Document 34ebn7p9LLpvvynRDRbm95rO

;TV^r MONSANTO WORLD Hi J to P R O ,t e c w e ORO C02607 MONSANTO COMPANY, ST LOUIS, MO. MAY 1984 VOLUME 3 , NUMBER 6 A statement from Monsanto management: W hy M onsanto settled the Agent Orange casi E d ito r's notet Editorial reaction t the Agent Orange settlement has been favorable to the chem ical com panies. In its editorial, "The Vietnam 'BuyOff, 1" The V&ll Street Journal sug gested that as strong as the defendant com panies'scientific arguments were, they knew "what they were facing in the courts and from the publicity m ills o f their critics. They faced the whim s o f a jury after a trial conducted by per haps the m ost skillfully activistjudge on the federal bench " and white the com panies "might prevail on appeal, the legal costs w ould be staggering. " The V&shington Post said, "One clearly good thing about the settlem ent . . . is that it m inim izes the possibility that the only real beneficiaries o f the Agent Orange dispute w ould be the lawyers. For the com panies, die settle ment . . . a t least avoids the prospects o f still more staggering liability from a jury whose sym pathies w ould alm ost surely run to the veterans." National Public Radio reported that "sources clos to the case say they've uncovered other factors in the veter ans' and their fam ilies' lives that could explain their health problem s a lot more easily than dioxin exposure." Perhaps the m ost insightful o f a ll the editorial comment, review ed to date, came from the The New York Tunes. It is reprinted here in its entirety Wfe settled this controversial case because, when all the factors are weighed, it was th right thing to do. Contrary to what you might have heard or read in the media, we settled in spite o f our firm belief that we had a very strong case, and in spite o f the lack of scientific evidence that expo sure to trace amounts of dioxin could cause the human health effects claimed by the veterans. But it sometimes happens in life that, the right thing to do is different from' being right. Even though we believe that Monsanto and the other chemical companies involved in the suit were "right" oh th legal issues, there were com pelling reasons for not letting the suit go to trial. For many years, this painful and com plex case has been an enduring symbol for some Vietnam veterans. They believe that our country has treated veterans, at best, as invisi ble, and, at worst, as reminders of America's first military d efeat The anger and resentment of these veterans and their families focused, not surprisingly, on what they saw as a very concrete example of their coun try's lack o f concern for their welfare. The Agent Orange case to them, and t many average citizens watching this issue debated on the evening news, was no longer simply a lawsuit agains chem ical companies. The question o( whether or not dioxin exposure could reasonably be cited as a cause of thei health problems was often confused by the larger social and political issues. To many observers, the case had become a "cause", a rallying point, representing the failure of our government to discharge its responsi bility to those who had served it well. It should be noted that Judge Wein stein Helped both the plaintiffs and th' defendants focus our thinking on thes larger issues; in other words, whether it was in the interests of either side fo this case to go to trial, regardless of who was right or wrong. Seen from that perspective, the en tire cause, if not the case itself, was a loser, regardless of the outcome before a Brooklyn jury. As experience has taught us, causes are not won in courts of law -- they are decided (continued from page Justice, Mercy and Agent Orange The tentative settlem ent reached in The difficulty o f proving cause and nized, few veterans w ould receive the A gent Orange trial Is not a trium ph effect gave the plaintiffs an incentive com pensation, and the settlem ent # b fju stice, because n o one knows to settle. For die seven chem ical w ould certainly unravel. The court w hat justice in the case m ight b e . It's com panies that m ade Agent Orange, wUl therefore have to com pensate a n o t a trium ph for the judicial system , a buyout brings certainty and relief m uch w ider r ta o f illnesses. Lack ^ b ecau se w hat drove the parties to from the threat o f years o f costly law ing a scien tific basis for doing