Update 3/19: Judge Chhabria ordered an additional hearing for two of the plaintiffs’ witnesses. Follow Carey Gillam on Twitter for more updates about the legislation and we continue to post documents on our Monsanto Papers page.
Court Transcripts from Daubert Hearings
Oral arguments and other court documents posted here
Science Week Blog
U.S. Right to Know Research Director Carey Gillam reported from U.S. Federal Court in San Francisco during the March 5-9, 2018 Daubert Hearings, where Judge Vince Chhabria heard expert testimony about the science regarding the safety of glyphosate and Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer. Some reports were filed by USRTK Co-Director Stacy Malkan.
For updates, documents and analysis from the litigation, see the Monsanto Papers page. More more information about glyphosate, see our glyphosate fact sheet, Carey Gillam’s reporting on glyphosate and Gillam’s book, “Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science” (Island Press, 2017)
Reports in chronological order.
Updated: 03/05/2018 10:09
Farmers Vs. Monsanto: Glyphosate Showdown Comes to US Court in San Francisco:
“Science Week” in a federal court will decide if farmer cancer lawsuits move forward
US Right to Know News Release, March 5, 2018 — A federal court hearing in San Francisco this week will turn a spotlight on the science surrounding the world’s most widely used pesticide, glyphosate, and will determine whether farmers and their families will be able to proceed with legal action against Monsanto Co. over cancer concerns.
More than 365 lawsuits are pending against Monsanto in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, filed by people alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that Monsanto covered up the risks.
The court has dubbed the March 5-9 events as “science week” because the only evidence to be presented will come from experts in cancer science, including epidemiologists, toxicologists, and biomedical statistical analysts called to analyze relevant research. The scientists will present their best scientific evidence to U.S. Judge Vince Chhabria, who will decide if the lawsuits move forward or are halted in their tracks.
Journalist and author Carey Gillam of U.S. Right to Know will be live blogging the event from the court house.Follow her posts here: usrtk.org/live-updates-monsanto-hearing/
See also:
- “Monsanto says its pesticides are safe: Now a court wants to see the proof,” by Carey Gillam, The Guardian.
- Monsanto Papers: Key documents and analysis from MDL cancer court cases.
- Baum Headland press release, “Expert Witnesses to Face Off in Roundup Cancer Hearing”
03/05/2018 10:39 byCarey Gillam
Michael Baum of Baum Hedlund, counsel for the farmers and their families who are suing Monsanto over cancer concerns explains what’s at stake in this week’s hearings. https://www.facebook.com/USRightToKnow/videos/1662246967174627/
Updated: 03/06/2018 10:10 by Carey Gillam
Showdown in San Fran underway
The showdown is underway in San Francisco.
Teams of dark-suited attorneys filled the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria on Monday morning to wrestle over the science surrounding cancer concerns and Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.
With more than 365 lawsuits combined in the multi district litigation under the purview of Judge Chhabria, there were more plaintiffs attorneys than seats at the plaintiffs table, so they spilled out into the rows set aside for the public.
Laptops and yellow, lined legal pads crowded the tables for the opposing counsels as many furiously took notes and kept track of the time, well aware that each side has a limit of 11 hours to present their scientific case to the judge in a hearing that runs through Friday.The plaintiffs must demonstrate that they have scientific evidence to back their claims that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).
The hearings are an interim, but very important step in the litigation as these hearings allow for Chhabria to determine if the expert scientists plaintiffs have lined up to testify regarding causation will be permitted to testify at trial. The focus in those determinations is whether the experts used a recognized, reliable methodology for arriving at their opinions. If the judge the litigation can proceed to trial, ajury would then decide whether the evidence more likely than not shows Roundup caused the individual’s NHL.
First up to testify is plaintiffs’ expert witness BeateRitz, Chair of the Epidemiology Department at UCLA, of Occupational and Environmental Health (COEH).
Under the questioning of plaintiffs’ attorney Kathryn Forgie, Ritz walked the judge through a series of epidemiology studies conducted over the years that show statistically significant risk factors linking glyphosate to cancer.The literature shows that the risk to individuals considered “routine users” of glyphosate was significant, she testified.
Judge Chhabria quizzed Ritz on several aspects of the scientific research and appeared concerned about whether or not studies were adjusted for exposure to other pesticides.
