194297679523827718?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 12, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Investigative journalist <a href="https://twitter.com/sfoucart?lang=en" target="_blank">Stéphane Foucart</a> details how the agrichemical industry orchestrated "the greatest ecological disaster of the early twenty-first century" – the collapse of insect populations. Although pesticide companies claim the disappearance of insects is a mystery due to multiple factors, Foucart reports that the dominant cause is the massive use of neonicotinoid pesticides, and shows how it was made possible by an industry that faked public debate by manipulating science, regulation and expertise. The book shows how the industry exploited science to the point of "making us forget that insecticides … kill insects," writes Annabelle Martella in La Croix (<a href="https://www.la-croix.com/Sciences-et-ethique/Sciences-et-ethique/monde-devint-silencieux-enquete-strategie-lagrochimie-2019-09-10-1201046466" target="_blank">review in French</a>).</p><p>Foucart won the 2018 European Press Prize for investigative reporting, along with Stéphane Horel, for their <a href="https://www.europeanpressprize.com/article/monsanto-papers/" target="_blank">Monsanto Papers (translated into English here)</a> articles about how Monsanto manipulated science, influenced the regulatory process and orchestrated stealth PR campaigns to defend its Roundup herbicides. </p>
<p><strong>Wilted: Pathogens, Chemicals, and the Fragile Future of the Strawberry Industry</strong><br>By Julie Guthman, <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520305281/" target="_blank">University of California Press</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Thanks to @uscs professor Julie Guthman for her excellent reporting on how the strawberry industry came to rely on highly toxic soil fumigants. For more on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Wilted?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Wilted</a>, see review by <a href="https://twitter.com/emonosson11?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@emonosson11</a> in <a href="https://twitter.com/aaas?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@aaas</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/sciencemagazine?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@sciencemagazine</a> <a href="https://t.co/AfjdjsgxB2">https://t.co/AfjdjsgxB2</a></p>— U.S. Right To Know (@USRightToKnow) <a href="https://twitter.com/USRightToKnow/status/1207358348737290240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Julie Guthman tells the story of how strawberries – the sixth highest-grossing crop in California which produces 88 percent of the nation's favorite berry – came to rely on highly toxic soil fumigants, and how that reliance reverberated throughout the rest of the fruit's production system. The particular conditions of plants, soils, chemicals, climate and laboring bodies that once made strawberry production so lucrative in the Golden State have now changed and become a set of related threats that jeopardize the future of the industry. "The strawberry industry's predicament is just one example of how our strategy of dominating ecological systems and focusing on increased output at all cost is short-sighted, with diminishing returns," writes Emily Monosson in a <a href="https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2019/08/13/wilted/" target="_blank">Science magazine review</a>. "Recent efforts to work with, rather than against, natural systems suggest a path forward."</p>
<p><strong>GMOs Decoded: A Skeptic's View of Genetically Modified Foods<br></strong>By Sheldon Krimsky, <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/gmos-decoded" target="_blank">MIT Press</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Have you heard Sheldon Krimsky's interview on "GMOs Decoded" with <a href="https://twitter.com/RalphNader?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RalphNader</a> on Ralph Nader Radio Hour? Listen in here: <a href="https://t.co/kADErGaHUm">https://t.co/kADErGaHUm</a> <a href="https://t.co/ooMwCWoDZe">pic.twitter.com/ooMwCWoDZe</a></p>— MIT Press (@mitpress) <a href="https://twitter.com/mitpress/status/1129343380734009344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 17, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Tufts professor Sheldon Krimsky examines health and safety concerns, environmental issues, implications for world hunger and lack of scientific consensus on GMOs (genetically modified organisms). He explores the viewpoints of a range of GMO skeptics, from public advocacy groups and nongovernmental organizations to scientists with differing views on risk and environmental impact. <a href="https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-262-03919-2" target="_blank">Publishers Weekly calls Krimsky's book</a> a "fair-minded, informative primer" that "lays out opposing 'claims and counterclaims,' demystifies the science, and shows where there is consensus, honest disagreement, or unresolved uncertainty." NYU professor Marion Nestle describes the book as "a gift to anyone confused" about GMOs.</p>
<h3>And Two More Excellent Food Books From 2018</h3><p><strong>Seeds of Resistance: The Fight to Save Our Food Supply</strong><br>By Mark Schapiro, <a href="https://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/9781510705760/seeds-of-resistance/" target="_blank">Skyhorse Publishing</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Check out Mark Schapiro's new website on seed politics, and his terrific new book Seeds of Resistance <a href="https://t.co/QtCduGXSrH">https://t.co/QtCduGXSrH</a></p>— Michael Pollan (@michaelpollan) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelpollan/status/1097688890155126785?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Journalist <a href="https://twitter.com/schapiro?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3Aschapiro&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fseedsofresistance.net%2Fabout-the-author%2F" target="_blank">Mark Schapiro</a> reports on the high-stakes battle underway for control of the world's seeds, as climate volatility threatens the security of our food supply. Schapiro investigates what it means that more than half the world's commercial seeds are owned by three multinational chemical companies, and brings to light what the corporate stranglehold is doing to our daily diet – from the explosion of genetically modified foods, to the rapid disappearance of plant varieties, to the elimination of independent farmers who have long been the bedrock of our food supply. The book also documents colorful and surprising stories from the global movement that is defying these companies, and offering alternatives capable of surviving the accelerating climatic changes. "Seeds of Resistance is a wake-up call," writes Alice Waters, founder of Chez Panisse and the Edible Schoolyard. "With vivid and memorable stories, Mark Schapiro tells us how seeds are at the frontlines of our epic battle for healthy food."</p>
<p><strong>Formerly Known as Food: How the Industrial Food System Is Changing Our Minds, Bodies, and Culture<br></strong></p><p>By Kristin Lawless, <a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250078315" target="_blank">St. Martin's Press</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Not mad about the comparison! “Of all the books that I’ve read on the food industry, hers is one that sticks out. An absolute flamethrower – jawdropping – savage AF. Kristin Lawless is Daenerys Targaryen and Big Food is King’s Landing and I’m here for it.” <a href="https://t.co/a7BiHpsh4C">https://t.co/a7BiHpsh4C</a></p>— Kristin Lawless (@kristinlawless) <a href="https://twitter.com/kristinlawless/status/1206235404854124547?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>If you think buying <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/organic">organic</a> from Whole Foods is protecting you, you're wrong. Our food — even what we're told is good for us — has changed for the worse in the past 100 years, its nutritional content deteriorating due to industrial farming and its composition altered due to the addition of thousands of chemicals from pesticides to packaging. We simply no longer know what we're eating. In <em>Formerly Known as Food</em>, <a href="https://twitter.com/kristinlawless?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" target="_blank">Kristin Lawless</a> argues that, because of the degradation of our diet, our bodies are literally changing from the inside out. The billion-dollar food industry is reshaping our food preferences, altering our brains, changing the composition of our microbiota, and even affecting the expression of our genes.</p><p>"In this revelatory survey of the dangers of the industrial food system, Lawless offers crucial tools for navigating it safely," writes the author Naomi Klein. "The best ones have nothing to do with shopping advice: she asks us to think holistically about food, why it can't be separated from other struggles for justice, and what it means to demand transformative change." </p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://usrtk.org/food-for-thought/2019_book_recommendations/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- This Holiday Season Your Best Gift Can Be a Donation to a Nonprofit ›
- Holiday Shopping: Best Retailers for Toxic-Free Gifts - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Monsanto's former chairman and CEO Hugh Grant speaks about "The Coming Agricultural Revolution" on May 17, 2016. Fortune Brainstorm E / Flickr
By Carey Gillam
Former Monsanto Chairman and CEO Hugh Grant will have to testify in person at a St. Louis-area trial set for January in litigation brought by a cancer-stricken woman who claims her disease was caused by exposure to the company's Roundup herbicide and that Monsanto covered up the risks instead of warning consumers.
