More Monsanto Secret Documents: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
55. Text Messages Detailing Monsanto's Collusion with EPA
No: MONGLY03293245
Date: 2/11/2013 — 3/10/2016
Description
This document contains text-message correspondence between Mr. Daniel Jenkins,
various Monsanto employees, and various EPA officials regarding regulatory aspects of glyphosate. In
reference to the United States Department of Agriculture, Mr. Jenkins comments: "might want to tell them
we're going to need their support for glyphosate…We're in for a tough ride[.]" at *2. Mr. Jenkins also comments:
"Jess is doing a nice job at EPA[.]" at *1. Jennifer Listello asks: "Is there anyone we can get to in EPA?"
at *3. With regard to IARC, Mr. Jenkins comments: "Got john to agree to talk about how we might work together
on changing IARC communication[.]" at *4-5. Mr. Jenkins asks Ms. Mary Manibusan (formerly EPA and co-chair
with Jess Rowland on CARC publication): "do you know folks at ATSDR in HHS?" Ms. Manibusan responds: "Yes.
Where specifically…on Tox profiles?" After Mr. Jenkins confirms, Ms. Manibusan responds: "I know lots of
people. You can count o[n] me." Mr. Jenkins informs her that: "we're trying to do everything we can to keep
from having a domestic IARC occur w this group. may need your help… I'll share some info, you tell me what
you think we might be able to do, who you may know, etc ok?" to which Ms. Manibusan agrees. at *5. Mr. Jenkins
also contacts Mr. Ty Vaughn: "I think we need to talk about a political level EPA strategy and then try to
build a consensus plan w Michael on several fronts: glyphosate…we're not in good shape and we need to make
a plan[.]" at *6. Following text messaging with Mr. Jack Housenger (EPA), Mr. Jenkins comments: "Spoke to
EPA: is going to conclude that IARC is wrong. So is EFSA….pushed them to make sure atsdr is aligned, said
they would…they're looking into getting a contact for me at cdc re bio monitoring" at *6-7.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it relates to Monsanto's collusion with EPA officials (subject of extensive general causation discovery),
the attempt to preclude glyphosate review by ATSDR through EPA contacts, and strategies for addressing the
general causation conclusion by IARC. It is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability
and purported "independence" of the EPA's evaluation of glyphosate. The document is also relevant to
the credibility of Mr. Jenkins and other Monsanto personnel.
56. Email Showing Communications Between Monsanto and EPA in Furtherance of Avoiding Roundup and Glyphosate Testing
No: MONGLY02060344
Date: 6/24/2015
Description
This document contains email correspondence between Jack Housenger, Director
of the Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA), Daniel Jenkins (Monsanto), and Dr. William Heydens (Monsanto).
Mr. Housenger reports to Mr. Jenkins that he has spoken to individuals at the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR), one of whom, the branch chief, Henry Abadin, "ended up saying that they would
put glyphosate on hold holding the OPP risk assessment." at *2. Dr. Heydens acknowledges with respect
to the ATSDR decision to not review glyphosate: "hopefully that keeps them from doing anything too stupid."
at *1.
Relevance
The document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as
it demonstrates communications between Monsanto and regulatory agencies in furtherance of efforts to preclude
evaluation of Roundup and glyphosate—a feature of general causation discovery in light of Mr. Jess Rowland's
(also from the OPP) collusive relationship with Monsanto. Further, the document is relevant to Daubert,
since it undermines the reliability and purported "independence" of the EPA's evaluation of glyphosate.
The document is also relevant to credibility of Mr. Jenkins and Dr. Heydens.
57. Monsanto Executive Communicates with EPA Official Jack Housenger, Gets Inside Track on Status of Potential Glyphosate Evaluation
No: MONGLY03064695
Date: 6/5/2015 — 6/24/2015
Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel
wherein Daniel Jenkins expresses concerns over the ATSDR glyphosate review and the information garnered from
Mr. Housenger at the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs regarding delaying the ATSDR review: "ATSDR Director
and Branch Chief have promised Jack Housenger (Director of the US Office of Pesticide Programs) to put their
report "on hold" until after EPA releases its preliminary risk assessment (PRA) for glyphosate… She describes
ATSDR as being VERY conservative and IARC like in this regard as well as the fact that they are hazard based.
