{"id":7497,"date":"2019-03-28T20:09:08","date_gmt":"2019-03-28T18:09:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/navdanyainternational.org\/?p=7497"},"modified":"2019-04-01T20:14:09","modified_gmt":"2019-04-01T18:14:09","slug":"monsanto-exec-reveals-17-million-budget-for-anti-iarc-pro-glyphosate-efforts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/navdanyainternational.org\/pt-br\/monsanto-exec-reveals-17-million-budget-for-anti-iarc-pro-glyphosate-efforts\/","title":{"rendered":"Monsanto Exec Reveals $17 Million Budget For Anti-IARC, Pro-Glyphosate Efforts"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Carey Gillam – USRTK, 27 March 2019 | Source<\/a><\/p>\n

How badly did Monsanto want to discredit international cancer scientists who found the company\u2019s glyphosate herbicide to be a probable human carcinogen and promote a counter message of\u00a0 glyphosate safety instead? Badly enough to allocate about $17 million for the mission, in just one year alone<\/strong>,\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>according to evidence obtained by lawyers representing cancer victims suing Monsanto.<\/p>\n

That detail and others about the internal workings of Monsanto public relations operations have come to light in a Jan. 22 video-taped deposition<\/a> of Monsanto executive Sam Murphey. Murphey\u2019s job at Monsanto included directing global media relations and \u201cadvocacy efforts in support of major litigation, policy matters, and reputational threats\u201d involving the company\u2019s glyphosate-based herbicide business. And one of the biggest threats came from those cancer scientists. Murphey now works for Bayer after the German company purchased Monsanto last summer.<\/p>\n

U.S. District judge Vince Chhabria did not allow Murphey\u2019s disclosure of the anti-IARC\u00a0 budget to be introduced into evidence in the Hardeman V. Monsanto trial, which went to the jury for deliberation on Tuesday. Jurors in that San Francisco case already determined that Monsanto\u2019s glyphosate-based Roundup caused Hardeman\u2019s non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but now are weighing damages.<\/p>\n

But the Murphey evidence is expected to be introduced at the Pilliod V. Monsanto trial<\/a> that concluded jury selection in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, California on Tuesday. The parties selected a jury of 12 members and five alternates. Opening statements in that case are expected Thursday.<\/p>\n

It has been four years since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the published and peer-reviewed scientific literature regarding glyphosate and found the herbicide to be probably carcinogenic, with a particular association to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. IARC is part of the World Health Organization and has classified over 1,000 substances as to their cancer hazard, typically without too much controversy.<\/p>\n

But glyphosate was different. Following the March 2015 classification, hundreds, and then thousands, of people diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after exposures to Monsanto\u2019s herbicides filed suit against the agrochemical giant.<\/p>\n

Also immediately after the IARC classification of glyphosate \u2013 and continuing to this day \u2013 the cancer scientists became the subject of sweeping condemnation from an assortment of organizations, individuals and even some U.S. lawmakers. They have been accused of operating not on sound science but on behalf of a political agenda, cherry-picking data, and promoting junk science, among other things. The criticisms have been magnified and repeated around the world in news articles, opinion pieces, blogs, Internet Google advertisements and more.<\/p>\n

Internal Monsanto documents that have surfaced through discovery for the more than 11,000 lawsuits filed against the company show that among other tactics, Monsanto has been secretly using third parties for its anti-IARC messaging because company executives and public relations agents thought the information would appear more credible coming from entities separate from Monsanto.<\/p>\n

In his deposition, Murphey was asked how much the company spent trying to cast doubt upon the IARC classification.<\/p>\n

Here is a bit of the exchange:<\/p>\n

Plaintiff attorney Pedram Esfandiary: \u201cSo it\u2019s true that Monsanto\u2019s allocated millions of dollars in responding to the IARC classification, correct?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Murphey: \u201cWe \u2014 we have \u2014 we had to spend a significant amount of resources, over several years now, correcting misinformation, and addressing questions in the public about \u2014 about glyphosate.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Esfandiary: \u201cHas Monsanto allocated millions of dollars to responding to the IARC classification?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Murphey: \u201cYes.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Esfandiary: \u201cDo you know roughly how much Monsanto allocated to it in 2016?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Murphey: \u201cI can only speak within the context of, you know, public affairs activities, you know, things that I would have been directly involved in. But in 2016, you know, I believe for some of the projects I was involved in, it was around 16 or 17 million.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Esfandiary: \u201c$16 or 17 million\u2026 was allocated to responding to the IARC clarification (stet) ? <\/em><\/p>\n

Murphey: \u201cNo, not specifically and solely focused on IARC. It\u2019s \u2014 it would have focused on engagement and media relations and other activities on glyphosate, more generally.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Esfandiary then asked Murphey how much it would have cost the company to perform a long-term cancer bioassay test of its formulated glyphosate products, something the company has acknowledged it never did. Murphey said he did not know.<\/p>\n

The year 2016 was a particularly critical time for Monsanto because in addition to facing litigation, the company\u2019s glyphosate license was up for renewal in Europe, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was also reviewing glyphosate\u2019s registration.<\/p>\n

HOW WAS THE MONEY SPENT? <\/strong><\/p>\n

In the deposition, Murphey was asked about a July 2015 internal Monsanto document called \u201cIARC Follow Up\u201d that cited a goal to \u201cinvalidate relevance of IARC\u201d and \u201cprotect freedom to operate\u201d (FTO).\u00a0 He was asked about a host of actions undertaken to minimize or discredit IARC\u2019s work that were laid out in that and other internal Monsanto communications.\u00a0Several pages of the deposition are completely redacted, per court order, so it is not possible to see all of what was said by Murphey in his deposition. But here are a few examples of what was discussed:<\/p>\n