When asked about a study Monsanto has pointed to as critical evidence that there is no non-Hodgkin lymphoma link to glyphosate, Ritz explained that the study – a cohort called the Agricultural Health Study (AHS)- had several short-comings.
Among the problems, she testified, the AHS data on glyphosate relied heavily on memories of individuals filling out questionnaires to asses usage. It also is smaller than desired and has not followed people long enough, she said.”Recall error” is “really the enemy of exposure assessment,” she said.
03/05/2018 13:25 by Carey Gillam
Getting Interesting
A lawyer sitting next to me in first row describes this as the “post -lunch sag.”
But it’s just starting to get interesting – After a brief lunch break, epidemiologist Beate Ritz resumed testimony with a detailed discussion of meta-analyses. She says that with respect to glyphosate, there is animal data but “more importantly“ human data that shows an association between lymphoma and glyphosate.She said “DNA breaks have been shown to occur when individuals are exposed.” She says that her conclusion is that glyphosate and glyphosate based herbicides “do indeed cause NHL.”
But when Judge Chhabria asks her to be more specific – does she believe the pesticide is currently causing NHL or is “capable” of causing NHL, she said it was the latter. “We know that the toxicology is in the dose,” she said. That prompted some whispering among plaintiffs’ counsel and further questioning under which Ritz said it would depend on the individual’s cases.
Monsanto attorneys now get their shot at Ritz.
03/05/2018 15:29 by Carey Gillam
Ritz Concludes Testimony With Congrats from Judge
Whew – Five hours of testimony featuring plaintiffs’ expert witness, epidemiologist Beate Ritz, concluded in chuckles all around as Federal Court Judge Vince Chhabria told Ritz “congratulations” for her enthusiastic, though sometimes-prickly, testimony regarding her views of multiple studies looking at glyphosate and connections to cancer, specifically non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Chhabria had to admonish Ritz more than once during her cross-examination by Monsanto attorney Eric Lasker to stop asking Lasker questions and telling him what questions to ask. The judge offered – in jest – to set aside time later in the week for Ritz to do her own cross-examination of Lasker in what was a rare light moment in the otherwise serious scrutiny of the science.
Before she exited the witness chair, Chhabria asked her if she believes that current levels of glyphosate exposures is causing or has caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ritz said that good exposure quantification data is lacking but when pressed by the judge to say whether or not the studies she reviewed show that glyphosate has caused NHL in people she replied: “Yes I think they do.”
Next up: Dennis Weisenburger, a physician and pathologist who specializes in the study of NHL, takes the stand. He is Chair of the Pathology Department of the City of Hope Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.
03/05/2018 17:02 byCarey Gillam
“There is biological plausibility”
A long day of testimony presented by plaintiffs’ witnesses concluded with strong statements by NHL expert Dennis Weisenburger laying out multiple studies that lend support to the plaintiffs’ allegations that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
As he did with prior witness Beate Ritz, the judge asked Weisenburger if he believed not just that the pesticide was capable of causing NHL but if it is at exposures people are currently experiencing. Weisenburger answered affirmatively.
“The body of evidence is strong evidence,” said Weisenburger. Glyphosate and the glyphosate-based formulations, including Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), he told Judge Chhabria.
Weisenburger spent time walking the court through studies that show DNA damage in people exposed to glyphosate, including through aerial spraying. Research shows that both glyphosate and formulations cause genetic damage, the type that leads to NHL, he said.
“There is biological plausibility.”
He testified that both animal studies and studies of human exposed to glyphosate showed connections between the chemical and cancer.
In one study, the North American Pooled Project (NAPP) the risk for NHL increased almost two fold when for people who used glyphosate more than two days per year. In animal studies, Weisenburger said there were “dose-related effects for multiple tumors.” As well, one mouse study showed rare tumors in exposed animals.
“There is a body of evidence that is pretty compelling that glyphosate and the formulations are genotoxic in living cells,” he testified.
Like Ritz, Weisenburger was dismissive of new results recently published as part of the Agricultural Health Study that showed no connection between glyphosate and NHL.
Though Monsanto has sought to portray this research as definitive evidence of no relationship between cancer and its weed killer, both scientists who testified today said the research has several flaws that made it unreliable for a determination on glyphosate, including that its span was too short, recall bias concerns, and lack of actual data on increased glyphosate usage over years.
Monsanto’s attorneys will get their chance to cross examine Weisenburger on Tuesday.
