8.
Monsanto Email Confirming Company’s Intimate Relationship with Wallace
Hayes, Editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal
No: MONGLY01096619
Date: 9/19/2012 – 9/20/2012
Documents Released: 8/1/2017
Description
This document contains an email correspondence between various Monsanto
personnel wherein Dr. Saltmiras expresses the following with respect to
the recently published study in Food and Chemical Toxicology by Seralini:
“Wally Hayes, now FCT Editor in Chief for Vision and Strategy, sent
me a courtesy email early this morning. Hopefully the two of us will have
a follow up discussion soon to touch on whether I C’I’ Vision
and Strategy were front and center for this one passing through the peer
review process…. and what is that, Vision and Strategy? I also
suspect this paper may be in our own best interests – the last rites
for Seralini’s few remaining shreds of scientific credibility.” at *2.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it confirms Monsanto’s intimate relationship with Wallace Hayes
who was subsequently involved in retracting professor Seralini’s
study pertaining to the biological plausibility of glyphosate as a human
carcinogen, a conclusion that was adverse to Monsanto’s commercial
agenda. The reliability and consensus of scientific literature is directly
relevant to general causation. This document also goes to witness credibility.
9.
Email from Monsanto Collaborator Bruce Chassy to Editor of Food and Chemical
Toxicology Journal Urging Seralini Study Retraction
No: MONGLY00900629
Date: 9/26/2012
Documents Released: 8/1/2017
Description
This document contains email correspondence between Bruce Chassy and the
Editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, Wallace Hayes, wherein Dr. Chassy
urges Mr. Hayes to retract the Seralini paper at Monsanto’s request
(discussed above): “My intent was to urge you to roll back the clock,
retract the paper, and restart the review process.” at *2.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it confirms Monsanto’s campaign to eliminate a study which observed
the adverse effects of glyphosate. It is relevant for the same reasons
as documents MONGLY02063095 and MONGLY01045298. The reliability and consensus
of scientific literature is directly relevant to general causation. This
document also goes to witness credibility.
10.
Monsanto Email Chain: Personnel Discusses Plan Seeking Retraction of Seralini
Glyphosate Study
No: MONGLY02063095
Date: 9/26/2012
Documents Released: 8/1/2017
Description
This document contains a series of email exchanges between various Monsanto
personnel regarding letters to the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology
seeking retraction of a study by Professor G.E. Seralini. Mr. Eric Sachs
writes about his efforts to galvanize scientists in a letter-writing campaign
in order to retract the article: “I talked to Bruce Chassy and he
will send his letter to Wally Hayes directly and notify other scientists
that have sent letters to do the same. He understands the urgency…I
remain adamant that Monsanto must: not be put: in the position of providing
the critical analysis that leads the editors to retract the paper.”
at *3, 2; see also MONGLY01045298 (below).
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it demonstrates the significant role played by Monsanto in achieving
the successful retraction of a scientific study without appearing to be
directly involved in such efforts. Monsanto’s influence on the quality
and quantity of scientific data on glyphosate is related to the conclusions
that regulators and researchers are able to reach with respect to whether
carcinogenicity is a biologically plausible feature of glyphosate. The
reliability and consensus of scientific literature is directly relevant
to general causation. This document also goes to witness credibility.
11.
Monsanto Email Chain Confirming Undisclosed Involvement in Successful Retraction
of Seralini Study
No: MONGLY00936725
Date: 9/28/2012
Documents Released: 8/1/2017
Description
This document contains email correspondence between Dr. Goldstein and Eric
Sachs regarding the Monsanto campaign to retract professor Seralini’s
paper. Dr. Goldstein states: “I was uncomfortable even letting shareholders
know we are aware of this LTE…. It implies we had something to
do with it- otherwise how do we have knowledge of it? I could add ‘Aware
of multiple letters to editor including one signed by 25 scientists from
14 countries’ if you both think this is OK.” at *1. Mr. Sachs
responds: “We are ‘connected’ but did not write the
letter or encourage anyone to sign it.” Id.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as confirms Monsanto’s undisclosed involvement in the successful
retraction of a paper pertaining to the biological plausibility of glyphosate
as a human carcinogen; a conclusion adverse to Monsanto’s commercial
agenda. Moreover, the document demonstrates that Monsanto personnel were
aware of the imperative need to covertly instigate the retraction campaign
and the inappropriateness of such action. The reliability and consensus
of scientific literature is directly relevant to general causation. This
document also goes to witness credibility.