<p>Grant, who led St. Louis-based Monsanto from 2003 until the company was sold to Bayer AG of Germany in June of 2018, and spent a total of 37 years working for Monsanto, was subpoenaed by lawyers for <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/st-louis-roundup-cancer-trial-could-be-postponed-talk-of-bayer-settlement/" target="_blank">plaintiff Sharlean Gordon,</a> to testify at a trial slated to begin Jan. 27 in St. Louis County Circuit Court.</p><p>The Gordon trial was originally scheduled for August of this year but was delayed as part of an effort to undertake settlement talks between Bayer and lawyers for tens of thousands of plaintiffs who are suing Monsanto with claims similar to Gordon's.</p><p>Two other trials set for January, both in courts in California and both involving children diagnosed with cancer, were <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-06/two-bayer-roundup-trials-postponed-to-give-mediation-more-time" target="_blank">recently postponed</a> due to continued settlement talks.</p><p>Bayer estimates that there are currently more than 42,000 plaintiffs alleging that exposure to Monsanto's Roundup and other <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate</a>-based herbicides made by Monsanto caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.</p><p>Grant did not have to testify live at the three Roundup cancer trials that have taken place so far because they were all held in California. But because Grant resides in St. Louis County, plaintiffs' attorneys saw an opportunity to get him on the stand in person.</p><p>Attorneys for Grant have been fighting the subpoena, arguing that he is not a scientist or regulatory expert and he has already provided information in deposition testimony. Grant has also argued that he should not have to testify because he plans to be out of the country starting Feb. 9.</p><p>But in a decision handed down Dec. 5, a special master appointed to the case sided with Gordon's attorneys <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/12/Order-for-Hugh-Grant-to-testify-at-trial.pdf" target="_blank">and ruled</a> that Grant was not entitled to an order quashing the subpoena for trial testimony.</p><p>"Mr. Grant appeared for interviews on public radio representing that Roundup is not a carcinogen; in earnings calls for investors Mr. Grant personally responded that the classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen was 'junk science;' in 2016 Mr. Grant personally lobbied the EPA Administrator and the Agricultural Committee Chair of the topic of glyphosate," the special master's order states.</p><p>"Although Mr. Grant does not have scientific knowledge that doubtless will be a significant component to this lawsuit, he was CEO of Monsanto for 15 years and took part in presentations, discussions, interviews and other appearances for Monsanto as CEO in which the topics of Roundup and glyphosate were explained, discussed and defended," Special Master Thomas Prebil said in his decision.</p><p>Gordon developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup herbicides for 25 years at her residence in South Pekin, Illinois, and has suffered extensive debilitation due to her disease. Gordon's stepfather, who also used Roundup at the family home where Gordon lived into adulthood, died of cancer. <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Sharlean-Gordon-v.-Monsanto.pdf" target="_blank">The case</a> is actually derived from a larger case filed in July 2017 on behalf of more than 75 plaintiffs. Gordon is the first of that group to go to trial.</p><p>In the three previous trials, unanimous juries have found that exposure to Monsanto's herbicides does cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that the company did cover up the risks and fail to warn consumers. The three juries awarded a total of four plaintiffs more than $2 billion in damages, but the three trial judges <a href="https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-roundup-settlement/" target="_blank">have reduced the awards</a> significantly in each case.</p><p>All are being appealed and none of the winning plaintiffs have yet received any of the monetary awards the juries ordered.</p>
<h2>Johnson Appeal Delayed</h2><p>The first plaintiff to win against Monsanto is a California school groundskeeper from California. <a href="https://time.com/5460793/dewayne-lee-johnson-monsanto-lawsuit/" target="_blank">Dewayne "Lee" Johnson </a>was awarded $289 million by a jury in August 2018. The trial judge later lowered the damages to $78 million. Monsanto appealed seeking to overturn the jury decision and Johnson cross-appealed seeking to reinstate the full award of $289 million.</p><p>The California Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District said it would act swiftly in ruling on the consolidated appeals and lawyers for both sides initially hoped to have a ruling by the end of this year. But the case has been delayed for several weeks as both sides awaited a date for oral arguments. On Dec. 3, Monsanto's attorneys asked the court not to schedule oral arguments in January or February, as several new Roundup trials are set for those months. Johnson's attorneys opposed that request for further delay.</p><p>On Friday, the court issued an order stating that while it agreed with Johnson about the need to<br>"schedule oral argument as soon as practicable," it was unlikely oral arguments could be held until March of April "given the number and length of all the briefs to be considered, the outstanding motions that the court must rule on when considering the merits of the appeal," and other factors.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/former-monsanto-ceo-ordered-to-testify-at-roundup-trial-in-person/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
An American flag waves in the wind at the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco, California on May 17 where a trial against Monsanto took place. Alva and Alberta Pilliod, were awarded more than $2 billion in damages in their lawsuit against Monsanto, though the judge in the case lowered the damage award to $87 million. JOSH EDELSON / AFP / Getty Images
By Carey Gillam
For the last five years, Chris Stevick has helped his wife Elaine in her battle against a vicious type of cancer that the couple believes was caused by Elaine's repeated use of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide around a California property the couple owned. Now the roles are reversed as Elaine must help Chris face his own cancer.
