Toxicologist denies manipulating studies in Monsanto damages proceedings

A toxicologist from Roundup weedkiller manufacturer Monsanto denied Friday that she had influenced scientific studies to hide the dangers of the product, in the damages phase of a trial in California.

One of the lawyers for the plaintiff—a 70-year-old retiree with cancer—asked Dr Donna Farmer to explain internal documents from Monsanto made public in 2017.

Among other documents, a February 2015 email sent to Farmer by another senior Monsanto scientist refers to the technique of writing and then paying recognized scientists—presented as independent—to sign them.

Farmer—who testified by video—repeatedly denied that she participated in such "ghostwriting" and also responded "no" when asked if Roundup causes cancer.

Edwin Hardeman is the man at the center of the case who says his 25-year use of Roundup, the principal ingredient of which is controversial chemical glyphosate, contributed to his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosis.

The jury in San Francisco is weighing how much Monsanto knew about Roundup's possible risks, if it tried to hide those risks and whether the product's cans should have carried a warning.

Jurors then must determine if Monsanto is liable for Hardeman's injuries, and if so, what damages are owed.

The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer found in 2015 that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic," though the European Food Safety Authority, the European Chemicals Agency and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have not issued similar judgments.

Explore further

Monsanto's responsibility at the center of Roundup trial phase 2

© 2019 AFP

Citation: Toxicologist denies manipulating studies in Monsanto damages proceedings (2019, March 23) retrieved 14 October 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 24, 2019
This is a *non-science* AFP article, with no references to the science but to a legal proceeding, and without the usual evaluation bar. Wonder why anyone would like to put it here?

Dosage makes the poison, but seems IARC is not concerned with evaluating population risks!

"Marcel Kuntz, a French director of research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, criticized the classification because it didn't assess the risks associated with exposure (probability of getting a cancer from certain exposure).[27] Ed Yong, a British science journalist, criticized the agency and its "confusing" category system for misleading the public.[28] IARC answered in a press release their mission was not to evaluate potency or to assess the risks but only to determine scientifically the strength of carcinogenetic evidence of glyphosate.[29]"

[ https://en.wikipe...n_Cancer ]

For an outsider, this is a BS organization.

Mar 24, 2019
Things the Democratic Rackets and their followers say can't happen. That a "scientist" lies. That a woman acts cravenly. That "scientists" can be paid to misrepresent matters. That articles by "independent" "researchers" are deceitful. The essence of the "climate change" campaign is that "scientists", none of whom can lie, are providing absolutely infallible articles claiming "fossil fuels" are changing the climate, and that there is no such thing as chemtrails.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more