b'THE RISK CORNER BY: DAVID ZARUKAMERICAN TORT LAWYERS AND IARC:A TOXIC MUTUAL INTERESTF ouryearsago,apoor-qualitylaw firms to litigate the hell out of indus-hazard assessment published by thetry (until, on a pure cost decision, these International Agency for Researchcompanies abandon the practice the sci-on Cancer (IARC) declared the herbicideentists, via IARC, deemed hazardous). glyphosate a possible human carcinogen.The true believers are willing to Since then, NGOs have been running well- do anything to impose their ideology. oiled fear and outrage campaigns againstWorking with the tort industry, how-glyphosate, GMOs and Monsanto, testingever unpalatable, has shown to be more a wide range of food and hygiene productsefficient (and lucrative) than regulatory and finding millions of urine samples withmeasures. Several scientists have been so trace residues of the herbicide. In the lastbold as to publish this strategy (calling it year, over 11,000 people have filed lawsuitstobacconisation but also known as the against glyphosate producers for the can- La Jolla Playbook). cers IARC identified. These events are not merely coincidental. THE PREDATORT PLAYBOOK ON Ive been writing on glyphosateGLYPHOSATEsince IARCs suspicious publication inWhen I showed how Chris Portier went 2015. After releasing the Portier Papersstraight from the IARC glyphosate panel 18 months ago, I have been uncoveringmeeting to sign a lucrative contract with how deeply US toxic tort law firms havelaw firms he had been in contact with been involved in motivating IARC (via abeforehand (and for the next three years group of politically-active scientists andbattled on their behalf to keep the IARC NGOs) to create an environment ripe forglyphosate conclusion relevant), I did not litigation fees and policy change. then realise how common this practice was.The IARC glyphosate monograph THE TOXIC TORT STRATEGYfollowed the Predatort Playbook to the The US toxic tort legal industry has beenletter: a cancer link is instigated by toxic under financial pressure. It grew tootort law firms using scientists via IARC quickly during the heydays of the bigto establish the sufficient causal relation-tobacco and asbestos settlements andkeep showing up on IARC panels for aship required. The law firms then trawl costs mounted. New mechanisms, likewide variety of substances. Their road tofor victims across all media. The NGOs sophisticated litigation finance arms,IARC is an inside path either nominatedcreate public outrage against Monsanto, were created. Then the US Tobaccovia Linda Birnbaum at the NIEHS or viaGMOs and glyphosate (useful for jury Agreement and asbestos industry bank- the Collegium Ramazzini (a private club ofpriming). This was timed with lobbying ruptcies cut the pie even smaller, leavingactivist scientists based in Italy but with aefforts (coordinated by US activists and an urgent search for the next big cancer.large membership of American tort-torts).tort-torts) to raise distrust of regulators. For the big tort law firms, the Predatorts,Some scientists are merely attractedHerbicide use is now under pressure: glyphosate is a goldmine. to the litigation consulting fees (atfarmers are being attacked in their fields, With its hazard-based approach,around $500 USD/hr, one case could netinsurers wont cover glyphosate, food man-IARC serves as an ideal tool to legitimisehundreds of thousands to pad an agingufacturers are looking for alternatives.possible cancer links for tort lawsuits.tort-torts pension).Implementing this Playbook on Tens of thousands of lawsuits claimingOther scientists, more dangerously,glyphosate has damaged trust in the food cancers allegedly from talcum powder,are the true believers. They feel cancerschain, hurt the reputation of regulatory benzene and glyphosate rely only onare caused by low-dose chemical expo- science and created widespread fear of IARC monographs for their scientific evi- sures and that they are the ones in a posi- agritechnology.dence. The tort lawyers though, cannottion to stop them. These zealots advocateWorst of all, with 11,000 cases against get IARC to directly do their bidding.circumventing the democratic process ofBayer, more than 12,000 cases against J&J They need intermediaries. regulatory risk management by takingon talc, we find the companies doing the IARC hazard assessments directly to themost to fund cancer research are the ones THE SCIENTIFIC TORT-TORT US courts. My benzene expos demon- being handicapped by activist scientists Around IARC we find a special breed ofstrated the Predatort Playbook: how aworking with a WHO cancer agency to put scientist I call the tort-tort: usually agroup of tort-torts directly influencedthem out of business. Shameful.statistician or epidemiologist who seemsIARC to hold an additional monograph toFor sources and more information to have a mercenary interest beyond thelink benzene to another type of cancer.track #SlimeGate or follow David at science. The same American scientistsThese scientists then took this to theirwww.risk-monger.com. EUROPEAN-SEED.COMIEUROPEAN SEED I 43'