In secret internal Monsanto documents released on Tuesday 1st August 2017 by legal firms in the U.S. it was made clear how Monsanto successfully pressured Wallace Hayes, Editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal to retract the famous Séralini study which discovered the damage caused by GM maize NK603 and low doses of Roundup herbicide.
Article by the Admin of GMOSeralini republished from GMOSeralini.org
Source: http://sustainablepulse.com/
In September 2012 the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) published the research of a team led by Professor Séralini, which found liver and kidney toxicity and hormonal disturbances in rats fed Monsanto’s GM maize NK603 and very small doses of the Roundup herbicide it is grown with, over a long-term period. An additional observation was a trend of increased tumours in most treatment groups.
In November 2013 the study was retracted by the journal’s editor, A. Wallace Hayes, after the appointment of a former Monsanto scientist, Richard E. Goodman, to the editorial board and a non-transparent review process by nameless people that took several months.
The study was then republished by Environmental Sciences Europe, but only after the study’s reputation was wrongly damaged due to the work of Monsanto behind the scenes.
Here is a summary of the Seralini related documents released on Tuesday:
Monsanto Email Chain: Personnel Discusses Plan Seeking Retraction of Seralini Glyphosate Study
No: MONGLY02063095
Date: 9/26/2012
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.
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.
No: MONGLY01045298
Date: 8/20/2013
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.
No: MONGLY00900629
Date: 9/26/2012
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.
No: MONGLY02185742
Date: 8/21/2012
Description
This document is a 2012 consulting agreement between Monsanto and editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, Wallace Hayes for the period immediately preceding Mr. Hayes’s involvement in the retraction of the Seralini paper from Food and Chemical Toxicology.
Relevance
This document is relevant and reasonably likely to be used in this litigation as it demonstrates the conflict of interest between Mr. Hayes’ role as a consultant for Monsanto and his vocation as editor for a research journal which retracted a study determining that glyphosate is capable of being a carcinogen. The document is further indication of Monsanto’s pervasive influence within the scientific community which is related to the availability and quality of data on glyphosate used by researchers and regulators to assess the scientific literature in determining the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate. The reliability and consensus of scientific literature is directly relevant to general causation. This document also goes to witness credibility.
No: MONGLY00971543
Date: 8/12/2012 – 8/13/2012
Description
This document is an email from Dr. David Saltmiras to Dr. Heydens wherein Dr. Saltmiras “Contact Wallace Hayes to determine his availability and fees for attending the meeting.”
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 for the same reasons as the above (MONGLY02185742) document. Mr. Hayes’ paid consultancy for Monsanto constitutes a conflict of interest with his role as editor of a journal publishing research on glyphosate- especially given his involvement in retracting a study pertaining to the biological plausibility of glyphosate as a human carcinogen. The reliability and consensus of scientific literature is directly relevant to general causation. This document also goes to witness credibility.
No: MONGLY01096619
Date: 9/19/2012 – 9/20/2012
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.
Monsanto Email Confirming Attempt to Seek Retraction of Seralini Study
No: MONGLY00978886
Date: 10/9/2012 – 10/10/2012
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.
Monsanto Email Chain Confirming Undisclosed Involvement in Successful Retraction of Seralini Study
No: MONGLY00936725
Date: 9/28/2012
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.
Read more at: GMOSeralini.com
