Carey Gillam, research director at US Right To Know (USRTK) and Justice Pesticides’ board member, attends the hearings and reports live on https://usrtk.org/live-updates-monsanto-hearing/

03.06.2018 On this second day of hearings, Dennis Weisenburger returned to the stand to be cross-examined by Monsanto’s lawyers following his hearing as an expert witness to the complainants on 5 March afternoon.

Carey Gillam reports: 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 internal Monsanto 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.

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.”

See transcript from Tuesday’s proceedings