Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman changed its name to Wisner Baum in January 2023.

Monsanto Papers

Monsanto Papers | Secret Documents

Monsanto Secret DocumentsThe collection of documents known as The Monsanto Papers or The Monsanto Secret Documents are available, here, and explained in detail. Wisner Baum (formerly Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman) is one of the leading law firms representing people across the nation in lawsuits against Monsanto. These personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits claim that exposure to the herbicide weed killer, Roundup, causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

These documents, obtained via Discovery (pre-trial civil procedure allowing the parties to obtain evidence from each other) allow people to see what is happening “behind the curtain” of secrecy that normally shrouds ongoing litigation. You will find links to internal Monsanto emails, text messages, company reports, studies and other memoranda.

Monsanto Papers Chart – Updated December 2, 2019

(Quick search with keyboard shortcut Control+F on a PC or Command+F on a Mac to search any word in this chart)

Index of People Named in Monsanto Papers

Document Categories:

  • Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism & Excretion
  • Discrediting IARC Kate Kelland Interaction with Monsanto
  • Discrediting Seralini
  • Freedom to Operate
  • Ghostwriting, Peer-Review & Retraction
  • Media and PR Response
  • Prop 65 and OEHHA
  • Regulatory & Government
  • Surfactants, Carcinogenicity & Testing

The Monsanto Papers tell an alarming story of ghostwriting, scientific manipulation, collusion with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and previously undisclosed information about how the human body absorbs glyphosate. These documents, which Monsanto does not want you to see, provide a deeper understanding of the serious public health consequences surrounding Monsanto’s conduct in marketing Roundup.

Declassifying Monsanto’s Secret Documents

It is important for the public, regulatory agencies, and scientists to be fully informed of the processes which occur behind the thick veil of corporate unaccountability that have a direct impact on public and environmental health. This way, regulators can make informed decisions, the public is provided the opportunity to know what it is consuming (and at what cost), and scientists are able to build upon transparent data as well as know how much weight to place on research that may have an undue corporate profit motive behind it.

In fact, these documents were released in part to aid the efforts of the European regulators and the California Office of Health Hazard Assessment, as they weighed evidence regarding glyphosate registration/classification. The damning tale that these documents tell over how Monsanto has handled the issues over the ostensible safety of its widely-used product will provide regulators across the globe with access to key information that should inform their vital decision-making processes. We sincerely believe that it is imperative for the litigation process to be as transparent and open to public scrutiny as possible, particularly since every aspect of this case has repercussions for society as a whole.

"The terms glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used interchangeably nor can you use "Roundup" for all glyphosate-based herbicides any more. For example, you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen...we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement." - Donna Farmer, Lead Toxicologist, Monsanto Company

On March 13, 2017, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that certain documents obtained by plaintiffs in the Monsanto Roundup multidistrict (MDL) litigation could be unsealed. Subsequently, the judge published them on March 14 and March 15 on the website for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These were the very first evidence to be declassified.

On June 30, 2017, Baum Hedlund, along with the leadership of the Roundup multidistrict litigation (MDL), challenged the protection of another group of documents, in an effort to make them available to the public. In a meeting to discuss the matter, Monsanto told the plaintiffs’ attorneys to “go away” and that the company would not voluntarily agree to de-designate any documents.

Pursuant to Paragraph 16.3 of the Protective Order in the MDL, Monsanto was required to file a motion seeking continued protection of those documents challenged by the Plaintiffs’ June 30, 2017 letter within 30 days. In failing to file such motion within 30 days, i.e., July 31, 2017, Monsanto “automatically waive[s] the confidentiality designation for each challenged designation.” Id. ¶ 16.3. And, since Monsanto did not file any motion seeking continued protection of the documents, it waived confidentiality over them. The documents are now officially public and Baum Hedlund is excited to share them with the world. This second group of documents was first published on the Baum Hedlund website on August 1, 2017.

We sent the August 2017 batch of Monsanto secret documents to (1) the EPA Office of Inspector General, Arthur Elkins, Jr., who is presently investigating whether there was illegal collusion between EPA and Monsanto; (2) the California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which listed glyphosate as a substance known to the state of California to cause cancer on July 7, 2017 and is soliciting comments from Baum Hedlund and others to advise about whether glyphosate should be given a safe-harbor; and (3) the European Parliament members, who, on July 4, 2017, sent a letter to the judge overseeing the MDL litigation, requesting documents as the EU considers whether it will renew registration of glyphosate for sale in Europe.