<p>Chris Stevick, who often mixed Roundup for his wife and tested the sprayer used to dispense the weed killer, was diagnosed last month with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Unlike Elaine's aggressive type of NHL known as central nervous system lymphoma, Chris's cancer is a type that tends to grow slowly. He was diagnosed after a physical examination showed abnormalities in his blood and prompted further tests.</p><p>The diagnosis has prompted a scramble among lawyers involved in the sprawling Roundup products liability litigation given that the Stevick's lawsuit against Monsanto is set as the next federal case to go to trial.</p><p>With the trial date of Feb. 24, 2020 looming, Elaine Stevick's lawyers <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/11/Stevick-Letter-Brief-re-husband-cancer-diagnosis.pdf" target="_blank">asked Monsanto's attorneys</a> if the company would agree that Chris Stevick's cancer claims could be joined with his wife's for the February trial in San Francisco. The attorneys argue that at the very least Chris Stevick's diagnosis is admissible evidence at his wife's trial as additional proof of their claim that Roundup exposure can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma.</p><p>Monsanto's attorneys oppose the joining of the claims and say that Elaine Stevick's trial should only proceed in February if there is no mention made of her husband's cancer. Alternatively, Monsanto requests that the February trial be delayed and the company be given time to do discovery into Chris Stevick's diagnosis.</p><p>The issue is to be discussed in a case management conference Thursday, which the Stevicks plan to attend. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/11/Stevick-order-Nov-6-2019.pdf" target="_blank">ahead of the hearing</a> that he is "tentatively of the view" that a continuance of the trial will be necessary if the couple wants to try their claims together. He also said that if Elaine Stevick proceeds on her exposure claims alone, evidence of her husband's cancer diagnosis "will likely be inadmissible…"</p><p>If the judge confirms that joining the claims would indeed require a continuance, Elaine Stevick will choose to proceed on her own in February, said attorney Mike Miller.</p><p>Earlier this year another husband and wife suffering from cancer, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, were awarded <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/business/monsanto-roundup-cancer-verdict.html" target="_blank">more than $2 billion in damages</a> in their lawsuit against Monsanto, though the judge in the case lowered the damage award to $87 million. The Pilliod trial was the third Roundup products liability trial to take place and the third in which juries found that Monsanto's Roundup herbicides cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that the company has hidden the risks from consumers. Alberta Pilliod's cancer has recently returned and it is not clear she will survive much longer, according to her attorneys.</p><p>None of the people so far awarded money in the three trials have received any payout from Monsanto as its owner Bayer AG appeals the verdicts.</p><p>There are currently more than 42,000 people suing Monsanto in the U.S., alleging that Monsanto's herbicides cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The lawsuits additionally allege that the company was well aware of the dangers but did nothing to warn consumers, working instead to manipulate the scientific record.</p><p>The Stevick trial is only one of at least six in five different venues slated for January and February, with each expected to last several weeks. Many lawyers are involved in more than one of the cases, and all have overlapping expert witnesses, setting up organizational and resource challenges for both sides. Multiple trials that had been set for this fall were delayed until next year.</p><p>In the meantime, both sides of the litigation are keeping an eye on the California Appellate Court, where lawyers for plaintiff <a href="https://time.com/5460793/dewayne-lee-johnson-monsanto-lawsuit/" target="_blank">Dewayne "Lee" Johnson</a> and lawyers for Monsanto are awaiting a date for oral arguments in their cross appeals. Monsanto is seeking to overturn the unanimous jury decision handed down against the company in August 2018. The trial judge in that case lowered the jury award from $289 million to $78 million and Johnson is appealing for the reinstatement of the full $289 million.</p><p>Johnson was the first to go to trial against Monsanto and his victory sent share prices in Bayer plummeting just two months after Bayer closed the purchase of Monsanto in June 2018. Johnson was granted "trial preference" due to predictions by his doctors that he did not have long to live. Johnson has outlived those predictions, though his health continues to decline.</p><p>As the litigation drags on, several plaintiffs have died or are nearing death, or have suffered such extreme health problems that their ability to undergo the rigors of depositions and trials has become limited.</p><p>In some cases, family members are being substituted as plaintiffs for deceased loved ones. In legal parlance, the notices to the courts are titled "<a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/11/Suggestion-of-Death.pdf" target="_blank">Suggestion of Death</a>."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
New FDA Report on Pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables Adds to Growing Public Health Concerns
28 October 2019
Health + Wellness
Farm workers spray pesticides on newly planted strawberries on a farm along the Pacific Coast. GomezDavid / E+ / Getty Images
By Carey Gillam
Last month the Food & Drug Administration published its latest annual analysis of the levels of pesticide residues that contaminate the fruits and veggies and other foods we Americans routinely put on our dinner plates. The fresh data adds to growing consumer concern and scientific debate over how pesticide residues in food may contribute – or not – to illness, disease and reproductive problems.
