Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 37
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`Civil Action No. ____________________
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`LA YUANDA DENKINS,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MONSANTO COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COME(S) NOW LA YUANDA DENKINS, Plaintiffs herein, complaining of
`
`MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendants herein, and for cause of action says:
`
`Parties
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff La Yuanda Denkins (“Plaintiff”) is, and at all times material hereto was,
`
`a resident and Citizen of the State of Texas, residing in Houston, Harris County, Texas.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Monsanto Company (“Monsanto” or “Defendant”) is, and at all times
`
`material hereto was, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
`
`principal place of business in Missouri, a Citizen of Delaware and Missouri, and may be served
`
`with process by serving its registered agent for service, Corporation Service Company d/b/a
`
`CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX
`
`78701-3218.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`
`
`3.
`
`The amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of
`
`interest and costs.
`
`4.
`
`This civil action is between citizens of different states.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 37
`
`
`
`5.
`
`By reason of the foregoing circumstances, this Court has diversity jurisdiction
`
`over this lawsuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Defendant maintained sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Texas such
`
`that the exercise of jurisdiction by Courts of this State, and by this Court, does not offend
`
`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (i.e., general jurisdiction). Further,
`
`Plaintiffs claims arose out of events occurring in this State (i.e., specific jurisdiction).
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`8.
`
`A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims
`
`Venue
`
`occurred in this judicial district. Thus, venue over this lawsuit lays in this Judicial District. 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
`
`Statement of Facts Applicable to All Counts
`
`
`
`9.
`
`This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result
`
`of Defendants’ negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
`
`manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
`
`sale of the herbicide Roundup®, containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff maintains that Roundup® and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to
`
`human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper
`
`warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff’s injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims
`
`across the country, were avoidable.
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff, La Yuanda Denkins, is a natural person and at all relevant times a
`
`resident and citizen of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 37
`
`sustained by exposure to Roundup® (“Roundup”) containing the active ingredient glyphosate
`
`and the surfactant POEA. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup,
`
`Plaintiff developed small B-Cell Lymphoma (a type of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma).
`
`
`
`13.
`
`“Roundup” refers to all formulations of Defendants’ roundup products, including,
`
`but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom
`
`Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
`
`Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass
`
`and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k herbicide, Roundup Original II
`
`Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, Roundup Promax, Roundup
`
`Quik Stik Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Quikpro Herbicide, Roundup Rainfast Concentrate
`
`Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Rainfast Super Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup
`
`Ready-to-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer 1 Plus Weed Preventer, Roundup Ready-
`
`to-Use Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed and Grass Killer 2, Roundup Ultra
`
`Dry, Roundup Ultra Herbicide, Roundup Ultramax, Roundup VM Herbicide, Roundup Weed &
`
`Grass Killer Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed &
`
`Grass killer Ready-to-Use Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup
`
`Weed & Grass Killer1 Ready-to-Use, Roundup WSD Water Soluble Dry Herbicide Deploy Dry
`
`Herbicide, or any other formulation of containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, in Houston, Harris
`
`County, Texas.
`
`
`
`15.
`
`Defendants transacted and conducted business within the State of Texas that
`
`relates to the allegations in this Complaint.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 4 of 37
`
`
`
`16.
`
`Defendants derived substantial revenue from goods and products used in the State
`
`of Texas.
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Defendants expected or should have expected their acts to have consequences
`
`within the State of Texas, and derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce.
`
`
`
`18.
`
`Defendants engaged in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing,
`
`testing, packaging, marketing, distributing, labeling, and/or selling Roundup.
`
`
`
`19.
`
`Defendants are authorized to do business in Texas and derive substantial income
`
`from doing business in this state.
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants purposefully availed themselves of the
`
`privilege of conducting activities with the State of Texas, thus invoking the benefits and
`
`protections of its laws.
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants did act together to design, sell,
`
`advertise, manufacture and/or distribute Roundup, with full knowledge of its dangerous and
`
`defective nature.