Stay tuned…..
Updated: 03/06/2018 10:58 by Stacy Malkan
Transcript March 5, 2018
Here is the link to the transcript of testimony from Mon day, March 5 in the Roundup Products Liability litigation. This document and all court and discovery documents from the litigation are posted on the US Right to Know Monsanto Papers page.
Updated: 03/06/2018 11:20 by Carey Gillam
Science Week, Day Two
Testimony was about to get underway for the second day of“science week” with plaintiffs’ expert witness Dennis Weisenburger due to get back on the stand. Weisenburger, Chair of the Pathology Department of the City of Hope Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska, specializes in the study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).
Weisenburger spent much of Monday afternoon summarizing for Judge Vince Chhabria his belief that analysis of many research studies provides strong evidence that glyphosate and glyphosate-based weed killers like Monsanto’s Roundup can cause exposed individual’s to develop NHL.
Monsanto attorneys will get their chance to cross examine Weisenburger Tuesday afternoon after he completes his direct testimony.
Each side is claiming they have science on their side: “The question before this Court is all about the science,”Monsanto attorneys wrote in a pre-hearing court filing.”The science at issue consists of actual studies and data, not conjecture and speculation.”Monsanto argues that plaintiffs’ evidence is“littered with carefully selected, out-of-context, e-mails, memoranda, and other internalMonsanto documents which, according to plaintiffs’ allegations in their briefing, show purported ghostwriting of review articles (not original studies themselves) or allegedly improper corporate conduct.”
Plaintiffs’ counter to that argument is this: “The methodology applied by Monsanto’s experts turns not on sound science but rather on whether the evidence at issue is favorable or unfavorable to Monsanto’s position. Where the evidence is favorable, it receives minimal scrutiny and Monsanto’s experts often fail to find any flaws or shortcomings. Yet when the evidence shows a positive association between exposure to glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs) and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), Monsanto’s experts concoct an inquiry that consistently leads them to disregard the positive evidence in its entirety. Inconsistencies or controverting evidence do not curtail this approach. Rather, when confronted with reliable positive evidence of causation, Monsanto’s experts develop novel methods to discount findings, including manufacturing new theories or facts.”
Plaintiffs’ initial exhibit list totaled 252 listed items, while Monsanto’s listed more than 1,000 total items.
One of many sticking points in the presentation of evidence has been Monsanto’s fierce objection to the potential use of an estimated 1,500 pages of data from a controversial 1983 mouse study that EPA scientists initially saw as concerning evidence of the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate. Monsanto was eventually successful in convincing EPA that its analysis was flawed and that the study actually reflected no reason for concern.
Plaintiffs have sought to dig into that study data, which Monsanto has opposed.“The hundreds of pages of raw data that plaintiffs seek to have de-designated are inarguably confidential,”Monsanto wrote of the plaintiffs’ desire to discuss the mouse study in the hearings this week.
One issue that the experts must address for Judge Chhabria has to do with studies that make connections between glyphosate exposure and NHL but do not adjust for exposure to other pesticides. The judge stated multiple times that he sees that as a concern and wants a better understanding of the issue as the hearing progresses.”This continues to be an issue for me,” he said shortly before court concluded on Monday.
The judge also has warned attorneys that he needs a better understanding of the issue of “recall bias” in epidemiology research and how that may impact findings.
Following Weisenburger’s testimony, plaintiffs’ plan to present testimony from Alfred Neugut and then Charles “Bill” Jameson.
Neugut is a practicing medical oncologist, a professor of cancer research and professor of medicine and epidemiology at Columbia University.
Jameson has participated as a member of the working group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer and is a member of the American Chemical Society and the Society of Toxicology and he participates in peer reviews for six scientific journals.
Updated: 03/06/2018 15:56 byCarey Gillam
Rough and Tumble
It was a tough cross-examination for plaintiffs’ expert Dennis Weisenburger, who was grilled on multiple areas of his analysis by Monsanto attorney Kirby Griffis. After leaving the witness stand and taking a seat in the front row of the public seating area, he expressed relief to be finished, remarking, “It’s like going to hell and coming back.”
Monsanto’s attorney opened his cross by showing a slide with text from a deposition that showed Weisenburger answering affirmatively to a question asking if his standard for offering opinions in published articles was more rigorous for offering his opinion in litigation matters. He accused Weisenburger of not presenting a full picture of the available data regarding glyphosate, and Griffis elicited testimony from Weisenburger confirming that a wave of NHL was identified in the 1950s, a time long before glyphosate was introduced to the market by Monsanto in 1974, underscoring there are other causes for the cancer.