<p>Over 55 pages of data, charts and graphs, the FDA's "Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program" report also provides a rather unappetizing example of the degree to which U.S. farmers have come to rely on synthetic insecticides, fungicides and herbicides in growing our <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/food/" target="_self">food</a>.</p><p>We learn, for instance, in reading the latest report, that traces of pesticides were found in 84 percent of domestic samples of fruits, and 53 percent of vegetables, as well as 42 percent of grains and 73 percent of food samples simply listed as "other." The samples were drawn from around the country, including from California, Texas, Kansas, New York and Wisconsin.</p><p>Roughly 94 percent of grapes, grape juice and raisins tested positive for pesticide residues as did 99 percent of strawberries, 88 percent of apples and apple juice, and 33 percent of rice products, according to the FDA data.</p>
<p>Imported fruits and vegetables actually showed a lower prevalence of pesticides, with 52 percent of fruits and 46 percent of vegetables from abroad testing positive for pesticides. Those samples came from more than 40 countries, including Mexico, China, India and Canada.</p><p>We also learn that for the most recently reported sampling, among the hundreds of different pesticides, the FDA found traces of the long-banned insecticide DDT in food samples, as well as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chlorpyrifos">chlorpyrifos</a>, 2,4-D and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a>. DDT is linked to breast cancer, infertility and miscarriage, while chlorpyrifos – another insecticide – has been scientifically shown to cause neurodevelopmental problems in young children.</p><p>Chlorpyrifos is so dangerous that the European Food Safety Authority has recommended a ban of the chemical in Europe, finding that there is <a href="https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2019/08/06/EFSA-backs-ban-on-chlorpyrifos" target="_blank">no safe exposure level.</a> The herbicides <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-herbicides-2-4-d/who-unit-finds-24-d-herbicide-possibly-causes-cancer-in-humans-idUSKBN0P22FK20150623" target="_blank">2,4-D</a> and g<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/14/weed-killing-products-increase-cancer-risk-of-cancer" target="_blank">lyphosate</a> are both linked to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer">cancers</a> and other health problems as well.</p><p>Thailand recently <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/thailand-bans-use-of-paraquat-and-other-toxic-farm-chemicals/2019/10/22/1f41e66c-f4c1-11e9-b2d2-1f37c9d82dbb_story.html" target="_blank">said it was banning</a> glyphosate and chlorpyrifos due to the scientifically established risks of these pesticides.</p>
<p>Despite the prevalence of pesticides found in U.S. foods, the FDA, along with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), assert that pesticide residues in food are really nothing to worry about. Amid heavy lobbying by the agrichemical industry the EPA has actually supported continued use of glyphosate and chlorpyrifos in food production.</p><p>The regulators echo the words of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" target="_self">Monsanto</a> executives and others in the chemical industry by insisting that pesticide residues pose no threat to human health as long as the levels of each type of residue falls under a "tolerance" level set by the EPA.</p><p>In the most recent FDA analysis, only 3.8 percent of domestic foods had residue levels that were considered illegally high, or "violative." For imported foods, 10.4 percent of the foods sampled were violative, according to the FDA.</p><p>What the FDA did not say, and what regulatory agencies routinely avoid saying publicly, is that the tolerance levels for certain pesticides have risen over the years as the companies that sell the pesticides request higher and higher legal limits. The EPA has approved several increases allowed for glyphosate residues in food, for instance. As well, the agency often makes the determination that it need not comply with a legal requirement that states the EPA "shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children" in setting the legal levels for pesticide residues. The EPA has overridden that requirement in the setting of many pesticide tolerances, saying no such extra margin of safety is needed to protect children.</p><p>The bottom line: The higher the EPA sets the "tolerance" allowed as the legal limit, the lower the possibility that regulators will have to report "violative" residues in our food. As a result, the U.S. routinely allows higher levels of pesticide residues in food than other developed nations. For example, the legal limit for the weed killer glyphosate on an apple is 0.2 parts per million (ppm) in the U.S. but only half that level – 0.1 ppm – is allowed on an apple in the European Union. As well, the U.S. allows residues of glyphosate on corn at 5 ppm, while the EU allows only 1 ppm.</p><p>As legal limits rise for pesticide residues in food, many scientists have been increasingly raising alarms about the risks of regular consumption of the residues, and the lack of regulatory consideration of the potential cumulative impacts of consuming an array of bug and weed killers with every meal.</p><p>A team of Harvard scientists <a href="http://www.ask-force.org/web/Organic/Hemler-Organic-Foods-for-Cancer-Preventio-Worth-the-Investment-2018.pdf" target="_blank">are calling for</a> in-depth research about potential links between disease and consumption of pesticide as they estimate that more than 90 percent of people in the U.S. have pesticide residues in their urine and blood due to consumption of pesticide-laced foods. A <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29084307" target="_blank">study</a> connected to Harvard found that dietary pesticide exposure within a "typical" range was associated both with problems women had getting pregnant and delivering live babies.</p><p>Additional studies have found other health problems tied to dietary exposures to pesticides, <a href="https://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2019-05-14-herbicide-linked-to-human-liver-disease.aspx" target="_blank">including to glyphosate</a>. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world and is the active ingredient in Monsanto's branded Roundup and other weed killing products.</p>
<h2>Pesticide Industry Push Back</h2><p>But as the concerns mount, agrichemical industry allies are pushing back. This month a group of three researchers with long-standing close ties to the companies that sell agricultural pesticides released a report seeking to soothe consumer worries and discount the scientific research.</p><p>The report, <a href="https://www.cast-science.org/publication/interpreting-pesticide-residues-in-food/" target="_blank">which was issued Oct. 21</a>, stated that "there is no direct scientific or medical evidence indicating that typical exposure of consumers to pesticide residues poses any health risk. Pesticide residue data and exposure estimates typically demonstrate that food consumers are exposed to levels of pesticide residues that are several orders of magnitude below those of potential health concern."</p><p>Not surprisingly, the three authors of the report are closely tied to the agrichemical industry. One of the report's authors is Steve Savage, an agrichemical industry <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-savage-820a263/" target="_blank">consultant</a> and <a href="https://gmoanswers.com/experts/steve-savage" target="_blank">former DuPont employee.</a> Another is Carol Burns, a former scientist for Dow Chemical and current consultant for Cortevia Agriscience, a spin-off of DowDuPont. The third author is Carl Winter, chair of the Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of California at Davis. The university has received approximately <a href="https://biobeef.faculty.ucdavis.edu/2017/01/08/who-does-fund-university-research/" target="_blank">$2 million a year</a> from the agrichemical industry, according to a university researcher, though the accuracy of that figure has not been established.</p><p>The authors took their report directly to Congress, holding <a href="http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07egnhquf855778481&llr=zy8mbvcab" target="_blank">three different presentations</a> in Washington, DC, designed to promote their message of pesticide safety for use in "media food safety stories, and consumer advice regarding which foods consumers should (or should not) consume."</p><p>The pro-pesticide sessions were held at the office buildings for members of Congress and, appropriately it seems, at the headquarters for <a href="http://www.croplifeamerica.org/our-story" target="_blank">CropLife America</a>, the lobbyist for the agrichemical industry. </p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://usrtk.org/news-and-notes-by-carey-gillam/an-unappetizing-analysis-from-fda/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Strawberries, Spinach Top 'Dirty Dozen' List of Pesticide ... ›
- US Food Sampling Shows Troubling Pesticide Residues ›
- Massive Study Finds Eating Organic Slashes Cancer Risks ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Kirill Kukhmar / TASS / Getty Images
By Stacy Malkan
The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) is a corporate-funded nonprofit group with chapters around the world that claim to conduct "science for the public good," but documents released in a new study reveal that the influential ILSI science group is a actually a lobby group that protects the interests of the food industry, not public health.