Makes me very nervous, but I asked Jack whether or not he was worried about ATSDR coming out with something
different and he said he wasn't and I think he was being genuine." at *1, 2.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in litigation as it
indicates Monsanto's contacts with an EPA official (a key feature of general causation discovery in light
of Mr. Rowland's collusive relationship with Monsanto) in furtherance of precluding glyphosate review by
ATSDR which, according to Mr. Jenkins, utilizes a process similar to IARC and is thus likely to render a
general causation evaluation adverse to Monsanto's commercial agenda. The document is also relevant to Daubert,
since it undermines the reliability and purported "independence" of the EPA's evaluation of glyphosate and
lends reliability to IARC's assessment. The documents are also relevant to credibility of Mr. Jenkins
and Dr. Heydens.
58. Email Further Demonstrating Monsanto's Intimate Relationship with Jess Rowland, Former EPA Official
No: MONGLY02358772
Date: 4/1/2016 — 4/4/2016
Description
This document contains an email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel
wherein James M. Nyangulu writes to Dr. William Heydens about meeting with Jesudoss Rowland, formerly of
the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP): "I reached out to Jess Rowland this morning. He is willing
to talk tomorrow, however he has back to back meetings from 9:301:ill 1.1.30 am. He has given me his cell
phone number for us to text him once we know what time we would like to meet him. He wanted to check with
the Product Manager (PM) for MON102100 (not a good thing…. PM likely to deny the meeting). I discouraged
him and hopefully he won't check with the PM." at *1.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it reaffirms Monsanto's intimate relationship with Mr. Rowland. This issue has been the subject of extensive
general causation discovery thus far and is one of the central features of this litigation as Monsanto's
collusive relationship with Mr. Rowland encouraged a finding by the EPA that glyphosate is not a carcinogen.
Indeed, the document demonstrates that Monsanto leveraged its relationship with Mr. Rowland to circumvent
the Product Manager's likely denial of such meeting. The document is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines
the reliability and purported "independence" of the EPA's evaluation of glyphosate. The documents are
also relevant to the credibility of Dr. Heydens.
59. Email Showing Monsanto Executive Used Relationships at EPA to Delay Scientific Advisory Panel Review on Glyphosate
No: MONGLY03859549
Date: 2/12/2016
Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel
wherein Jeremy Stump discloses details of a meeting he and Mr. Jenkins had with EPA officials "Jim
Jones and Jack Housenger earlier this afternoon." at *1. With respect to glyphosate, "They wouldn't
give a clear answer on when they might announce SAB/P…We argued that they should wait on making any announcements
given upcoming JMPR and possibly other gov't determinations." at *2. Mr. Heering responds: "Did they comment
on the suggestion to wait on announcing the SAP/B until after JMPR and other country announcements?" at *1.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it demonstrates Monsanto's efforts through its relationships at the EPA to delay the Scientific Advisory
Panel review of EPA's 2016 glyphosate Issue Paper. Monsanto's influence at the EPA in furtherance of regulatory
approval of glyphosate through dissuading review has featured extensively in general causation discovery.
The document is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported "independence"
of the EPA's evaluation of glyphosate. The documents are also relevant to credibility of Mr. Stump,
Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. Heering.
60. More Communication Between Monsanto and Key EPA Official Jack Housenger Regarding Potential Government Review of Glyphosate
No: MONGLY03878138
Date: 10/23/2015-10/26/2015
Description
This document contains email correspondence between Daniel Jenkins (Monsanto)
and Jack Housenger (EPA OPP) regarding "atsdr". Mr. Housenger informs Mr. Jenkins: "We met with cdc about
a month ago. We talked about that. They are waiting for our glyphosate RA. And they agreed to share what
they do." at *2. Mr. Jenkins forwards the communication to Mr. David Heering (Monsanto), who responds: "Thanks
for the update. Let us know if there is anything we can do to help." at *1.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it demonstrates Monsanto's interactions with a key EPA official regarding ATSDR review of glyphosate.