`
`
`
`22.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendants were in the business of, and did, design,
`
`research, manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell, distribute, and/or have acquired and
`
`are responsible for Defendants who have designed, researched, manufactured, tested, advertised,
`
`promoted, marketed, sold, and distributed the commercial herbicide Roundup.
`
`
`
`23. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St.
`
`Louis, Missouri. It is the world’s leading producer of glyphosate.
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Defendants discovered the herbicidal properties of glyphosate during the 1970’s
`
`and subsequently began to design, research, manufacture, sell and distribute glyphosate based
`
`“Roundup” as a broad-spectrum herbicide.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 5 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup.
`
`Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses known to
`
`compete with commercial crops grown around the globe.
`
`
`
`27.
`
`Glyphosate is a “non-selective” herbicide, meaning it kills indiscriminately based
`
`only on whether a given organism produces a specific enzyme, 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-
`
`phosphate synthase, known as EPSP synthase.
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Glyphosate inhibits the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase
`
`that interferes with the shikimic pathway in plants, resulting in the accumulation of shikimic acid
`
`in plant tissue and ultimately plant death.
`
`
`
`29.
`
`Sprayed as a liquid, plants absorb glyphosate directly through their leaves, stems,
`
`and roots, and detectable quantities accumulate in the plant tissues.
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Each year, approximately 250 million pounds of glyphosate are sprayed on crops,
`
`commercial nurseries, suburban lawns, parks, and golf courses. This increase in use has been
`
`driven largely by the proliferation of genetically engineered crops, crops specifically tailored to
`
`resist the activity of glyphosate.
`
`
`
`31.
`
`Defendants are intimately involved in the development, design, manufacture,
`
`marketing, sale, and/or distribution of genetically modified (“GMO”) crops, many of which are
`
`marketed as being resistant to Roundup i.e., “Roundup Ready®.” As of 2009, Defendants were
`
`the world’s leading producer of seeds designed to be Roundup Ready®. In 2010, an estimated
`
`70% of corn and cotton, and 90% of soybean fields in the United States contained Roundup
`
`Ready® seeds.
`
`
`
`32.
`
`The original Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate, was
`
`introduced in 1974. Today, glyphosate products are among the world’s most widely used
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 6 of 37
`
`herbicides. Monsanto’s glyphosate products are registered in more than 130 countries and are
`
`approved for weed control in more than 100 crops. No other herbicide active ingredient
`
`compares in terms of number of approved uses.1
`
`
`
`33.
`
`For nearly 40 years, farmers across the globe have used Roundup, unaware of its
`
`carcinogenic properties.
`
`Registration of Herbicides Under Federal Law
`
`
`
`34.
`
`The manufacture, formulation and distribution of herbicides, such as Roundup,
`
`are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C.
`
`§ 136 et seq. FIFRA requires that all pesticides be registered with the Environmental Protection
`
`Agency (“EPA) prior to their distribution, sale, or use, except as described by FIFRA 7 U.S.C.
`
`136a(a).
`
`
`
`35.
`
`The EPA requires as part of the registration process, among other requirements, a
`
`variety of tests to evaluate the potential for exposure to pesticides, toxicity to people and other
`
`potential non-target organisms, and other adverse effects on the environment. Registration by the
`
`EPA, however, is not an assurance or finding of safety. The determination the EPA makes in
`
`registering or re-registering a product is not that the product is “safe,” but rather that use of the
`
`product in accordance with its label directions “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse
`
`effects on the environment.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(a)(c)(5)(D).
`
`
`
`36.
`
`FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean “any
`
`unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and
`
`environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb). FIFRA thus
`
`
`1 Backgrounder, History of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Herbicides, June 2005.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 7 of 37
`
`requires the EPA to make a risk/benefit analysis in determining whether a registration should be
`
`granted or allowed to continue to be sold in commerce.
`
`
`
`37.
`
`The EPA and the State of Texas registered Roundup for distribution, sale, and
`
`manufacture in the United States and the State of Texas.
`
`
`
`38.