<p>The <a href="https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12992-019-0478-6" target="_blank">June 2019 paper in Globalization and Health</a> describes internal emails that were obtained by the public interest group U.S. Right to Know via state public records laws. The documents reveal clear examples of how ILSI advances the interests of the food industry, especially by promoting industry-friendly science and arguments to policymakers. "Researchers have labelled the International Life Sciences Institute an industry front group, after studying thousands of documents," <a href="https://twitter.com/bmj_latest/status/1135908825935024130" target="_blank">reported the BMJ</a>. </p><p>As one example, the paper quotes an <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Alex-Malaspina-ILSI-Mexico.pdf" target="_blank">email from Alex Malaspina</a>, the former Coca-Cola executive who founded ILSI, lamenting the failure of ILSI Mexico to follow the industry position on soda taxes. Malaspina describes "the mess ILSI Mexico is in because they sponsored in September a sweeteners conference when the subject of soft drinks taxation was discussed. ILSI is now suspending ILSI Mexico, until they correct their ways. A real mess." </p>
<p><em>Stacy Malkan is co-director of U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit investigative research group focused on the food industry. She is author of the book, "Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry" (New Society 2007).</em><br/></p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTU4MzgxOS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzM2NTYzNH0.dTfAbvcL7WSlCF98pVgqKbrViDS0mtjaYGQqrlQ1RBY/img.png?width=980" id="afd14" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c0d76beba18fdbb61abd855ae872b150" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
2015 email from Alex Malaspina, founder of ILSI.
ILSI Undermined Obesity Fight in China
<p>In January 2019, two papers by <a href="https://susan-greenhalgh.com/coca-cola-goes-to-china/" target="_blank">Harvard Prof. Susan Greenhalgh</a> revealed ILSI's powerful influence on the Chinese government on issues related to obesity. Prof. Geenhalgh's articles in the <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k5050" target="_blank">Journal of Public Health Policy</a> and <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k5050" target="_blank">the BMJ</a> document how Coca-Cola and other corporations worked through the China branch of ILSI to influence decades of Chinese science and public policy on obesity and diet-related illnesses such as Type 2 diabetes and hypertension. </p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTU4MzgyMi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzI4MTYwMn0.r6FyhQVMns2_otbOh2mFGUR9_PJefpT4gbrhCHjGG1U/img.png?width=980" id="606ae" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e986dfa13e3df64b6079411f2a1a4eda" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Jan. 9 article in New York Times.
<p>ILSI is so well-placed in China that it operates from inside the government's Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in Beijing. Dr. Greenhalgh's papers document how Coca-Cola and other Western food and beverage giants "helped shape decades of Chinese science and public policy on obesity and diet-related diseases" by operating through ILSI to cultivate key Chinese officials "in an effort to stave off the growing movement for food regulation and soda taxes that has been sweeping the west," <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/health/obesity-china-coke.html" target="_blank">reported Andrew Jacobs in the New York Times</a>.</p><p>Recent studies on ILSI's influence and approach can also be found in <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09581596.2017.1371844" target="_blank">Critical Public Health</a> and the <a href="https://www.milbank.org/quarterly/articles/public-meets-private-conversations-between-coca-cola-" target="_blank">Milbank Quarterly</a>.</p>ILSI Sugar Study “Right Out of the Tobacco Industry’s Playbook”
<p>In 2016, public health experts denounced an ILSI-funded <a href="https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2593601/scientific-basis-guideline-recommendations-sugar-intake-systematic-review" target="_blank">sugar study</a> published in a prominent medical journal that presented a "scathing attack on global health advice to eat less sugar," <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/well/eat/a-food-industry-study-tries-to-discredit-advice-about-sugar.html" target="_blank">reported Anahad O'Connor in The New York Times</a>. The ILSI-funded study argued that warnings to cut sugar are based on weak evidence and cannot be trusted.</p><p>The Times story quoted Marion Nestle, a professor at New York University who studies conflicts of interest in nutrition research, on the ILSI study: "This comes right out of the tobacco industry's playbook: cast doubt on the science," Nestle said. "This is a classic example of how industry funding biases opinion. It's shameful." </p><p>ILSI has also been accused of working directly on the tobacco industry playbook to thwart public safety measures to reduce smoking. A <a href="https://www.who.int/tobacco/en/who_inquiry.pdf" target="_blank">July 2000 report by an independent committee of the World Health Organization</a> outlined a number of ways in which the tobacco industry attempted to undermine WHO tobacco control efforts, including using scientific groups to influence WHO's decision-making and to manipulate scientific debate surrounding the health effects of tobacco. ILSI played a key role in these efforts, according to a <a href="https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/ILSI.pdf" target="_blank">case study about ILSI from the WHO Tobacco Free Initiative</a>. "Findings indicate that ILSI was used by certain tobacco companies to thwart tobacco control policies. Senior office bearers in ILSI were directly involved in these actions," according to the case study. </p>ILSI Leaders Played Key Role in Defending Glyphosate as Chairs of WHO Panel
<p>In May 2016, ILSI was caught "in a conflict of interest row over glyphosate cancer risk," <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/17/unwho-panel-in-conflict-of-interest-row-over-glyphosates-cancer-risk" target="_blank">reported Arthur Neslen</a> in the Guardian, <a href="http://usrtk.org/pesticides/conflict-of-interest-concerns-cloud-meeting-as-international-experts-review-herbicide-risks/" target="_blank">after revelations</a> that the vice president of ILSI Europe, Prof. Alan Boobis, was also chairman of the UN Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues <a href="https://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf" target="_blank">(JMPR) panel</a> that found Monsanto's chemical <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/glyphosate-health-concerns/" target="_blank">glyphosate</a> was unlikely to pose a cancer risk through diet. The co-chair of the JMPR panel, Prof. Angelo Moretto, was a board member of ILSI's Health and Environment Services Institute. Neither of the chairs declared their ILSI leadership roles as conflicts of interest, despite the <a href="https://www.usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ILSI2012donors.pdf" target="_blank">significant financial contributions ILSI has received</a> from Monsanto and the pesticide industry trade group. </p>ILSI’s Cozy Ties at U.S. CDC