Toward the end of this testimony, even questions from Judge Chhabria were hot to handle. The judge wanted to know how was it possible to connect glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma in people diagnosed in the late 1970s and early 1980s given glyphosate only came on the market in 1974 and given expert testimony that NHL can take more than two decades to develop from pesticide exposure. The judge suggested it should be “assumed” that something other than glyphosate caused the NHL in those people who were part of early studies.
“That is obviously what the defense is trying to say,” Weisenburger replied, but acknowledged that there are other pesticides associated with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Next on the stand- Alfred Neugut. a practicing medical oncologist who is professor of cancer research and professor of medicine and epidemiology at Columbia University. In his opening direct testimony he says there is great specificity with research showing a connection between glyphosate and NHL.
Scientists do not see repeated evidence of ties between glyphosate and several other types of cancer, but commonly see non-Hodgkin lymphoma. “Every time you look what comes up? Glyphosate and NHL,” he said.
Neugut testified that there is no perfect scientific study but consistency in study findings cannot be ignored.
He spoke so rapidly that the judge and court reporter had to caution him to slow down.”I’m from Brooklyn,” he replied, drawing courtroom laughter.
03/06/2018 16:05 byCarey Gillam
“Shit Happens”
Expert witness Alfred Neugut, testifying for plaintiffs Tuesday, addressed a study that Monsanto has claimed is significant evidence backing its claims that says glyphosate and Roundup do not cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) is an “excellent study for many things,” Neugut said, but for understanding any association – or lack of – between glyphosate and NHL, the study fails, he testified. An extraordinary increase in the use of glyphosate that started in the late 1990s dramatically changed the exposure level of farmers to glyphosate from the beginning of the study when baseline exposures were established. There are other flaws with the study, including a “loss to follow-up,” he said.
“You have an error on top of an error on top of an error…the AHS study is basically not so useful,” he said
When asked how a study that was so poorly done could get published as the AHS study was in November 2017, he shrugged and said “shit happens.”
Next up: Monsanto attorney Eric Lasker to begin his cross examination.
03/07/2018 10:33 by Carey Gillam
Day 3 – Notes and Gift & a Shift to Toxicology
Day three of the Roundup cancer “science week” hearing opened with a gift from Judge Chhabria to plaintiffs – a gift of time. The plaintiffs will have an extra 60 minutes to present their expert witness testimony added to the total of 11 hours each side has been allotted for this week’s events. The judge said because he has frequently taken up some of plaintiffs’ time with questions of witnesses, he decided the extra time was warranted. Plaintiffs had requested an additional 90 minutes. Monsanto is not due any extra time, he said.
The judge also noted that he had received an email message from a “citizen” regarding the proceedings, but that he had elected not to read the message. He did pass copies of it to both plaintiffs’ and Monsanto’s attorneys.
The hearing Wednesday began with a continuation of Monsanto’s cross of plaintiffs’ witness Alfred Neugut, an expert in epidemiology who is a practicing medical oncologist and professor of cancer research and professor of medicine and epidemiology at Columbia University.
Monsanto attorney Eric Lasker pushed Neugut on his position on the science, and repeatedly challenged the scientist’s memory regarding previous statements and analysis that the attorney portrayed as conflicting with his testimony in these events. Neugut at one point said he must have been mistaken before but was now correct.
Following Neugut’s testimony, the focus of the hearing today will move from epidemiology to toxicology research that plaintiffs’ cite as evidence backing their claims that Monsanto’s weed killer causes cancer.
The first toxicology expert to take the stand will be Charles Jameson (who goes by Bill).Jameson has served as program leader for the National Toxicology Program at the NIH’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for 12 years. He was a member of the working group for the International Agency for Research on Cancer that found glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen in March 2015.
With the turn to toxicology will likely come a turn to discussion of the 1983 mouse study that initially prompted EPA scientists to say the study showed evidence of glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential. It was only after pressure from Monsanto and a report from a pathologist hired by Monsanto – and years of discussions with EPA – that the official assessment of that study was changed to reflect no sign of carcinogenicity.