Mr. Housenger has acted as buffer between Monsanto and other regulatory agencies to delay/preclude glyphosate
reviews and this document is further indication of such efforts given Mr. Housenger's meeting with the Center
for Disease Contro (CDC) regarding ATSDR and CDC glyphosate review. Monsanto's relationships with EPA officials
has featured extensively in general causation discovery and this document is directly related to the collusion
issue. The document is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported
"independence" of the EPA's evaluation of glyphosate. The documents are also relevant to credibility
of Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. Heering.
61. Monsanto Talking Points in Preparation for Meeting with EPA Director Show Attempt to Preclude Glyphosate Review
No: MONGLY03550799, MONGLY03550800
Date: 8/9/2016
Description
These documents contain a set of "talking points" in anticipation of Monsanto's
meeting with EPA director Gina McCarthy. The talking points include: "There is already enough for EPA
to act without a SAP"; "If she pushes back on reviews by other agencies Hugh needs to question her as to
why they then considered IARC's flawed classification and again, why are you convening an SAP when your own
internal scientists have confirmed the safety of glyphosate"; "Why is this being politicized?" at *2.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it demonstrates Monsanto's attempt to preclude a review by the Scientific Advisory Panel of the 2016 EPA
glyphosate Issue Paper which offered a general causation opinion regarding glyphosate carcinogenicity.
It also shows Monsanto's effort to discredit IARC to the EPA, so it goes to reliability issues.
62. Email Correspondence Further Confirming Monsanto's Close Ties with Former EPA Official, Jess Rowland
No: MONGLY02162507
Date: 1/15/2010 — 1/16/2010
Description
This document is an email correspondence between Dr. Donna Farmer and Steven
Levine discussing the EPA Endocrine Disruption Program. Mr. Levine remarks that "They have made Gary Timm
from OSCP [Office of Science Coordination and Policy] the head of the program at EPA NOT Jess Roland from
OPP. This is not a good development and dramatically cuts our chance our chance for success." at *1.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it confirms Monsanto's intimate relationship with Mr. Rowland from the EPA who assisted Monsanto in circumventing
the regulatory process, a central feature of Plaintiffs' general causation discovery concerned with proving
that that the safety of Roundup has not been assessed by an impartial Office of Pesticide Program at the
EPA. The document is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported "independence"
of the EPA's evaluation of glyphosate. The document is relevant to the credibility of Dr. Farmer and
Mr. Levine.
63. PowerPoint Presentation Showing Monsanto's Efforts to Influence State of California on Glyphosate ‘No Significant Risk Level'
No: MONGLY03320237
Date: 3/24/2015
Description
This document is a PowerPoint presented by Monsanto to the California Office
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment on October 7, 2015 regarding the imposition of a No Significant
Risk Level (NSRL) for glyphosate as an exemption to the requirement under Proposition 65 that Roundup be
labeled as known to the State of California to cause cancer following adoption by California of IARC's classification.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it demonstrates efforts by Monsanto to limit OEHHA's consideration of data in determining the appropriate
NSRL to animal bioassays with high exposure doses, thus leading to the calculation of a high NSRL.
An exemption from the Proposition 65 labeling requirement would mean that Monsanto are able to avoid the
practical effects (having to label Roundup as known to the state to cause cancer) of IARC's general causation
conclusion as adopted by OEHHA under proposition 65. The document also contains admissions by Monsanto
about whether glyphosate can cause cancer.
64. Email Confirms Monsanto's Efforts to Overcome Regulatory Hurdles Using Political Influence
No: MONGLY01061857
Date: 2/18/2009 — 2/22/2009
Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel
wherein Richard Garnett states the following with respect to gaining favorable regulatory assessment using
in-vitro data: "Cannot win the battle on science alone (40% science : 60% politics) — need an experimental
front, supported by a critical review of the literature, and a communication campaign to promote the message.
Goal: ‘the regulatory authority must have no doubts'". at *1.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it evinces the strategy adopted by Monsanto to overcome regulatory hurdles using the effective deployment
of political influence to ensure that regulatory authorities "have no doubts" regarding the safety of glyphosate.
Indeed, the extent to which Monsanto leveraged its intimate relations with regulatory officials to support
the position that glyphosate is not carcinogenic has been an important feature of general causation discovery.
The document is also relevant to Daubert, since it undermines the reliability and purported "independence"
of the EPA's evaluation of glyphosate.
More Monsanto Secret Documents: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8