Two members of the legal team which, on 10 August, won the trial in California between the gardener, Dewayne Johnson, and Monsanto, were heard by the Greens/EFA Group in Brussels on Wednesday 5 September. They spoke of the elements they had brought before the Californian court (see EUROPE 12088). These relate to scientific studies establishing a link between risks for humans exposed to glyphosate and the details of the Monsanto Papers revealing practices used by Monsanto over the past 20 years to manipulate science, discredit eminent scientists, corrupt others, and thus influence decisions pertaining to the authorisation of glyphosate, including in Europe, they say.
On this occasion, they called upon the EU to protect from all attack the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the WHO, which had concluded that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic, in contradiction to the European agencies, EFSA and ECHA.
“There are vast numbers of scientific studies that establish a link between glyphosate and physical harm such as obesity, Alzheimer’s, sclerosis of the liver in children, gluten allergies, and brain cancers”, said the lawyer, Robert Jr. Kennedy, of the law firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, speaking at a press conference organised by members of the Greens/EFA Group - Bart Staes (co-rapporteur) and Michele Rivasi who is group coordinator of the European Parliament’s special PEST committee, responsible for shedding full light on the procedure for authorising pesticides in the EU.
When asked about the existence of documents showing the possibility of a connection between Monsanto and EFSA, Robert Jr. Kennedy replied that, since 1991, Monsanto knew about a number of European studies establishing a link between Roundup (a total herbicide based on glyphosate) and harm done to the DNA cancer precursors. It had attempted to undermine the European studies and cast aside research by a professor who was calling for a complementary analysis of five European studies.
Monsanto not only recruited other scientists but also eliminated articles. In 2015, Monsanto decided to compose a new scientific team to contradict the IARC, Kennedy said.
“We have been able to prove that Monsanto acted against scientific conclusions demonstrating the link between its products and cancer, especially injury to DNA. Monsanto is willing to corrupt officials and scientists. There are very few institutions that have not undergone assault from it. The criminal trial is the last bastion”, he said.
While 8,000 complaints are ongoing in the United States, Michal L. Baum, lawyer and president of the firm Baum, gave his assurance, saying “We can force Monsanto to continue to disclose documents. As long as the procedure is underway, Monsanto will continue to leak explosive documents”. When invited to say whether documents show that Monsanto dismissed studies at the base of procedure for authorising glyphosate in Europe, Baum replied that a paper was “used by Monsanto in the general legislative framework to serve its economic interests”.
The documents that the company gave others to draft were, however, used to refute allegations as to the dangerous nature of its products. “Scientists are paid to say what Monsanto wants them to say. In Europe, you should protect the IARC against attack. That is the screen between us and marketing”, he said.
This hearing on the effects that pesticides have on health and the environment was organised on purpose the day before a hearing of the special PEST committee at the EP, devoted, on Thursday 6 September, to the impact that pesticides have on the environment. The aim given for the complementary hearing was to help the co-rapporteur, Bart Staes (Greens/EFA, Belgium), to draw up the draft report of the special PEST committee, with Norbert Lins, co-rapporteur (EPP, Germany) of this body chaired by Eric Andrieu (S&D, France) (see EUROPE 12085).
“We have just one hearing left tomorrow. We felt that, when it comes to content, we did not have a contribution from the experts, professors on the impact on human health, and documents proving how Monsanto has an influence on the decision-making process”, Staes said.
His colleague, Michèle Rivasi, said that, during the previous hearings, the special PEST committee had heard many European and national agencies, deploring “smooth talk” because “the EPP, ECR and ALDE Groups wanted to hear from the institutions”.
She also criticised the “unhealthy dichotomy whereby the EFSA evaluates active substances on the basis of a plethora of studies from the industry and academics, while member states evaluate the product on the basis of studies showing irritability, problems for the cornea, and also the propensity to cause cancer. And when one is a gardener, it is the product that is used”.
The Swiss professor, Christopher J. Portier, who was heard by the special PEST committee in June this year, had denounced the fact that the raw scientific data on the carcinogenic properties of the active substance glyphosate had been dismissed by EFSA and ECHA (see EUROPE 12037). (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)