|
There was controversy over the
role of Monsanto in the Commission as well as the Commissioner's
treatment of some epidemiological scientists who made submissions.
The controversy was re-ignited in 1990 by sworn testimony in
the Kemner et al. court case [USA] in which Monsanto was defendant.
The case was the longest jury trial in US legal history, started
in the St Clair County of Illinios during 1984. An award of $16.25
million punitive damages was made against Monsanto. Dr Frank
Dost, Monsanto's Toxicologist in the United States, who testified
during the trial, assisted the Australian Royal Commission as
a part time consultant.
The trial related to a chemical spill by Monsanto at Sturgeon,
Missouri. The plaintiffs lawyers tendered evidence, confirmed
in cross-examination, showing Monsanto had falsified, manipulated
and concealed study results. Evidence also showed the company
had been selling dioxin-contaminated chlorophenol products for
nearly 30 years. Sworn testimony during the Illinios trial indicates
that for over thirty years Monsanto Chemical Company manipulated,
falsified and concealed study results that showed 2,3,7,8-TCDD,
a contaminant of 2,4,5-T manufacture, is harmful to human health.
Analysis of Monsanto's data from one study established that the
true results should have been:
- Cancer deaths, 65% higher
than expected
- Lung cancer deaths, 143%
higher than expected
- Genitourinary cancer deaths,
108%
- Bladder cancer death rate, 809%
- Lymphatic cancer death rate,
92%
- Death from heart disease, 37%
|
Mr Rex Carr, legal counsel for
Kemner et. al., wrote to Mr John Moller explaining Monsanto Chemical
Company's response in the Appellate Court. Mr Carr, of Carr,
Korein, Tillery, Kunin, Montroy, Glass & Bogard, Attorneys
at Law, Louis, Illinios, said: 31
'...I was surprised to read in the letters written by the
New Zealand Monsanto representative that my charges have already
been rejected by the court and are not supported by the scientific
evidence. This is another lie which joins the long list of lies
to which we have been subjected by Monsanto. No court has ever
rejected the charges and Monsanto, itself, was unable to respond
to any of the charges in court although Monsanto had a year and
a half in which so to do.
The charges which I made in court and which are supported by
the documentary evidence and sworn testimony of Dr. Roush have
never been rebutted. In point of fact, the Appellate Court case
was recently argued before a panel of three judges and I repeated
the same charges of fraud in the course of the argument. Monsanto's
attorney made absolutely no effort to defend Monsanto against
these charges.
The jury in the original trial did obviously find that my clients
had been unable to prove that their health was jeopardised by
the dioxin exposure because of the very low levels of dioxin
involved in the chemical. However, the $16,250,000 punitive verdict
was a direct finding of the jury that Monsanto had committed
fraud.
It may be that for several technical reasons, the Appellate Court
will some day reverse the punitive damage verdict, the effect
of that verdict cannot be reversed. In a long and hotly contested
trial, a jury of twelve American citizens found that Monsanto
had lied and had wilfully failed to remove dioxins from its chemical
and that it should be punished for so doing.'
Monsanto Chemical Company has
not rebutted the charges of fraud since February 1990, when they
became widely reported by many sources.
|
Home page for the 1990 submission to
New Zealand Parliamentary Select Committee