`
`FIFRA generally requires that the registrant, Monsanto, conduct health and safety
`
`testing of pesticide products. The government is not required, nor is it able, to perform the
`
`product tests that are required of the manufacturer.
`
`
`
`39.
`
`The evaluation of each pesticide product distributed, sold, or manufactured is
`
`completed at the time the product is initially registered. The data necessary for registration of a
`
`pesticide has changed over time. The EPA is now in the process of re-evaluating all pesticide
`
`products through a Congressionally-mandated process called “re-registration.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a-
`
`1. In order to reevaluate these pesticides, the EPA demands the completion of additional tests
`
`and the submission of data for the EPA’s review and evaluation.
`
`
`
`40.
`
`In the case of glyphosate and Roundup, the EPA had planned on releasing its
`
`preliminary risk assessment – in relation to the registration process – no later than July 2015. The
`
`EPA completed its review of glyphosate in early 2015, but delayed releasing the assessment
`
`pending further review in light of the World Health Organization’s findings.
`
`Monsanto’s False Representations Regarding the Safety of Roundup®
`
`
`
`41.
`
`In 1996, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a lawsuit against
`
`Monsanto based on its false and misleading advertising of Roundup products. Specifically, the
`
`lawsuit challenged Monsanto’s general representations that its spray-on glyphosate-based
`
`herbicides, including Roundup, were “safer than table salt” and "practically non-toxic" to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 8 of 37
`
`mammals, birds, and fish. Among the representations the NYAG found deceptive and misleading
`
`about the human and environmental safety of Roundup are the following:
`
`Remember that environmentally friendly Roundup herbicide is
`biodegradable. It won't build up in the soil so you can use Roundup with
`confidence along customers' driveways, sidewalks and fences ...
`
`And remember that Roundup is biodegradable and won't build up in the soil.
`That will give you the environmental confidence you need to use Roundup
`everywhere you've got a weed, brush, edging or trimming problem.
`
`Roundup biodegrades into naturally occurring elements.
`
`Remember that versatile Roundup herbicide stays where you put it. That
`means there's no washing or leaching to harm customers' shrubs or other
`desirable vegetation.
`
`This non-residual herbicide will not wash or leach in the soil. It ... stays
`where you apply it.
`
`You can apply Accord with “confidence because it will stay where you put
`it” it bonds tightly to soil particles, preventing leaching. Then, soon after
`application, soil microorganisms biodegrade Accord into natural products.
`
`Glyphosate is less toxic to rats than table salt following acute oral
`ingestion.
`
`Glyphosate's safety margin is much greater than required. It has over a
`1,000-fold safety margin in food and over a 700-fold safety margin for
`workers who manufacture it or use it.
`
`You can feel good about using herbicides by Monsanto. They carry a
`toxicity category rating of 'practically non-toxic' as it pertains to
`mammals, birds and fish.
`
`(a)
`
`
`(b)
`
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`
`(e)
`
`
`(f)
`
`
`(g)
`
`
`(h)
`
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`“Roundup can be used where kids and pets will play and breaks down into
`natural material.” This ad depicts a person with his head in the ground and
`a pet dog standing in an area which has been treated with Roundup.2
`
`
`On November 19, 1996, Monsanto entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance
`
`
`
`
`
`42.
`
`with NYAG, in which Monsanto agreed, among other things, “to cease and desist from
`
`
`2 Attorney General of the State of New York, In the Matter of Monsanto Company, Assurance of Discontinuance
`Pursuant to Executive Law § 63(15) (Nov. 1996).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 9 of 37
`
`publishing or broadcasting any advertisements [in New York] that represent, directly or by
`
`implication” that:
`
`(a)
`
`
`(b)
`
`
`(c)
`
`
`(d)
`
`
`(e)
`
`
`(f)
`
`its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof are
`safe, non-toxic, harmless or free from risk.
`
`its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof
`manufactured, formulated, distributed or sold by Monsanto are
`biodegradable.
`
`its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof stay
`where they are applied under all circumstances and will not move through
`the environment by any means.