On April 24, 2019, we released a new batch of 300+ declassified documents obtained during discovery. We also added several new categories. Since 2017, Baum Hedlund has added more than 400 documents to the Monsanto Papers. All Monsanto Papers documents can be viewed in our Master Chart above.

We released our third batch of documents on August 15, 2019. These documents reveal Monsanto’s efforts to defund IARC, their involvement with Reuter’s reporter Kate Kelland, the creation of their ‘Intelligence Fusion Center’ targeting journalists and activists critical of Monsanto, and more about their manipulating science.

The pages below only describe the documents released prior to April 24, 2019. It is best to use the chart above to quickly search by keyword or topic. With each document, you will find a release date, a corresponding description, which briefly summarizes the key points raised, and in some cases, commentary describing the relevance of the documents to the ongoing Roundup litigation (only the August 2017 batch of documents contain the relevance information). Our commentary on the relevance of these documents may contain allegations cited in the Roundup litigation.

News Coverage of the Monsanto Papers

USRTK: Emails Reveal Science Publisher Found Papers On Herbicide Safety Should Be Retracted Due to Monsanto Meddling – Carey Gillam | Aug. 23, 2019

The Intercept: Emails Show Monsanto Orchestrated GOP Effort to Intimidate Cancer Researchers – Lee Fang | Aug. 23, 2019

Le Monde (France): The arsenal deployed by Monsanto against its detractors, including journalists – Diane Regny | Aug. 12, 2019

The Guardian: Revealed: how Monsanto’s ‘intelligence center’ targeted journalists and activists – Sam Levin | Aug. 8, 2019

The Guardian: How Monsanto manipulates journalists and academics – Carey Gillam | June 2, 2019

Greenpeace: Monsanto: Busted – Rex Weyler | May 3, 2019

USRTK: New Monsanto Documents expose connection to Reuters reporter – Carey Gillam | Apr. 25, 2019

USRTK: Monsanto Exec Reveals $17 Million Budget For Anti-IARC, Pro-Glyphosate Efforts – Carey Gillam | Mar. 27, 2019

CBC (Canada): Court documents reveal Monsanto’s efforts to fight glyphosate’s ‘severe stigma’ – Gil Snochat and Sylvie Fournier | Mar. 2, 2019

CBC (Canada): ‘Troubling allegations’ prompt Health Canada review of studies used to approve popular weed-killer – Gil Snochat | Nov. 11, 2018

Bloomberg: Monsanto’s Role in Roundup Safety Study Is Corrected by Journal – Joel Rosenblatt, Peter Waldman and Lydia Mulvany | Sept. 27, 2018

Democracy Now: How Monsanto Plants Stories, Suppresses Science & Silences Dissent to Sell a Cancer-Linked Chemical – Amy Goodman | Aug. 14, 2018

Le Monde (France): The Monsanto Papers, Part 1-2 – Stephane Horel and Stephane Fourcat | 2017-2018
Horel, Fourcat and Le Monde were honored with the European Press Prize for Investigative Reporting in 2018 for their reporting work on the Monsanto Papers

Der Spiegel (Germany): Monsanto Faces Blowback Over Cancer Cover-Up – Philip Bethge | Oct. 24, 2017

The Nation: Did Monsanto Ignore Evidence Linking Its Weed Killer to Cancer? – Rene Ebersole | Oct. 12, 2017

New York Times: Monsanto Emails Raise Issue of Influencing Research on Roundup Weed Killer – Danny Hakim | Aug. 1, 2017

Bloomberg: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews Peter Waldman, Tiffany Stecker and Joel Rosenblatt | Aug. 9, 2017

Fair: Reuters vs. UN Cancer Agency: Are Corporate Ties Influencing Science Coverage? – Stacy Malkan | July 24, 2017

EURACTIV: From the Monsanto Papers to IARC-gate: A glyphosate story – Andre Heitz | July 19, 2017

HuffPo: Monsanto Spin Doctors Target Cancer Scientist In Flawed Reuters Story – Carey Gillam | June 18, 2017

Times: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents – Danny Hakim | Mar. 14, 2017

Declassified Documents

Issue: Ghostwriting, Peer-Review & Retraction

1. Internal Email Showing Dr. Healy Asked Colleagues to Review Study That Found Roundup and Glyphosate Adverse Effects
No: MONGLY02286842
Date: 8/19/2008
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

This document is an email from Dr. Charles Healy to Drs. Farmer and Saltmiras wherein Dr. Healy requests that Drs. Farmer and Saltmiras review the article that Dr. Healy has been asked to review: “you two would be the reviewers in fact and I would then collate your comments and be the reviewer of record.” at *1.