<p>In June 2016, <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/beverage-industry-finds-f_b_10715584.html" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know reported</a> that Dr. Barbara Bowman, director of a U.S. Centers for Disease Control division charged with preventing heart disease and stroke, tried to help ILSI's founder Alex Malaspina influence World Health Organization officials to back off policies to reduce sugar consumption. Bowman suggested people and groups for Malaspina to talk to, and solicited his comments on some CDC summaries of reports, the emails show. (Bowman <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/cdc-official-exits-agency_b_10760490.html" target="_blank">stepped down</a> after our first article was published reporting on these ties.)</p><p>A January 2019 <a href="https://www.milbank.org/quarterly/articles/public-meets-private-conversations-between-coca-cola-and-the-cdc/" target="_blank">study in the Milbank Quarterly</a> describes key emails of Malaspina cozying up to Dr. Bowman. </p>ILSI Influence in India
<p>ILSI has close ties to some Indian government officials and, as in China, the nonprofit has pushed similar messaging and policy proposals as Coca-Cola — downplaying the role of sugar and diet as a cause of obesity, and promoting increased physical activity as the solution, <a href="http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2019/1011.html" target="_blank">according to the India Resource Center</a>. Members of ILSI India's board of trustees include Coca-Cola India's director of regulatory affairs and representatives from Nestlé and Ajinomoto, a food additive company, along with government officials who serve on scientific panels that are tasked with deciding about food safety issues. </p>Longstanding Concerns About ILSI
<p>ILSI insists it is not an industry lobby group, but concerns and complaints are longstanding about the group's pro-industry stances and conflicts of interest among the organization's leaders.</p><p>In 2010, Nature reported on concerns about conflicts of interest between ILSI and the European Food Safety Authority, and noted that the<a href="https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101005/full/news.2010.513.html" target="_blank"> industry ties may taint the reputation of the European regulatory body</a>. </p><p>A 2019 book by Dr. Tim Noakes and Marika Sboros, <a href="http://www.realfoodontrial.com/" target="_blank">Real Food on Trial</a> (Columbus Publishing), recounts the "unprecedented prosecution" of Dr. Noakes "in a multimillion rand case that stretched over more than four years. All for a single tweet giving his opinion on nutrition." Russ Greene reported on the controversy in a 2017 <a href="https://keepfitnesslegal.crossfit.com/2017/01/05/big-food-vs-tim-noakes-the-final-crusade/" target="_blank">article for Keep Fitness Legal</a>. "The Food Industry is attempting to use Dr. Noakes in order to set an example to anyone who dares challenge its authority in nutrition," Greene wrote.</p>Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A Matter of Fact – Professor Refuses to Correct Errors in New Scientific Paper Finding Problems With Glyphosate
04 June 2019
Insights + Opinion
Mike Mozart / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
By Carey Gillam
Update, June 5: On June 5 a spokesperson or Scientific Reports said, "When any issues are raised with Scientific Reports about papers we have published, we investigate them carefully and we will take action where appropriate." He pointed out that Scientific Reports is an online, open-access journal in the "Nature Research family of journals" but is editorially independent of Nature.
The authors of a newly published paper examining the impacts of exposure to the world's most widely used herbicide declared some shocking news.
<p>The <a href="https://skinner.wsu.edu/biosketches/" target="_blank">team from Washington State</a> University found that descendants of rats exposed to the chemical <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a> developed prostate, kidney and ovarian diseases, obesity and birth abnormalities. The findings, published in April in the scientific journal <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-42860-0" target="_blank">Scientific Reports</a>, added to the global debate about the safety of glyphosate and Monsanto's Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers.</p>
<p>But perhaps more stunning than that news, the research team also stated in their paper that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a specialist scientific arm of the World Health Organization, had "retracted" its finding that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen. </p><p>The error is one of many in the paper reported to the authors over a month ago that has yet to be corrected. But none, perhaps, is more glaring than the one about IARC. </p><p>IARC had issued <a href="https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono112-10.pdf" target="_blank">a lengthy paper</a> in 2015 that concluded by classifying glyphosate as a 2A human carcinogen. That IARC classification sparked thousands of lawsuits against Monsanto, the longtime purveyor of Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides and fueled debate around the globe. The IARC classification also helped prompt many European countries to start moving to limit or ban glyphosate use. Cities, school districts and retailers across the United States have also stopped using or selling glyphosate products. Monsanto's German owner Bayer AG has lost 40 percent of its shareholder value due to the persistent concerns about Monsanto's glyphosate herbicides.</p><p>But according to the WSU team, the IARC classification that triggered it all was retracted in 2016. They wrote: </p><blockquote>"In March 2015 the International Agency of Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a Grade 2a carcinogen based on prevalence of liver and kidney tumors in chronic feeding studies. Shortly after, this statement was retracted in 2016."<br></blockquote><p>A retraction by IARC of its finding would be highly significant. Indeed, Monsanto in 2015 did seek a retraction but IARC has defended its work, as have numerous independent scientists from multiple countries. And notably, IARC has never retracted its finding of glyphosate as a 2A probable carcinogen. </p><p>"The classification has not been changed and is still valid," said IARC spokeswoman Veronique Terrasse. </p><p>The Washington State research team was led by <a href="https://skinner.wsu.edu/principal-investigator-michael-k-skinner/" target="_blank">Michael Skinner</a>, professor of the WSU School of Biological Sciences. Seemingly the error would be easy to correct. But when contacted about the error, Skinner said he had no intention of correcting the statement because no correction was needed. He said that he has told scientists who have raised the issue with him to write a letter to the editor of the journal. </p>