`
`its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof are
`"good" for the environment or are "known for their environmental
`characteristics."
`
`glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof are
`safer or less toxic than common consumer products other than herbicides.
`
`its glyphosate-containing products or any component thereof might be
`classified as "practically non-toxic.”
`
`
`43. Monsanto did not alter its advertising in the same manner in any state other than
`
`
`
`New York, and on information and belief still has not done so today.
`
`
`
`44.
`
`In 2009, France’s highest court ruled that Monsanto had not told the truth about
`
`the safety of Roundup. The French court affirmed an earlier judgment that Monsanto had falsely
`
`advertised its herbicide Roundup as “biodegradable” and that it “left the soil clean.”3
`
`Evidence of Carcinogenicity of Roundup
`
`
`
`45.
`
`As early as the 1980’s Monsanto was aware of glyphosate’s carcinogenic
`
`properties.
`
`
`3 Monsanto Guilty in ‘False Ad’ Row, BBC, Oct. 15, 2009, available at
`http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 10 of 37
`
`
`
`46.
`
`On March 4, 1985, a group of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”)
`
`Toxicology Branch published a memorandum classifying glyphosate as a Category C oncogene.4
`
`Category C oncogenes are possible human carcinogens with limited evidence of carcinogenicity.
`
`
`
`47.
`
`In 1986, the EPA issued a Registration Standard for glyphosate (NTIS PB87-
`
`103214). The Registration standard required additional phytotoxicity, environmental fate,
`
`toxicology, product chemistry, and residue chemistry studies. All of the data required was
`
`submitted and reviewed and/or waived.5
`
`
`
`48.
`
`In October 1991 the EPA published a Memorandum entitled “Second Peer
`
`Review of Glyphosate.” The memorandum changed glyphosate’s classification to Group E
`
`(evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans). Two peer review committee members did not
`
`concur with the conclusions of the committee and one member refused to sign.6
`
`
`
`49.
`
`In addition to the toxicity of the active molecule, many studies support the
`
`hypothesis that glyphosate formulations found in Defendants’ Roundup products are more
`
`dangerous and toxic than glyphosate alone.7 As early as 1991 evidence existed demonstrating
`
`that glyphosate formulations were significantly more toxic than glyphosate alone.8
`
`
`
`50.
`
`In 2002, Julie Marc published a study entitled “Pesticide Roundup Provokes Cell
`
`Division Dysfunction at the Level of CDK1/Cyclin B Activation.”
`
`
`4 Consensus Review of Glyphosate, Casewell No. 661A. March 4, 1985. United States Environmental Protection
`Agency.
`5 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf
`6 Second Peer Review of Glyphosate, CAS No. 1071-83-6. October 30, 1881. United States Environmental
`Protection Agency.
`7 Martinez et al. 2007; Benachour 2009; Gasnier et al. 2010; Peixoto 2005; Marc 2004
`8 Martinez, et al 1991
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 11 of 37
`
`
`
`51.
`
`The study found that Defendants’ Roundup caused delays in the cell cycles of sea
`
`urchins, while the same concentrations of glyphosate alone proved ineffective and did not alter
`
`cell cycles.
`
`
`
`52.
`
`In 2004, Julie Marc published a study entitled “Glyphosate-based pesticides affect
`
`cell cycle regulation.” The study demonstrated a molecular link between glyphosate-based
`
`products and cell cycle dysregulation.
`
`
`
`53.
`
`The study noted that “cell-cycle dysregulation is a hallmark of tumor cells and
`
`human cancer. Failure in the cell-cycle checkpoints leads to genomic instability and subsequent
`
`development of cancers from the initial affected cell.” Further, “[s]ince cell cycle disorders such
`
`as cancer result from dysfunction of unique cell, it was of interest to evaluate the threshold dose
`
`of glyphosate affecting cells.”9
`
`
`
`54.
`
`In 2005, Francisco Peixoto published a study showing that Roundup’s effects on
`
`rat liver mitochondria are much more toxic and harmful than the same concentrations of
`
`glyphosate alone.
