Monsanto: A judge threatens to "close" the lawyer of a cancer patient | Business

Monsanto faces its first federal lawsuit over allegations that its Roundup weed killer could cause cancer, but a US judge has barred his lawyers from discussing the company's alleged manipulation of science.

In an extraordinary move in a crowded San Francisco courtroom on Monday, US judge Vince Chhabria threatened to punish and "kill" the lawyer of a cancer patient for violating his ban to talk about Monsanto's influence on government authorities and cancer research.

"You completely ignored the limitations that were imposed on you," said the judge visibly angry at lawyer Aimee Wagstaff, threatening to stop her from continuing. "If you cross the line one more time … your opening statement will be over … if I see one inappropriate thing on these slides, I'll close the door for you."

Unusual conflict in federal courtroom fueled Monsanto criticism that the trial could be unfairly opposed to the plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman, a 70-year-old Santa Rosa man who claims that his exposure to Roundup for several decades has caused his cancer. Based on long-standing claims, Hardeman's lawyers and other critics claimed that Monsanto had been suppressing negative studies for years and was working to promote and "rewrite" favorable studies on its herbicide to influence the public and regulators.

Chhabria approved this year Monsanto's request to prohibit Hardeman's lawyers from making allegations about the company's behavior, saying that questions about its influence on science and government constituted an "important distraction". This means that jurors need to take a close look at Roundup's cancer risk studies and if they decide that Monsanto is the cause of Hardeman's disease, the jury will then learn about the behavior of the company when assessing the risk. liability and punitive damages.

The Hardeman lawsuit is considered a puzzle for hundreds of other federal plaintiffs who have made similar claims, meaning that its outcome could affect the course of future litigation and potential settlements. The high-stakes case comes against the backdrop of the growing worldwide surveillance of the health effects of glyphosate, sold under the Roundup brand name.

Last August, a California jury rendered a historic verdict stating that Monsanto was responsible for terminally ill cancer and owed it $ 289 million in damages. The groundbreaking decision against Monsanto paved the way for a new wave of cancer litigation in the United States and sparked debates and regulatory campaigns to restrict the presence of chemicals in the US. world.

Monsanto now belongs to the German pharmaceutical company Bayer, which suffered a 30% fall in the price of its action after the verdict. now faces more than 9,000 similar lawsuits across the country.

Wagstaff told the Guardian last week, before the trial began, that the evidentiary restrictions in the first phase meant that "the jury would hear only half of the story".

"The jury will hear about science, but will never understand how Monsanto influenced it," she said. "The jury will not have a complete understanding of science. If we win without the jury knowing the full science, it's a real problem for Monsanto. "

Chhabria repeatedly interrupted Wagstaff's opening statement on Monday morning, reminding jurors that his comments were not evidence and that they should be taken with a "grain of salt". He also asked her to speed up when she introduced Hardeman and his wife and explained how they met for the first time in 1975.

Wagstaff spoke in detail about cancer and glyphosate research, Monsanto's involvement in studies, and company communications with the Environmental Protection Agency. Finally, the judge ordered the jury to pause and published his threat to sanction Wagstaff, although the precise statements he had objected to were not clear.

When she tried to clarify her remarks, noting that she had clearly upset the judge, Chhabria replied, "It is not a matter of being upset." It's about conducting an orderly trial. "

He then ordered him to file a written request by the end of the day, in which he explained why he should not sanction it.

The judge also said he did not trust her to continue using her prepared documents: "Should I save Mrs. Wagstaff by preventing her from using more slides?" He finally allowed him to finish his opening statement.

Hardeman, who sat in court with his wife, claimed that his use of Roundup from 1986 to fight poison oak and weeds on his property had resulted in him developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), a cancer which affects the immune system.

The Hardeman case is based on a key decision made in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization, according to which glyphosate was "probably carcinogenic to humans" following a review of existing research. Monsanto continues to argue that Roundup is safe, citing other studies. The company also suggested that Hardeman's hepatitis C could be a possible cause of his cancer.

Brian Stekloff, a lawyer for Monsanto, described the NHL as a "common cancer" in his opening remarks, saying the cause was "unknown" in the vast majority of cases, adding, "Roundup did not provoke the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of Mr. Hardeman. "

He noted that the doctors did not specifically note the use of Roundup by Hardeman in his medical record.

A spokesman for Bayer said Monday in a statement that "the many scientific researches support the conclusion that Roundup is not responsible for his illness" and noted the EPA's assessment in 2017 , according to which glyphosate was "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." Previously, the EPA had suffered negative reactions when emails revealed the agency's close relationship with Monsanto.

Hardeman, who was diagnosed with an aggressive form of the NHL in 2015, remained committed to the trial, even though it cost him his life emotionally and physically, Wagstaff said before the trial: "C & # 39; is really important to him. now do this. He is a man of great integrity … When we see some of the ways in which Monsanto manipulated science and stole his choices, it is quite obvious. "

Dewayne Johnson, a former school guard, won the historic victory last year when jurors ruled that Monsanto had not warned him of the health risks of his Roundup exposure; . A judge then reduced the damages to $ 78 million but dismissed Monsanto's appeal to overturn the verdict.

Johnson's case presented internal documents that, according to his lawyers, revealed how Monsanto "bullied" scientists with critical results.

Testimonial restrictions on Monsanto's conduct and alleged manipulation of science are likely to severely harm Hardeman and future complainants, said Jean M Eggen, professor emeritus at Widener University Delaware Law School.

"The defendant Bayer has acted brilliantly to try to continue to [out] all this information, "she said. "And that can pay for them."