This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation for the same reasons as the above (MONGLY01238768) document. Dr. Healy is violating the standards of the peer-review process by asking his Monsanto colleagues to review a study which observed the cytotoxic effects of glyphosate. Drs. Healy, Farmer, and Saltmiras all have vested interests in the study not being accepted for publication. The reliability and consensus of scientific literature is directly relevant to general causation. This document also goes to witness credibility.

2. Internal Email Showing Monsanto’s Effort to Silence Science Concluding Roundup Causes Adverse Health Effects
No: MONGLY01189468
Date: 9/9/2008
Documents Released: 8/1/2017

This document is an email from Dr. Charles Healy to Drs. Donna Farmer and David Saltmiras wherein Dr. Healy informs Drs. Farmer and Saltmiras that their decision regarding study sent to Dr. Healy for peer-review will determine whether the study will be published.

This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it confirms Monsanto’s efforts in ensuring that studies which reach conclusions of adverse health effects associated with glyphosate avoid publication and do not contribute to the carcinogenic assessment of glyphosate. The reliability and consensus of scientific literature is directly relevant to general causation. This document also goes to witness credibility.

3. Peer Review by Monsanto Scientist Charles Healy Recommending Rejection of Study That Found Glyphosate and Roundup Adverse Effects
No: MONGLY01238768
Date: 9/12/200
Documents Released: 8/1/17

This document is a peer review by Monsanto employee Dr. Charles Healy of a study titled “Cytotoxicity of herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate in rats”. The document contains recommendations for rejecting the study which found substantial adverse cytotoxic effects associated with Roundup and glyphosate.

This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it demonstrates Monsanto’s covert manipulation of the science on glyphosate cytotoxicity given Dr. Healy’s vested interests in Monsanto which conflict with the impartiality of the peer review process. Access to comprehensive, impartial peer-reviewed data on glyphosate, which is relied upon by both regulators and scientists to determine the associations between glyphosate and cancer, is thus limited given that Monsanto is able to circumvent the impartiality of the peer-review process. The reliability and consensus of scientific literature is directly relevant to general causation. This document also goes to witness credibility.

4. Monsanto Email from Donna Farmer Demonstrating Company Manipulation of Glyphosate Studies
No: MONGLY00919381, MONGLY00919400
Date: 11/18/2010
Documents Released: 8/1/17

This document is an email and from Dr. Donna Farmer wherein she informs John DeSesso that she “added a section in genotox from the Gasnier study …see a attached a critique we did that I took that from. Am working on a section for gasiner in the mechanistic section. Also we cut and pasted in summaries of the POEA surfactant studies.” at *1. The attachment is a draft of the Williams et. al. study with significant edits by Dr. Farmer which is also challenged for confidentiality.

Both documents are relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as they demonstrate Monsanto’s covert manipulation of the available scientific data on glyphosate. Scientists reading this published and peer-reviewed article would be unaware that the data was furnished by a biased contributor and the document is related to whether the inherent conflict of interest affects the merits of the data when determining the biological plausibility of glyphosate as a carcinogen. The reliability and consensus of scientific literature is directly relevant to general causation. These documents also go to witness credibility.

5. Emails Between William Heydens, David Saltmiras and others Discussing Kier/Kirkland Study
No: MONGLY02145917 – MONGLY02145930
Date: 7/2012
Documents Released: 3/14/2017

In these documents, Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras admits to writing manuscript of glyphosate genotoxicity literature with Larry Kier, a Monsanto consultant (MONGLY02145925). The email correspondence also details how adding scientist David Kirkland to the study would “add credibility.” (MONGLY02145918)

  • Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto Co. $2 Billion
  • Dewayne “Lee” Johnson v. Monsanto Co. $289.2 Million
  • Hardeman v. Monsanto Co. $80 Million
  • Best Law Firms 2023
    Best Law Firms 2023

    A ranking in The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” is widely regarded by both client and legal professionals as a significant honor. It is considered the most reliable, unbiased source of legal referrals anywhere.

  • The Truck Safety Coalition
    The Truck Safety Coalition

    Wisner Baum is proud to be a sponsor of The Truck Safety Coalition, a a group of caring individuals dedicated to reducing the number of deaths and injuries caused by truck-related crashes. Our support enables them to help families and save lives.