`
`
`
`55.
`
`The Peixoto study suggested that the harmful effects of Roundup on
`
`mitochondrial bioenergetics could not be exclusively attributed to glyphosate and could be the
`
`result of other chemicals, namely the surfactant POEA, or alternatively due to the possible
`
`synergy between glyphosate and Roundup formulation products.
`
`
`
`56.
`
`In 2009, Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Seralini published a study examining
`
`the effects of Roundup and glyphosate on human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells.
`
`
`
`57.
`
`The study used dilution levels of Roundup and glyphosate far below agricultural
`
`recommendations, corresponding with low levels of residues in food. The study concluded that
`
`
`9 (Molinari, 2000; Stewart et al., 2003)
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 12 of 37
`
`supposed “inert” ingredients and possibly POEA change human cell permeability and amplify
`
`toxicity of glyphosate alone. The study further suggested that determinations of glyphosate
`
`toxicity should take into account the presence of adjuvants, or those chemicals used in the
`
`formulation of the complete pesticide. The study confirmed that the adjuvants in Roundup are
`
`not inert and that Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate.
`
`
`
`58.
`
`The results of these studies were confirmed in recently published peer-reviewed
`
`studies and were at all times available and/or known to Defendants.
`
`
`
`59.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that Roundup is more toxic than
`
`glyphosate alone and that safety studies on Roundup, Roundup’s adjuvants and “inert”
`
`ingredients, and/or the surfactant POEA were necessary to protect Plaintiff from Roundup.
`
`
`
`60.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that tests limited to Roundup’s active
`
`ingredient glyphosate were insufficient to prove the safety of Roundup.
`
`
`
`61.
`
`Defendants failed to appropriately and adequately test Roundup, Roundup’s
`
`adjuvants and “inert” ingredients, and/or the surfactant POEA to protect Plaintiff from Roundup.
`
`
`
`62.
`
`Rather than performing appropriate tests, Defendants relied upon flawed industry-
`
`supported studies designed to protect Defendants’ economic interests rather than Plaintiff and the
`
`consuming public.
`
`
`
`63.
`
`Despite their knowledge that Roundup was considerably more dangerous than
`
`glyphosate alone, Defendants continued to promote Roundup as safe.
`
`IARC Classification of Glyphosate
`
`
`
`64.
`
`The International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”) is the specialized
`
`intergovernmental cancer agency in the World Health Organization (“WHO”) of the United
`
`Nations tasked with conducting and coordinating research into the cause of cancer.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 13 of 37
`
`
`
`65.
`
`An IARC Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for IARC Monographs
`
`during 2015-2019 met in April 2014. Though nominations for the review were solicited, a
`
`substance must meet two criteria to be eligible for review by the IARC Monographs: the must
`
`already be some evidence of carcinogenicity of the substance, and there must be evidence that
`
`humans are exposed to the substance.
`
`
`
`66.
`
`IARC set glyphosate for review in 2015-2016. IARC uses five criteria for
`
`determining priority in reviewing chemicals. The substance must have a potential for direct
`
`impact on public health; literature to support suspicion of carcinogenicity; evidence of significant
`
`human exposure; high public interest and/or potential to bring clarity to a controversial area
`
`and/or reduce public anxiety or concern; related agents similar to one given high priority by the
`
`above considerations. Data reviewed is sourced preferably from publicly accessible, peer-
`
`reviewed data.
`
`
`
`67.
`
`On March 24, 2015, after its cumulative review of human, animal, and DNA
`
`studies for more than one (1) year, many of which have been in Defendants’ possession since as
`
`early as 1985, the IARC’s working group published its conclusion that the glyphosate contained
`
`in Defendants’ Roundup herbicide, is a Class 2A “probable carcinogen” as demonstrated by the
`
`mechanistic evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
`
`animals.
`
`
`
`68.