12.
Monsanto Email Confirming Attempt to Seek Retraction of Seralini Study
No: MONGLY00978886
Date: 10/9/2012 – 10/10/2012
Documents Released: 8/1/2017
Description
This document contains email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel
wherein Daniel Goldstein writes the following with respect to professor
Seralini’s study: “Retraction- Both Dan Jenkins (US Government
affairs) and Harvey Glick made a strong case for withdrawal of the paper
if at all possible, both on the same basis- that publication will elevate
the status of the paper, bring other papers in the journal into question,
and allow Seralini much more freedom to operate. All of us are aware that
the ultimate decision is up to the editor and the journal management,
and that we may not have an opportunity for withdrawal in any event, but
I felt it was worth reinforcing this request.” at *3.
Relevance
The document does not contain trade secrets, sensitive commercial information
or privileged material. This document is relevant and reasonably likely
to be used in this litigation as it confirms Monsanto’s attempt
to seek retraction of a study pertaining to the biological plausibility
of glyphosate as a human carcinogen; a conclusion adverse to Monsanto’s
commercial agenda. Mr. Goldstein makes it clear that a retraction would
curtail professor Seralini’s “freedom to operate.” Id.
The reliability and consensus of scientific literature is directly relevant
to general causation. This document also goes to witness credibility
13.
Monsanto Scientist David Saltmiras Admits to Leveraging Relationship with
Editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal in Effort to Retract Seralini Study
No: MONGLY01045298
Date: 8/20/2013
Documents Released: 8/1/2017
Description
This document identifies the “Business Goals” of Monsanto employee
David Saltmiras for the fiscal year 2013. Dr. Saltmiras explicitly states
under the “Employee Comments” section: “Throughout the
late 2012 Seralini rat cancer publication and media campaign, I leveraged
my relationship the Editor of Chief of the publishing journal, Food and
Chemical Toxicology and was the single point of contact between Monsanto
and the Journal.” at 6. Moreover, Dr. Saltmiras acknowledges that
he “[s]uccessfully facilitated numerous third party expert letters
to the editor which were subsequently published, reflecting the numerous
significant deficiencies, poor study design, biased reporting and selective
statistics employed by Seralini.” at 3.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
for similar reasons as the previous (MONGLY02063095) document. Dr. Saltmiras
acknowledges Monsanto’s intimate contact with the editor of FCT
which, per document MONGLY02063095, led to the retraction of professor
Seralini’s study from Food and Chemical Toxicology. The reliability
and consensus of scientific literature is directly relevant to general
causation. This document also goes to witness credibility.
14.
Email Correspondence Wherein William Heydens Suggests Experts Could ‘Edit
& Sign Their Names’ to Scientific Paper
No: MONGLY00977264 – MONGLY00977270
Date: 2/2015
Documents Released: 3/14/2017
Description
These documents contain email correspondences between William Heydens and
other Monsanto personnel. In one exchange, Heydens suggests adding the
names of experts to scientific papers to cut down on costs (a practice
used by Monsanto in the past): “An option would be to add Greim
and Kier or Kirkland to have their names on the publication, but we would
be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit
& sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams
Kroes & Munro, 2000.
15.
Internal Monsanto Email Detailing Company Effort to Preemptively Criticize
IARC in the Press Ahead of Glyphosate Report
No: MONGLY01005425
Date: 2/23/2015 – 2/24/2015
Documents Released: 8/1/2017
Description
This document contains email correspondence between Eric Sachs (Monsanto)
and Henry Miller, a Forbes contributor and fellow of the Stanford Hoover
institute. Mr. Sachs asks Mr. Miller: “Are you interested in writing
a column on this topic? Ideally, your article would precede the IARC decision.
Why not set the table with the weight of scientific evidence before IARC
convenes? Then, regardless of what they do, your article will set the
stage for a science-based response.” at *2. Moreover, Mr. Sachs
informs his Monsanto colleagues: “Henry agreed to author an article
on Forbes.com. John will work with a team internally to provide a draft
and Henry will edit/add to make it his own.” at *1.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation
as it demonstrates Monsanto’s effort to criticize IARC in anticipation
of a general causation classification. Monsanto is a significant contributor
to the article without disclosing its interest and involvement. The reliability
and consensus of scientific literature is directly relevant to general
causation. This document also goes to witness credibility.
.png)
.1).png "Best Law Firms 2023"){kind=icon}
.png "California Powerhouse")