  • California Powerhouse
    California Powerhouse

    Law360 recognizes law firms that have a strong regional presence, working on important matters within their home state. “[Wisner Baum] possesses a David v. Goliath-sized slingshot while seeking justice for everyday citizens it believes were harmed or killed through corporate wrongdoing.”

  • Elite Trial Lawyers
    Elite Trial Lawyers

    NLJ and American Lawyer Media honor law firms and attorneys as Elite Trial Lawyers for their cutting-edge legal work on behalf of plaintiffs in practice areas ranging from mass torts to securities litigation.

  • Listed in Best Lawyers
    Listed in Best Lawyers

    Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. A listing in Best Lawyers is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor, conferred on a lawyer by his or her peers.

  • AV Top Ranked Law Firm
    AV Top Ranked Law Firm

    Less than one-half of one percent of firms across the nation have achieved this ranking. A firm must have a high percentage of lawyers who have achieved the prestigious AV® Preeminent rating by Martindale-Hubbell®.

  • Verdicts Hall of Fame
    Verdicts Hall of Fame

    The National Law Journal inducted Wisner Baum into the Verdicts Hall of Fame for obtaining the $2 billion landmark verdict in the Roundup cancer case of Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto. The verdict was #1 in California and #2 in the U.S. in 2019 and is #9 in American history.

  • Super Lawyers
    Super Lawyers

    Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

  • National Trial Lawyers Top 100
    National Trial Lawyers Top 100

    The National Trial Lawyers Top 100 recognized the law firms of Wisner Baum, the Miller Firm and Audet & Partners with the 2019 Trial Team of the Year award (in the Mass Torts category) for their work in the groundbreaking case of Dewayne “Lee” Johnson v. Monsanto Company.

  • AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated
    AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated

    An AV® rating reflects an attorney who has reached the heights of professional excellence. The rating signifies the highest legal ability, and very high adherence to professional standards of conduct, ethics, reliability, and diligence.

  • Avvo 10.0 Rating
    Avvo 10.0 Rating

    Wisner Baum is proud to have all of its lawyers listed in Avvo, a legal directory connecting people in need of legal services with lawyers and connecting lawyers to lawyers. Eight of our attorneys have earned a 10.0 perfect rating with Avvo.

  • Top Jury Verdict in <br> CA and USA
    Top Jury Verdict in
    CA and USA ranks our $2 billion verdict in Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto as the biggest verdict in California and the second largest verdict in the U.S. in 2019. It is the ninth largest verdict in U.S. history.

  • Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers
    Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers

    Published annually, the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers list recognizes the “best of the best” in this area of the law through nominations, research, and review by a board of their peers.

  • Product Liability Practice Group of the Year
    Product Liability Practice Group of the Year

    In 2020, Law360 honored the law firms ”behind the litigation wins and major deals that resonated throughout the legal industry.” It recognized our success in several landmark cases.

  • Top Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California
    Top Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California

    In 2018, our $289 million Johnson v. Monsanto verdict was the largest personal injury verdict in California. also ranked it #2 among all verdicts in California and #10 in the nation.

  • Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers
    Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers

    The Bar Register is the definitive guide to the most distinguished law firms in America. It includes only those select law practices that have earned the highest rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory and have been designated by their colleagues as preeminent in their field.


Firm Reviews

What Our Clients Are Saying
  • I Can’t Imagine a Better Law Firm

    “Multiple lawyers recommended Wisner Baum to me and I have been consistently impressed with the quality of their work.”

    - Best Law Firms Survey
  • They Are About Changing the Systems...

    “Wisner Baum are not only amazing attorneys but more importantly, they are activists. They are about changing the systems which got us into trouble in the first place. They understand their role in the process of making change.”

    - Kim Witczak
  • Top Legal Minds in the Country

    “The Wisner Baum firm has some of the top legal minds in the country; they are driven, determined, trustworthy, ethical and passionate.”

    - From Best Lawyers® Best Law Firms
  • Diligent & Professional Representation

    “Thanks to your efforts I was able to recover from a tragic experience and turn my life around for the best.”

    - W.T.
  • Our Best Interest Was Always Number One on Your List

    “A special thank you to your Spanish-speaking staff for the extra effort put into this case. The language barrier was never a problem, and we are so very thankful to them. Your name holds much respect in our family.”

    - G.C. & C.C