`
`The IARC’s full Monograph was published on July 29, 2015 and established
`
`glyphosate as a class 2A probable carcinogen to humans. According to the authors glyphosate
`
`demonstrated sufficient mechanistic evidence (genotoxicity and oxidative stress) to warrant a 2A
`
`classification based on evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and animals.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 14 of 37
`
`
`
`69.
`
`The IARC Working Group found an increased risk between exposure to
`
`glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (“NHL”) and several subtypes of NHL, and the
`
`increased risk continued after adjustment for other pesticides.
`
`
`
`70.
`
`The IARC also found that glyphosate caused DNA and chromosomal damage in
`
`human cells.
`
`Earlier Evidence of Glyphosate’s Danger
`
`
`
`71.
`
`Despite the new classification by the IARC, Defendants have had ample evidence
`
`of glyphosate and Roundup’s genotoxic properties for decades.
`
`
`
`72.
`
`Genotoxicity refers to chemical agents that are capable of damaging the DNA
`
`within a cell through genetic mutations, which is a process that is believed to lead to cancer.
`
`
`
`73.
`
`In 1997, Chris Clements published “Genotoxicity of select herbicides in Rana
`
`catesbeiana tadpoles using the alkaline single-cell gel DNA electrophoresis (comet) assay.”
`
`
`
`74.
`
`The study found that tadpoles exposed to Roundup showed significant DNA
`
`damage when compared with unexposed control animals.
`
`
`
`75.
`
`Both human and animal studies have shown that glyphosate and glyphosate-based
`
`formulations such as Roundup can induce oxidative stress.
`
`
`
`76.
`
`Oxidative stress and associated chronic inflammation are believed to be involved
`
`in carcinogenesis.
`
`
`
`77.
`
`The IARC Monograph notes that “[s]trong evidence exists that glyphosate,
`
`AMPA and glyphosate-based formulations can induce oxidative stress.”
`
`
`
`78.
`
`In 2006 César Paz-y-Miño published a study examining DNA damage in human
`
`subjects exposed to glyphosate.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 15 of 37
`
`
`
`79.
`
`The study produced evidence of chromosomal damage in blood cells showing
`
`significantly greater damage after exposure to glyphosate than before in the same individuals,
`
`suggesting that the glyphosate formulation used during aerial spraying had a genotoxic effect on
`
`exposed individuals.
`
`
`
`80.
`
`The IARC Monograph reflects the volume of evidence of glyphosate pesticides’
`
`genotoxicity noting “[t]he evidence for genotoxicity caused by glyphosate-based formulations is
`
`strong.”
`
`
`
`81.
`
`Despite knowledge to the contrary, Defendants maintain that there is no evidence
`
`that Roundup is genotoxic, that regulatory authorities and independent experts are in agreement
`
`that Roundup is not genotoxic, and that there is no evidence that Roundup is genotoxic.
`
`
`
`82.
`
`In addition to glyphosate and Roundup’s genotoxic properties, Defendants have
`
`long been aware of glyphosate’s carcinogenic properties.
`
`
`
`83.
`
`Glyphosate and Roundup in particular have long been associated with
`
`carcinogenicity and the development of numerous forms of cancer, including, but not limited to,
`
`non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.
`
`
`
`84.
`
`Defendants have known of this association since the early to mid-1980s and
`
`numerous human and animal studies have evidenced the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and/or
`
`Roundup.
`
`
`
`85.
`
`In 1985 the EPA studied the effects of glyphosate in mice finding a dose related
`
`response in male mice linked to renal tubal adenomas, a rare tumor. The study concluded the
`
`glyphosate was oncogenic.
`
`
`
`86.
`
`In 2003 Lennart Hardell and Mikael Eriksson published the results of two case
`
`controlled studies on pesticides as a risk factor for NHL and hairy cell leukemia.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 16 of 37
`
`
`
`87.
`
`The study concluded that glyphosate had the most significant relationship to NHL
`
`among all herbicides studies with an increased odds ratio of 3.11.
`
`
`
`88.
`
`In 2003 AJ De Roos published a study examining the pooled data of mid-western
`
`farmers, examining pesticides and herbicides as risk factors for NHL.
