Toxicologist denies manipulating studies in Monsanto damages proceedings
A toxicologist from Roundup weedkiller manufacturer Monsanto denied Friday that she had influenced scientific studies to hide the dangers of the product, in the damages phase of a trial in California.
One of the lawyers for the plaintiff—a 70-year-old retiree with cancer—asked Dr Donna Farmer to explain internal documents from Monsanto made public in 2017.
Among other documents, a February 2015 email sent to Farmer by another senior Monsanto scientist refers to the technique of writing scientific articles and then paying recognized scientists—presented as independent—to sign them.
Farmer—who testified by video—repeatedly denied that she participated in such "ghostwriting" and also responded "no" when asked if Roundup causes cancer.
Edwin Hardeman is the man at the center of the case who says his 25-year use of Roundup, the principal ingredient of which is controversial chemical glyphosate, contributed to his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosis.
The jury in San Francisco is weighing how much Monsanto knew about Roundup's possible risks, if it tried to hide those risks and whether the product's cans should have carried a warning.
Jurors then must determine if Monsanto is liable for Hardeman's injuries, and if so, what damages are owed.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer found in 2015 that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic," though the European Food Safety Authority, the European Chemicals Agency and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have not issued similar judgments.
Monsanto's responsibility at the center of Roundup trial phase 2
Citation: Toxicologist denies manipulating studies in Monsanto damages proceedings (2019, March 23) retrieved 18 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-toxicologist-denies-monsanto-proceedings.html
Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller contributed to US man's cancer: jury
Controversial Roundup weed killer on trial again in US
Roundup weed killer factor in man's cancer, US court told
Glyphosate under fire from San Francisco to Sri Lanka
Investors flee Bayer after second glyphosate trial blow (Update)
Study: Underrepresented faculty play an uneven role in advancing diversity and inclusion
Classroom crowdscience: UC students challenged to detect schizophrenia genes
Can flipping coins replace animal experiments?
Humans switch between apps in 'remarkably similar' ways, scientists find
'Bug bombs' are ineffective killing roaches indoors, leave behind toxic residue
'Zebra' tribal bodypaint cuts fly bites 10-fold: study
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
This is a *non-science* AFP article, with no references to the science but to a legal proceeding, and without the usual evaluation bar. Wonder why anyone would like to put it here?
Dosage makes the poison, but seems IARC is not concerned with evaluating population risks!
"Marcel Kuntz, a French director of research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, criticized the classification because it didn't assess the risks associated with exposure (probability of getting a cancer from certain exposure).[27] Ed Yong, a British science journalist, criticized the agency and its "confusing" category system for misleading the public.[28] IARC answered in a press release their mission was not to evaluate potency or to assess the risks but only to determine scientifically the strength of carcinogenetic evidence of glyphosate.[29]"
[ https://en.wikipe...n_Cancer ]
For an outsider, this is a BS organization.
julianpenrod
Things the Democratic Rackets and their followers say can't happen. That a "scientist" lies. That a woman acts cravenly. That "scientists" can be paid to misrepresent matters. That articles by "independent" "researchers" are deceitful. The essence of the "climate change" campaign is that "scientists", none of whom can lie, are providing absolutely infallible articles claiming "fossil fuels" are changing the climate, and that there is no such thing as chemtrails.