Monsanto sought to keep much of the data from that study out of court after plaintiffs said they would be introducing it, but the judge has said the study data will be allowed as evidence.
03/07/2018 10:49 by Carey Gillam
Transcript from Tuesday’s Hearing
See transcript here from Tuesday’s proceedings: usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Monsanto-Daubert-hearing-transcript-180306VC.Vol_.2.pdf
03/07/2018 11:59 byCarey Gillam
Testimony About Animal Tumor Data
Testimony by toxicology expert Bill Jameson on Wednesday sparked early objections from Monsanto attorneys as the former government scientist explained the body of research that led him to conclude that glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides (like Roundup) can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma at real-world exposures – levels farm workers and others face when using the weed killer. Judge Vince Chhabria overruled Monsanto’s objections.
Jameson was a member of the working group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which analyzed research on glyphosate and declared it to be a probable human carcinogen in March 2015.
Judge Chhabria posed several questions to Jameson about that IARC finding, noting that in human studies the IARC group concluded there was “limited” evidence of carcinogenicity, compared to “sufficient” evidence in animal research.
That led Jameson to explain that some scientists on the IARC working group thought the evidence was stronger than limited but others disagreed. Jameson joked: “If there are three epidemiologists in a room and you ask them their opinions you’ll get four opinions.”
He, like the scientists who testified Monday and Tuesday, said it is the weight of the combined animal and human data that demonstrates the carcinogenicity of the herbicide.
There are many animal studies on glyphosate, Jameson testified, saying that it is “extraordinary” to have so many animal studies to evaluate a chemical due to the cost of such studies. The fact that researchers have as many animal studies as they do for glyphosate adds to the strength of his conclusion that the chemical causes cancer, he said. Importantly, the animal research shows there is replication of several tumor sites, including liver tumors and malignant lymphoma, he said.
“We had a lot of replication for malignant lymphomas in the mouse,” he said. The same tumors were seen in different studies in different labs at different times, which underscores strength of conclusion of carcinogenicity, he said.
In her questioning of Jameson, plaintiffs’ attorney Aimee Wagstaff at one point presented a slide showing a page from an eight-hour deposition of Jameson, pointing out that Monsanto had only provide the judge with one small segment of Jameson’s actual statement regarding the data. The entire statement provided the needed context for the court, she said.
Updated: 03/07/2018 14:38 by Carey Gillam
After lunch break, Monsanto crosses Jameson
Following a short break for lunch, Monsanto attorney Joe Hollingsworth stepped up to cross examine plaintiffs’ expert witness Bill Jameson.
Hollingsworth launched his cross by pressing Jameson about distinctions between hazard and risk assessments, and comments Jameson made in a deposition.
They judge admonished Hollingsworth and suggested that rather than continuously asking Jameson about what he said in a deposition, the attorney should ask him about what he actually thinks.
“Why don’t you ask his about his opinion now, the judge told Hollingsworth.”That’s normally how we do it,” the judge said.
Hollingsworth did adjust his inquiry but when again asking Jameson about comments he made in a deposition led Jameson to reply that in his depositions taken by Monsanto “I’ve been misquoted and things have been taken out of context so many times…”
When Hollingsworth continues to press Jameson to address comments Hollingsworth says Jameson made in a deposition, the judge again interrupts to admonish Hollingsworth, say that if Hollingsworth wants to ask Jameson questions about prior deposition testimony in the way that he is asking then Hollingsworth must provide him the full transcript of the deposition and the page number that contains the comment.
The Monsanto attorney say he has the comment available on a slide to show Jameson and the court. The judge tells him that is not good enough. The witness has to be able to see the comments in context, not pulled out on a slide, the judge tells Hollingsworth. Jameson is then allowed to find and read aloud his full comment.
Repeatedly the judge seems to take issue with Hollingsworth’s style of questioning, including saying it is “his fault” for talking over Jameson as the witness tries to answer questions.
Updated: 03/07/2018 15:47 byCarey Gillam
Little Bit of Legal Drama
A little bit of legal drama in afternoon testimony by plaintiffs’ expert witness Bill Jameson as Judge Vince Chhabria repeatedly admonished Monsanto lead attorney Joe Hollingsworth over his tactics in cross examining Jameson.