`
`
`
`89.
`
`The study, which controlled for potential confounders, found a relationship
`
`between increased NHL incidence and glyphosate.
`
`
`
`90.
`
`In 2008 Mikael Eriksson published a study a population-based case-control study
`
`of exposure to various pesticides as a risk factor for NHL.
`
`
`
`
`
`91.
`
`92.
`
`This strengthened previous associations between glyphosate and NHL.
`
`In spite of this knowledge, Defendants continued to issue broad and sweeping
`
`statements suggesting that Roundup was, and is, safer than ordinary household items such as
`
`table salt, despite a lack of scientific support for the accuracy and validity of these statements
`
`and, in fact, voluminous evidence to the contrary.
`
`
`
`93.
`
`Upon information and belief, these statements and representations have been
`
`made with the intent of inducing Plaintiff, the agricultural community, and the public at large to
`
`purchase, and increase the use of, Defendants’ Roundup for Defendants’ pecuniary gain, and in
`
`fact did induce Plaintiff to use Roundup.
`
`
`
`94.
`
`Defendants made these statements with complete disregard and reckless
`
`indifference to the safety of Plaintiff and the general public.
`
`
`
`95.
`
`Notwithstanding Defendants’ representations, scientific evidence has established
`
`a clear association between glyphosate and genotoxicity, inflammation, and an increased risk of
`
`many cancers, including, but not limited to, NHL, Multiple Myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 17 of 37
`
`
`
`96.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that glyphosate is associated with an
`
`increased risk of developing cancer, including, but not limited to, NHL, Multiple Myeloma, and
`
`soft tissue sarcomas.
`
`
`
`97.
`
`Defendants failed to appropriately and adequately inform and warn Plaintiff of the
`
`serious and dangerous risks associated with the use of and exposure to glyphosate and/or
`
`Roundup, including, but not limited to, the risk of developing small B-Cell Lymphoma (NHL),
`
`as well as other severe and personal injuries, which are permanent and/or long-lasting in nature,
`
`cause significant physical pain and mental anguish, diminished enjoyment of life, and the need
`
`for medical treatment, monitoring and/or medications.
`
`
`
`98.
`
`Despite the IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a class 2A probable
`
`carcinogen, Defendants continue to maintain that glyphosate and/or Roundup is safe, non-
`
`carcinogenic, non-genotoxic, and falsely warrant to users and the general public that independent
`
`experts and regulatory agencies agree that there is no evidence of carcinogenicity or genotoxicity
`
`in glyphosate and Roundup.
`
`
`
`99.
`
`Defendants have claimed and continue to claim that Roundup is safe, non-
`
`carcinogenic, and non-genotoxic.
`
`
`
`100. Monsanto claims on its website that “[r]egulatory authorities and independent
`
`experts around the world have reviewed numerous long-term/carcinogenicity and genotoxicity
`
`studies and agree that there is no evidence that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup
`
`brand herbicides and other glyphosate-based herbicides, causes cancer, even at very high doses,
`
`and that it is not genotoxic”.10
`
`
`10 Backgrounder - Glyphosate: No Evidence of Carcinogenicity. Updated November 2014. (downloaded October 9
`2015)
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03301-VC Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 18 of 37
`
`
`
`101.
`
`Ironically, the primary source for this statement is a 1986 report by the WHO, the
`
`same organization that now considers glyphosate to be a probable carcinogen.
`
`
`
`102. Glyphosate, and Defendants’ Roundup products in particular, have long been
`
`associated with serious side effects and many regulatory agencies around the globe have banned
`
`or are currently banning the use of glyphosate herbicide products.
`
`
`
`103. Defendants’ statements proclaiming the safety of Roundup and disregarding its
`
`dangers misled Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`104. Despite Defendants’ knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated
`
`risk of developing cancer, Defendants’ promotional campaigns focused on Roundup’s purported
`
`“safety profile.”
`
`
`
`105. Defendants’ failure to adequately warn Plaintiff resulted in (1) Plaintiff using an