By Jacob Bunge and Ruth Bender
For years, scientists at Monsanto Co. worked closely with
outside researchers on studies that concluded its Roundup
weedkiller was safe.
That collaboration is now one of the biggest liabilities for the
world's most widely used herbicide and its new owner, Bayer AG,
which faces mounting lawsuits alleging a cancer link to
Roundup.
Plaintiffs' attorneys are putting Monsanto's ties to the
scientific community at the center of a series of high-stakes suits
against Bayer. Since the German company acquired Monsanto last
June, two juries in California have sided with plaintiffs who have
lymphoma and blamed the herbicide for their disease. Bayer's shares
have fallen roughly 35% since the first verdict.
In both cases, plaintiffs' attorneys argued that Monsanto's
influence on outside studies of Roundup's active ingredient tainted
the safety research. The attorneys obtained certain Monsanto emails
showing outside scientists asking the company's scientists to
review their manuscript drafts, and Monsanto scientists suggesting
edits.
Gary Kitahata, a member of a jury that ordered Bayer to pay
$289.2 million to a former California groundskeeper with
non-Hodgkin lymphoma last August, said Monsanto's interaction with
outside researchers played an important role in jurors'
deliberations. He recalled being struck by emails allegedly dealing
with "things like ghostwriting, influencing scientific studies that
were done." A judge later reduced the award, which Bayer is
appealing, to $78.5 million.
Last month, a federal jury in San Francisco awarded $80.3
million to another man with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who had used
Roundup, a verdict Bayer also plans to challenge. Another trial is
under way in Oakland, involving two more of the 11,200 U.S.
farmers, landscapers and others who have filed suit, threatening
product-liability costs at Bayer for years to come.
Bayer said hundreds of studies and regulatory decisions across
the globe show the active ingredient in Roundup, called glyphosate,
is safe and isn't carcinogenic. Regulators in the U.S. and abroad
have continued to approve its use, in some cases after having gone
back and taken another look at research criticized by plaintiffs'
attorneys.
"Plaintiff lawyers have cherry-picked isolated emails out of
more than 20 million pages of documents produced during discovery
to attempt to distort the scientific record and Monsanto's role,"
Bayer said. A spokesman said the documents at issue relate only to
secondary reviews of past research, not to the original science. He
added that the outside scientists have stood by their
conclusions.
In the U.S., Roundup has become almost as fundamental to farming
as tractors. American farmers use it or other glyphosate-based
herbicides on the vast majority of their corn, soybean and cotton
acres, making it a factor in American agriculture's steadily rising
productivity.
Monsanto developed the chemical decades ago and later introduced
crops genetically engineered to survive being sprayed with it,
driving what is now a more than $9 billion seed business for Bayer.
Annual sales of glyphosate herbicides, including by competitors,
total around $5 billion, according to Sanford C. Bernstein.
Despite their regulatory acceptance, the herbicides have faced
growing resistance, especially since a 2015 decision by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer, a World Health
Organization unit, classifying glyphosate as likely having the
potential to cause cancer in humans. In January, a French court
banned a Roundup product with the ingredient, even though it had a
European Union seal of approval.
Costco Wholesale Corp. recently pulled Roundup herbicides from
its stores, according to an executive of the retailer. Certain
cities in California, Florida, Minnesota and elsewhere have
forbidden glyphosate weedkillers on municipal property. Other
farm-state lawmakers have defended the herbicides.
The attack on Monsanto's role in research that deems Roundup
safe is led by Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman PC, a law firm
representing more than 1,400 plaintiffs. It has selectively
released hundreds of company emails obtained through legal
discovery and put many of them on its website.
"These documents provide evidence that Monsanto's been actively
engaged in manipulating the science regarding glyphosate's
carcinogenicity," said Michael Baum, the firm's managing
partner.
One document cited by plaintiffs' attorneys is a 2000 email that
Monsanto's Hugh Grant, later the company's chief executive, sent
following the publication of a paper upholding Roundup's safety.
"This is very good work, well done to the team," he wrote to
Monsanto scientists.
They weren't the paper's authors. Outside scientists were. An
acknowledgements section cited Monsanto researchers as having
provided scientific support. They had reviewed the text and data,
according to internal Monsanto communications.
Mr. Grant, who retired after Bayer acquired Monsanto for $63
billion, declined to comment, Bayer said.
Bayer said collaboration with outside scientists is important
for purposes such as testing safety and efficacy, and it provides
properly disclosed compensation for outside scientists' work,
adding that this pay isn't given to influence their scientific
opinions.
Helmut Greim, a retired toxicology professor at the Technical
University of Munich who has worked with Monsanto, said, "There is
this perception that industry is evil and that whoever is involved
with them is at least equally evil."
"If the industry asks a scientist to help," he added, "I see it
as my duty to do so. But one shouldn't let oneself be
influenced."
Some regulators say when a research paper discloses industry
funding, they take into account the possibility of corporate
influence on the findings. "We generally are a bit more
suspicious," said Bjorn Hansen, executive director of the European
Chemicals Agency.
The chemicals agency and the European Food Safety Authority both
re-examined glyphosate studies questioned by plaintiffs' attorneys
and let stand their approvals. The agencies said they look at the
raw data in research, so that the kind of study the attorneys
question -- a review of past research -- generally doesn't carry
much weight.
Health Canada also recently took a second look at studies on
which it had based its approval of glyphosate herbicides, after
critics raised concerns about Monsanto's role in research. The
Canadian agency assigned a separate group of its scientists to go
over the studies. Their review didn't change its conclusion.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently doing a
periodic review of the glyphosate science, ahead of a decision
expected soon on extending glyphosate's longstanding U.S. approval.
The EPA's most recent review of glyphosate's potential human risk,
in late 2017, continued to find the chemical unlikely to cause
cancer in humans.
