Bayer releases internal studies on key Roundup ingredient

Bayer AG-owned Monsanto announced Monday the public release of over 100 internal studies on Roundup's active ingredient as juries continue to find the company successfully tampered with decades of research.

The 107 proprietary studies now accessible on Bayer's "dedicated transparency platform" were submitted to international and domestic regulators, including the European Food Safety Authority and Environmental Protection Agency, in their safety assessments of glyphosate, according to a Bayer statement.

Plaintiff's attorneys in the San Francisco federal and superior court trials, which both resulted in findings that Monsanto's signature weedkiller causes cancer, have grilled jurors insisting Monsanto did not conduct or disclose studies with unfavorable findings and has improperly meddled in regulatory decisions.

The juries collectively hit Monsanto with more than $114 million in punitive damages.

"Transparency is a catalyst for trust, so more transparency is a good thing for consumers, policymakers and businesses," said Liam Condon, president of Bayer's crop science division, in a statement.

Bayer said it has made publicly available all "in-depth glyphosate safety studies" to which it owns the rights, the statement continued. The company cannot release studies conducted and owned by third parties, the statement says.

There are more than 250 cases in the consolidated litigation before Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith, of which Alva and Alberta Pilliods' claims are the first test case. Pilliod v. Monsanto, JCCP004953 (Alameda Super. Ct., filed Nov. 16, 2016).

The release of the documents is most likely not to impact the litigation but rather to defend the reputation of one of its signature brands, according to Loyola School of Law Professor Adam Zimmerman.

"This is a public relations effort to illustrate that people should be confident in the product," he said. "There's a much greater concern for the bottom line."

Bayer bought Monsanto for $66 billion in 2016. It has maintained its glyphosate-based products do not cause cancer as the company's shares have fallen roughly 40 percent since the first adverse jury finding last August.

The Alameda County jury will most likely not notice the development, Zimmerman said. Massive product liability cases often feature both sides attempting to sway public opinion in their favor.

"To the extent each side is engaged in some type of campaign to influence this jury or some sort of future jury, courts have tools to make sure that the jury selected is fair and impartial," he said.

Emory University School of Law Professor Frank J. Vandall disagreed and said the release serves to counter arguments that the scientific data has been manipulated by Monsanto authorities, who are alleged to have engaged in ghostwriting.

"If [jurors] hear positive information outside the courtroom, it seems like the plaintiffs will have a difficult job tearing that information apart," he said. "I think people assume that what they learn on their own is more powerful and more persuasive than what is presented in the courtroom."

The release of the studies follows a dispute in the ongoing trial at an April 5 hearing, when plaintiffs' attorneys asked the judge for a temporary injunction barring Monsanto from sending targeted mobile phone advertisements to jurors and other Bay Area residents over the alleged safety of Roundup because it "preconditions" them by elevating the safety of the weedkiller.

Smith ruled against the bid, which James S. Azadian of Dykema Gossett PLC -- who is not involved in the case -- called a "long shot." Vandall said the judge should have at least issued sanctions.

The advertisement in question referred to Roundup being the "most rigorously studied product," with "hundreds of studies submitted to regulators."