<p>"The Definition of Retract includes to "Draw or be drawn back or back in" or "withdraw or go back" or "reconsider or drawn back," so this is why the word was used in this context," Skinner said in an emailed response.</p><p>Scientific Reports is part of Nature, a weekly international journal that bills itself as "publishing the finest peer-reviewed research in all fields of science and technology…" No one from Nature or Scientific Reports responded to a question about whether or not the error would be corrected.</p><p>Several outside scientists have identified other factual errors in the paper, and said they threaten to undermine the credibility of the findings overall.</p><p>"This is supposed to be picked up by the peer review," said Chuck Benbrook, an agricultural economist and glyphosate expert whose own scientific research was cited incorrectly by the Skinner team in their paper. Benbrook contacted Skinner in April immediately after the paper was published laying out several errors that need correcting. Benbrook noted that all of the problems he is aware of were in the introduction to the paper and had nothing to do with the scientific conclusions.</p><p>"Why he didn't quickly correct the factual errors … is hard to understand," said Benbrook.</p><p>Among the other factual errors:</p><p>1. The paper stated that glyphosate accounts for nearly 72 percent of global pesticide usage, citing Benbrook's research. Benbrook's research does not say that, but says that 72 percent of glyphosate sprayed globally has been applied in the last decade.</p><p><span></span>2. The Skinner paper states that IARC's classification of glyphosate was based on the prevalence of liver and kidney tumors in chronic feeding studies. In fact, the IARC classification, as detailed in IARC's paper, states the classification was based on data from animal studies, epidemiology studies, and "strong evidence" of genotoxic mechanisms of action.</p><p><span></span>3. As well, the paper cited in a footnote a paper that contradicted IARC's finding of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen that <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews" target="_blank">was exposed</a> nearly two years ago as the ghost-written work of Monsanto scientists. Skinner's paper did not note that <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408444.2016.1214680" target="_blank">this paper</a>, titled "Genotoxicity Expert Panel review: weight of evidence evaluation of the genotoxicity of glyphosate, glyphosate-based formulations, and aminomethylphosphonic acid," was so problematic for its lack of disclosure of Monsanto's involvement that the journal that published it — Critical Reviews in Toxicology — issued an "<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408444.2018.1522786" target="_blank">expression of concern</a>" and a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408444.2018.1522133" target="_blank">correction statement.</a></p><p>Skinner's research was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. He and his colleagues exposed pregnant rats to glyphosate between their eighth and 14th days of gestation. The dose, which they said was half the amount expected to show no adverse effect, produced no apparent ill effects on either the parents or the first generation of offspring. But the researchers saw dramatic increases in "several pathologies affecting the second and third generations," according to <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-04/wsu-wrs042319.php" target="_blank">a press release</a> promoting the study.</p><p>The study has garnered quite a bit of attention. Several news outlets have reported on the study, quoting Skinner. Bayer AG, the German company that bought Monsanto last year, has said Skinner's study wasn't credible. But Skinner <a href="https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/apr/26/thanks-a-lot-grandma-negative-affects-of-roundup-c/" target="_blank">has defended the accuracy</a> of the study, citing the fact it was peer-reviewed and published in an accredited scientific journal. </p>
Read More
Show Less
Bayer Investigates Its Shady PR Firm After 'Monsanto File' Scandal in France
15 May 2019
Insights + Opinion
Sean Gallup / Getty Images
By Stacy Malkan
In the latest PR scandal to engulf Bayer, journalists at Le Monde reported May 9 that they obtained a "Monsanto File" created by the public relations firm FleishmanHillard listing a "multitude of information" about 200 journalists, politicians, scientists and others deemed likely to influence the debate on glyphosate in France.
<p>Le Monde <a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/05/09/fichier-monsanto-le-monde-porte-plainte_5460196_3244.html" target="_blank">filed a complaint</a> with the Paris prosecutor's office alleging that the document involved illegal collection and processing of personal data, spurring the prosecutor's office to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/bayers-legal-woes-escalate-with-probe-into-monsanto-file-11557772701" target="_blank">open a criminal probe</a>. "This is a very important discovery because it shows there are objective strategies to silence strong voices. I can see they were trying to isolate me," France's former Environment Minister Segolene Royal, who is on the list, <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/20191405-debate-monsanto-glyphosate-weed-killer-trial-farming-cancer" target="_blank">told France 24 TV</a>. Francois Veillerette, an environmentalist named on the list, told France 24 the list included personal details such as addresses, opinions and level of engagement in relation to Monsanto. "This is a major shock in France," he said. "We don't think this is normal."</p><p>Bayer <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/bayer-apologizes-over-secret-list-of-monsanto-critics/a-48702015" target="_blank">apologized</a> and said it <a href="https://www.holmesreport.com/latest/article/bayer-suspends-agency-relationships-pending-monsanto-investigation" target="_blank">suspended its relationship</a> with the firms involved, including FleishmanHillard and Publicis Consultants, pending an investigation. "Our highest priority is to create transparency," <a href="https://www.holmesreport.com/latest/article/bayer-suspends-agency-relationships-pending-monsanto-investigation" target="_blank">Bayer said</a> in response to the "Monsanto File" scandal. "We do not tolerate unethical behavior in our company." However the PR companies Bayer relies upon, including FleishmanHillard and PR firms <a href="https://www.holmesreport.com/latest/article/omnicom-merges-fleishmanhillard-ketchum-porter-novelli-in-four-euro-markets" target="_blank">under the same corporate ownership</a>, have histories of using underhanded tactics to promote and defend their clients — and they have done the same for Bayer.</p>
Stealth Tactics of Bayer’s PR Firms
<p>In 2013, the agrichemical industry tapped FleishmanHillard and Ketchum, both owned by Omnicom, to head up a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gmo-labeling/u-s-gmo-food-labeling-drive-has-biotech-industry-biting-back-idUSBRE93O18S20130425">PR offensive to rehabilitate the image</a> of GMOs and pesticides. Monsanto selected <a target="_blank" href="http://www.holmesreport.com/sponsored/article/2013/07/24/monsanto-selects-fleishmanhillard-to-reshape-reputation">FleishmanHillard to "reshape" its reputation</a> "amid fierce opposition to the seed giant's genetically modified products," according to the Holmes Report. FleishmanHillard also became the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.prweek.com/article/1275012/bayer-brings-fleishman-global-issues-account">PR agency of record for Bayer.</a> The Council for Biotechnology Information, a trade group now <a target="_blank" href="https://gmoanswers.com/who-we-are">funded by</a> Bayer (Monsanto), Corteva (DowDuPont), Syngenta and BASF, hired Ketchum to launch a <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/gmo-answers-is-a-marketing-and-pr-website-for-gmo-companies/" target="_blank">marketing campaign called GMO Answers</a>.