Chhabria seems especially vexed by Hollingsworth’s effort to open a line of questioning by asking Jameson about statements he made in a deposition. The judge told Hollingsworth multiple times throughout the cross examination to ask Jameson directly what his opinions about the science are now, and then if that contradicted something he said earlier Hollingsworth could explore the contradiction. He also criticized Hollingsworth for talking over Jameson as he tried to answer questions.
The judge showed noted concern over the possibility that Monsanto might be taking expert statements out of context. That concern was underscored when, in a particularly stern move that left plaintiffs’ attorneys giddy with delight, Judge Chhabria ordered Monsanto’s attorney to read aloud into the record two pages of testimony from a deposition that supported the expertise of Jameson’s analysis before he would allow Hollingsworth to introduce a separate example from a deposition that undercut Jameson’s expertise.
Hollingsworth protested the action but finally capitulated as the judge insisted. He then ended his cross examination of Jameson.
As Jameson’s testimony ended and he stepped down from the witness stand, he turned to the judge: “Thank you for the honor, your honor,” he said.
Following Jameson, Chris Portier, another in the line-up of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, took the stand. Portier, who traveled from his home in Switzerland to testify, expressed a bit of nervousness before beginning his testimony under direct examination from New York-based attorney Robin Greenwald.
Portier introduced his expert view that the probability that glyphosate cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma is “high.”
In his testimony, Portier tacked the Greim 2015 study, which Monsanto and supporters have said supports their position that glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer. ( Internal Monsanto documents state the Greim paper was ghost-written by a Monsanto scientist.) Portier said the work was poorly documented, providing only summary data and not providing individual animal data, among other short-comings.
Updated: 03/07/2018 16:54 by Carey Gillam
Court Adjourns for the Day
UPDATE – Dust up after court adjourns: Plaintiffs’ had provided Monsanto attorneys with a copy of the slide deck they were using for Portier’s direct testimony. But when court adjourned in the middle of testimony, they wanted the slide deck back – or at least the portions they had not yet covered. Monsanto attorneys having their game plan overnight was “prejudicial” plaintiffs’ attorneys protested. But Monsanto attorney Eric Lasker shrugged off the request from plaintiffs’ attorney Aimee Wagstaff that they return the slide deck. A Monsanto attorney had already walked out with the documents and Lasker was not inclined to try to retrieve them. A frustrated Wagstaff requested “judicial assistance” from the judge but retreated after Lasker said they had written notes on the slide deck and refused to give them back.
A long day of testimony wrapped up with plaintiffs’ expert witness Chris Portier laying out for the court detailed and highly technical methodology and analysis that he said supports his views that glyphosate has a strong causal connection to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Monsanto has criticized Portier for pooling results from multiple research studies in ways that are aimed at intentionally generating data that favors plaintiffs’ claims against Monsanto, but Portier denied that bias in his testimony Wednesday.
The scientist explained such things as “latency” to the court, and discussed his “sensitivity analysis” of studies done in rats and mice in the 1980s and 1990s.
More direct testimony is slated for Thursday morning from Portier and then his cross-examination. After that, Monsanto will likely get its turn to present its own experts to the judge. The company has said they will present four witnesses.
After this week’s testimony, lawyers for both sides will get their chance to make oral arguments to the judge sometime in the next two weeks. The judge will make a ruling on whether or not the plaintiffs’ witnesses who are providing their scientific opinions regarding causation will be permitted to testify at trial.
The focus for the judge’s decision is whether the experts are using recognized, reliable methodology to arrive at their opinions. If he determines any or all of the witnesses are not relying on this proper scientific foundation he can exclude them from testifying, a move that would be a powerful blow to plaintiffs’ case and a win for Monsanto.
I am sorry to say I have to head to New York City on Thursday, and so will miss the final two days of testimony. But USRTK will be making transcripts available and the video recording of the full hearing when the web link becomes available after the conclusion of this week’s events.
Updated: 03/09/2018 09:50 byCarey Gillam
Transcripts from March 7 & 8 hearing
I had to jet off to another city but here is the transcript from March 7’s hearing, usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Transcript-hearing-March-7-2018.pdf and here is the transcript from Thursday’s events usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Transcript-for-Daubert-Hearing-March-8-2018.pdf
Colleague Stacy Malkan is headed to court today to keep you all informed!