A spokesman for the EPA said it has practices in place to
"ensure that [company]-developed data represent sound science."
Scientific research in industry and academia has become more
entwined over the years, scientists say, as corporations have
become a more important funding source. Since 2007, U.S. federal
government spending on basic scientific research has plateaued at
around $38 billion annually, according to data from the National
Science Foundation. Corporate funding has roughly doubled in that
time, to about $27 billion.
Companies or industry groups that finance research often include
in contracts a right to review early versions of studies, said
academics, who added that government-funded entities may attach a
similar requirement.
For researchers with fewer options allowing them to be fully
independent, "to some extent, they have to play by the industry's
rules," said Sharon Batt, an adjunct bioethics professor at
Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
A 1998 review of 70 articles on the safety of a hypertension
medication found that authors who produced conclusions supporting
its use were nearly twice as likely as neutral or critical authors
to have financial relationships with manufacturers. The review, on
drugs called calcium-channel antagonists, was published in the New
England Journal of Medicine.
A 2003 analysis of studies on industry-sponsored biomedical
research found corporate-funded studies were more than 3 1/2 times
as likely to show results favorable to companies as were studies
with no industry funding. The analysis appeared in the Journal of
the American Medical Association.
In 2002, researcher Susan Monheit was writing an article on
glyphosate herbicides used against aquatic weeds and sent a draft
to a Monsanto regulatory-affairs official for fact checking. The
official forwarded it to Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer,
according to emails that the Baum Hedlund law firm obtained in
discovery and that The Wall Street Journal reviewed.
Ms. Farmer told the official the paper needed organizational
work. "During one editing I had basically re-written the thing --
then decided that was not a good thing to do so I tried to just
correct the inaccuracies," she wrote to the regulatory-affairs
official, Martin Lemon.
In an interview, Ms. Monheit, who worked at the California
Department of Food and Agriculture, said Mr. Lemon passed along
Monsanto's suggestions by telephone and she followed some of them,
such as deleting references to old information. "I certainly didn't
want to use data that was out of date," she said, but "I was wary
of having Monsanto influence the article."
When her article was published in a weed-control newsletter
called Noxious Times, concluding the chemical posed minimal risk to
wildlife, a note described it as the product of a review of
previously published research and consultations with pesticide
chemists and eco-toxicologists. The note didn't name Monsanto.
Bayer didn't make the employees available for interviews.
In the late 2000s, Monsanto financed a study done partly by
Pamela Mink, then an assistant professor of epidemiology at Emory
University, reviewing past research on glyphosate's safety. Shown a
draft, Monsanto's Ms. Farmer suggested some edits, mostly to the
introduction, and circulated the draft to fellow company
scientists, according to documents produced in the litigation and
reviewed by the Journal.
One of the Monsanto scientists, Daniel Goldstein, added his own
suggestions. "There are a couple places where I read the sentences
several times, and I just can't gather what the underlying message
is," he emailed Ms. Farmer. The two suggested deleting redundant
phrases, asked for math to be double-checked and corrected
names.
When the paper was published in the journal Regulatory
Toxicology and Pharmacology in June 2012, some of the critiqued
passages didn't appear, while others were rephrased and expanded.
Brian Stekloff, a lawyer representing Bayer, said in court last
month that Ms. Farmer moved around words in the introduction and
added context about Roundup products that outside scientists would
not have had.
The final paper was significantly different from the draft but
had the same conclusion, which was that the researchers had found
no pattern showing glyphosate exposure caused cancer in humans.
Its authors were listed as Dr. Mink and three other researchers
who, like her, were affiliated with science consultancy Exponent
Inc. The paper said one of the authors had been a paid consultant
to Monsanto. "Final decisions regarding the content of the
manuscript were made solely by the four authors," it said.
Dr. Mink didn't respond to requests for comment.
Dr. Greim, the retired Munich toxicology professor, said
Monsanto approached him in 2013 about helping it publish some
unpublished internal research it earlier submitted to regulatory
bodies.
He said Monsanto officials sent him a draft of a report. "I told
them, 'That's not how it's done, you need a lot more information'"
to support the conclusions, Dr. Greim said. He said he went back
and forth with company scientists for months, asking them to add
details such as the number of animals and organs studied, and
changing the presentation of the results, until he felt the paper
was satisfactory.
Monsanto accepted all of his suggestions, Dr. Greim said, and
"there were a lot of passages I ended up writing." He said he was
paid EUR3,000, or about $3,400, for his work.
When the paper was published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology
in 2015 -- finding no link between the Roundup ingredient and
cancer -- Dr. Greim appeared as lead author. A "declaration of
interest" section said that he had been paid by Monsanto and that
his three co-authors had connections to the glyphosate business,
including one who was employed by Monsanto.
In an internal Monsanto memo released by the Baum Hedlund law
firm, a Monsanto scientist listed among his accomplishments "ghost
wrote cancer review paper Greim et al. (2015)."
Dr. Greim, who has sat on various German and EU scientific
advisory committees, said he didn't care what was said internally
because that wasn't what happened.
Bayer attorney Mr. Stekloff, speaking generally, said in court
last month that there were instances of "dumb emails" and "bad
language" among the many company documents produced in the case,
but "the overall record demonstrates that this was a company
committed to testing and committed to science."
--Sara Randazzo and Sarah Nassauer contributed to this
article.
Write to Jacob Bunge at jacob.bunge@wsj.com and Ruth Bender at
Ruth.Bender@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
April 08, 2019 11:19 ET (15:19 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (PK) (USOTC:BAYRY)
Historical Stock Chart
From Mar 2024 to Apr 2024
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (PK) (USOTC:BAYRY)
Historical Stock Chart
From Apr 2023 to Apr 2024