</p><p>Spin tactics employed by these firms included "<a href="https://modernfarmer.com/2014/09/monsanto-courts-mommy-bloggers-social-media-set/" target="_blank">wooing mommy bloggers</a>" and using the voices of supposedly "independent" experts to "<a href="http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/monsanto-other-biotech-companies-launch-website-to-answer-gmo-related/article_3ddb6c9f-7655-58c9-81b5-806e44218ace.html" target="_blank">clear up confusion and mistrust</a>" about GMOs. However, evidence surfaced that the PR firms edited and scripted some of the "independent" experts. For example, documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know show that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html" target="_blank">Ketchum scripted</a> posts for GMO Answers that were signed by a <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/kevin-folta/" target="_blank">University of Florida professor</a> who claimed to be independent but worked closely with Monsanto. A senior vice president at <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Pages-from-Van-Eenennaam_Monsanto-editing-IQ2-debate-.pdf" target="_blank">FleishmanHillard edited the speech</a> of a <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/alison-van-eenennaam-key-outside-spokesperson-and-lobbyist-for-the-agrichemical-and-gmo-industries/" target="_blank">UC Davis professor</a> and <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Van-Eenennaam_Monsanto-coaching-IQ2-.pdf" target="_blank">coached her</a> on how to "win over people in the room" at an <a href="https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/news/media-and-press/in-the-news/monsanto-win" target="_blank">Intelligence Squared debate</a> to convince the public to accept GMOs. Ketchum also coached the professor and <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Van-Eenennaam-coaching-Olson-radio-show-.pdf" target="_blank">gave her talking points</a> for a radio interview about a scientific study.</p><p>Academics play a key role in agrichemical industry lobbying and PR campaigns, as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html" target="_blank">New York Times reported in 2015</a>. "Professors/researchers/scientists have a big white hat in this debate and support in their states, from politicians to producers," Bill Mashek, a vice president at Ketchum, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2303691-kevin-folta-uoffloridadocs.html#document/p84/a237719" target="_blank">wrote to the University of Florida professor</a>. "Keep it up!" The industry trade group CBI has spent over $11 million on Ketchum's GMO Answers since 2013, according to tax records.The spin has influenced journalists, according to the PR industry. In 2014, GMO Answers was <a target="_blank" href="https://www.ketchum.com/ro/news/marina-maher-ketchum-wins-two-clios-ketchum-sports-entertainment-wins-one-award">shortlisted for a CLIO advertising award</a> for "Crisis Management & Issue Management." <a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/gmo-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-see-this-video/" target="_blank">In this video</a>, Ketchum bragged about how it nearly doubled positive media attention of GMOs and "balanced 80% of interactions" on Twitter. Although the Ketchum video claimed GMO Answers would "redefine transparency" with information from experts with "nothing filtered or censored, and no voices silenced," a Monsanto PR plan suggests the company counted on GMO Answers to help spin its products in a positive light. The <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/72-Document-Details-Monsantos-Strategy-Regarding-IARC.pdf" target="_blank">document from 2015</a> listed GMO Answers <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/monsanto-relied-on-these-partners-to-attack-top-cancer-scientists/" target="_blank">among the "industry partners"</a> that could help protect Roundup from cancer concerns; in a "resources" section on page 4, the plan listed links to GMO Answers alongside Monsanto documents that could communicate the company message that "Glyphosate is not carcinogenic."</p><p>The <a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/gmo-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-see-this-video/" target="_blank">Ketchum video</a> was posted to the CLIO website and removed after we called attention to it (<a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/gmo-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-see-this-video/" target="_blank">but we saved it here</a>). </p>Omnicom’s FleishmanHillard and Ketchum: Histories of Deception
<p>Why any company would put FleishmanHillard or Ketchum in front of efforts to inspire trust is difficult to understand, given their histories of documented deceptions. For example:</p><p>Until 2016, Ketchum was the <a href="https://usrtk.org/russias-pr-firm-runs-the-agrichemical-industrys-big-pr-salvo-on-gmos/" target="_blank">PR firm for Russia and Vladimir Putin</a>. According to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.propublica.org/article/from-russia-with-pr-ketchum-cnbc">documents obtained by ProPublica</a>, Ketchum was caught placing pro-Putin op-eds under the names of "seemingly independent professionals" in various news outlets. In 2015, the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Embattled-Honduran-Govt-Hires-Controversial-US-Based-PR-Firm-20150909-0038.html">embattled Honduran government hired Ketchum</a> to try to rehabilitate its reputation after a multi-million dollar corruption scandal.</p><p><a target="_blank" href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2008/04/exclusive-cops-and-former-secret-service-agents-ran-black-ops-green-groups/2/">Documents leaked to Mother Jones</a> indicate that Ketchum worked with a private security firm that "spied on Greenpeace and other environmental organizations from the late 1990s through at least 2000, pilfering documents from trash bins, attempting to plant undercover operatives within groups, casing offices, collecting phone records of activists, and penetrating confidential meetings." FleishmanHillard was also caught using unethical espionage tactics against public health and tobacco control advocates on behalf of the tobacco company R. J. Reynolds, according to a study by Ruth Malone in the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447494/?report=classic">American Journal of Public Health</a>.<em> </em>The PR firm even secretly audiotaped tobacco control meetings and conferences.</p><p>FleishmanHillard was <a target="_blank" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=whc02f00">the public relations firm for The Tobacco Institute</a>, the cigarette industry's main lobbying organization, for seven years. In a 1996 Washington Post article, Morton Mintz <a target="_blank" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/1996/03/24/second-hand-money/be084c1c-d396-4207-b1ad-8467f6eb9fb6/?utm_term=.eb5d5f1e8832">recounted the story</a> of how FleishmanHillard and the Tobacco Institute converted the Healthy Buildings Institute into a front group for the tobacco industry in its effort to spin away public concern about the dangers of second-hand smoke. Ketchum <a href="https://usrtk.org/what-the-agrichemical-and-tobacco-industries-have-in-common-pr-firms-operatives-tactics/" target="_blank">also did work for the tobacco industry</a>.</p><p>Both firms have at times worked on both sides of an issue. FleishmanHillard has been <a target="_blank" href="https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2002/09/16/daily40.html">hired for anti-smoking campaigns</a>. In 2017, Ketchum launched a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pr-firm-attacks-organic-food-then-pitches-itself-to-organic-companies_b_9462308">spin-off firm called Cultivate</a> to cash in on the growing organic food market, even though Ketchum's GMO Answers has disparaged organic food, claiming that consumers pay a "hefty premium" for food that is no better than conventionally-grown food.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Third Jury Rules Roundup Caused Cancer, Orders Bayer to Pay $2 ... ›
- Bayer Apologizes Over Secret List of Monsanto Critics - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less