Updated: 03/09/2018 14:43 by Stacy Malkan
Last Day of Daubert Testimony
Entering the final inning of Science Week as the plaintiff’s attorney is about to begin cross examination of cancer epidemilogist Dr. Lorelei Mucci, an associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Last witness! More updates soon from the testimony of Dr. Mucci and earlier testimony by plaintiff’s witness Dr. Chadi Nabhan, a board certified clinical medical oncologist and past assistant professor at the University of Chicago.
Updated: 03/15/2018 10:45 byStacy Malkan
Science Week Concludes in Federal Court
(updated)
Dr. Mucci’s cross exam is complete, and that’s a wrap for testimony for glyphosate Science Week. Judge Chhabria calls for a round of applause for the court reporter; “we can all agree she had the hardest job in the room this week.” Oral arguments are set for Weds at 10 a.m.
Today, the last two witnesses presented: Dr. Chadi Nabhan for the plaintiffs (he couldn’t get here until today) and Dr. Lorelei Mucci for the defense. Dr. Nabhan is an oncologist who serves as medical director of Cardinal Health and has 17 years of clinical practice and academic research focused on lymphomas.
Dr. Nabhan discussed the process by which the International Agency for Research on Cancer conducts its monographs to determine whether chemicals cause cancer. The agency has a high bar to consider what it reviews, he said – exposures must be high and animal data strong. Since 1965, IARC has reviewed 1003 agents and found 20% to be carcinogens; 120 classified as carcinogenic and 81 classified as probably carcinogenic, including glyphosate.
“In my opinion, the (NHL) risk (of glyphosate exposure) is clinically significant enough that patients should be aware of it,” Dr, Nabhan said.”The IARC report is very convincing.”
Dr. Nabhan does not have a high opinion of the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) that was the topic of much of today’s discussion.”There are so many flaws in this study that it’s impossible to draw any conclusions,” he said. He shrugged off the updated analysis is “an updated analysis of an already flawed study.”
Last up was Dr. Lorelei Mucci for the Monsanto defense. Dr. Mucci is an associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Her major research and teaching area is cancer epidemiology.
Dr. Mucci discussed in her view the strengths and limitations of four epidemiological studies ( transcript here with details) in particular the AHS study. Investigators of the AHS cohort analysis reported no evidence of association between exposure to glyphosate and risk of NHL, accounting for both short and long term exposures.
Much of Dr. Mucci’s testimony focused on questions from the judges about the validity of self reporting in the questionnaires filled out by pesticide applicators about their exposure to glyphosate. Dr. Mucci explained why she believes the reporting was reliable, and is confident in the study findings of no evidence of positive association betweenexposure and NHL risk and no evidence of dose response.
In cross examination, Dr. Mucci clarified that her expert opinion was based on epidemiological data that IARC looked at and that has come out since, the updated AHS and updated analysis of the North American Pooled Project. She did not consider toxicological data or animal data.
Updated: 03/12/2018 11:58 byStacy Malkan
Transcripts and What’s Next?
Testimony is complete in five days of Daubert Hearings to review the scientific evidence linking glyphosate, the key chemical in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer, to a type of cancer found more commonly in farmers than the general population.Closing arguments are set for Wednesday March 14 (time TBD). U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria will then decide whether there is evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claim that exposure to Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), and if the experts providing scientific opinions regarding causation will be permitted to testify at trial.
The events, dubbed “Science Week” by the court because all the testimony came from experts in cancer science, marked the first time that the body of research relating to glyphosate and NHL was analyzed under oath.The stakes are high for the farmers and their families suing Monsanto, and for the company that derives nearly a third of its revenue from glyphosate-based products.
Below are the transcripts from glyphosate Science Week. Other court and discovery documents from the glyphosate trails, along with reporting and analysis, are posted on the USRTK Monsanto Papers page.
Updated: 03/13/2018 12:22 byStacy Malkan
Videos of Daubert Hearings Now Posted
The US Court, Northern District of California has posted all video footage of the March 5-9 “Science Week” Daubert Hearings in the Roundup products liability litigation against Monsanto Company.
You can find the videos here: http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/re-roundup-products-liability-litigation
The court website provides some interesting history about cameras in courts, and the continuing pilot program under which the glyphosate hearings were recorded — the only Daubert Hearings to date available for viewing on the court website. A win for transparency in our view!
That’s a wrap for Science Week reporting, sign up for the USRTK newsletter to keep up to date with our investigations and reporting.
If you value this type of independent reporting, please consider making a donation to US Right to Know.
# # #