so, It 'Settle w as fear erftfie law 's co st and _ su its. The com panies w ill contribute w ill presum ably let severity o f dis ^ d elays. B u tit's the best feasible solu to a $250 m illion pool from w hich the ease by a m ajor criterion. tio n to an Intractable problem : Both' c a n t can dispense prom pt, equitable The Veterans Adm inistration th e m akers o f A gent O range and th e .' - ,,com p ensation to the veterans, fo r the - already beats any illness that a vet Vietnam veterans w ho blam e the her- cou rt to validate claim s and issue dis- b ld d e fo r their d isabilities stand to bursem ejtfs adm inistratively avoids /gain If th settlem ent is accep ted . ; ' ' th e venom and hazard o f protracted eran declares w as caused by Agent O range, and is w illing to give com pensation for chloracne. Should a O range usd in V ie tn a m --litig a tio n .. - . . - veteran co lle ct dam ages for a disease X w as cCTdaminated w ith f r ^ o o a l bet t er but t on than the ;th a i cou ld have nothing to do with >ch*o s asbestos c a se , w here h v 'X h is service? That m ay or m ay not be - Ju stice, but it's surely mercy. Those X W h o fought In Vietnam experienced a savage w ar and an apathetic home- iuirm ^Lm S thrxi * aouabble over fees.The settlement S fiS S S fe lS i cbieved by U S . District Judge Jack sand hmes more Agent Orange flian , ^.JHfeinstetn may provide a model for ground troops, but a recently c o m - : pleted survey o f their health turned ", Vup no dear sign o f dioxin-induced X sim ilar ca ses involving benzene, radiation o r form aldehyde.B ut first there are m any lo o se id s to be tied diseased Larger surveys m ay provide id different answer, but far drearily .velerans' lliness dealer cansabtefry: d ioxin fa lire rare s t u p about Agent Orange. One is -centralissu e o f the ca se : W ho. .'-d esen resco n aM n satio n ? the . . com ing. The veterans w ho have now fallen ill deserve particu larcom pasSion, and giving them the presum ptioi o f validity Is one w ay to provide : com pensation. .B ut if d e t y truly m eans to dis pense mercy; there's a strange ( absen ce am ong th e defendants in the Agent O range ca se . Devastating - ............ onlyditoracnew 'ere to be incog- >: (oe ntnuatm psei W h y w e settled A g en t O range (continued from page t) before the people in the court of lie opinion. fe knew that there was no way to .he public or the veterans to focus on the more narrow legal issues in the case. The level of passion was too high, and the spotlights were too bright. In the final analysis, Monsanto did not believe that anyone benefitted from our company becoming part of the last battleground of the most divisive and painful incident in our nation's recent history, the Vietnam Whr. By settling prior to the trial, Monsanto and the other defendants are agreeing to establish a $180 million fund from which the veterans and their families will be reimbursed for rele vant medical expenses. Although the amounts proposed to be contributed by individual companies have been ordered by the judge to remain confi dential, details have been leaked to the press. An insurance industry source has reported that Monsanto's share was the largest, approximately $80 million. Are the claims of these veterans and their families legitimate? Some veter ans are suffering, as are members of their families. Their exposure, emo- tional tensions and risks were many and unusual in the Vietnam conflict. No reasonable person could remain unmoved by what we've all seen and read, but we unequivocally maintain here is no credible scientific evie to suggest that their medical y .^ l e m s are caused by dioxin. Despite the evidence, the veterans, their families, and many Americans will never believe that. Had we not set tled, the case would have continued for years, and our being right in our own minds on the facts may not have been enough id convince the courts -- or the world. Ufe do not believe that the expense o f a long trial, the nega tive media attention, and most important, the potential damage to Monsanto's reputation as a concerned, sensitive, socially responsible com pany was an acceptable price to pay. O n the other hand, the settlement is, in our opinion, a fair arrangement to put the Agent Orange case behind us once and for all. B y settling prior to the trial, Monsanto and the other defendants are agreeing to establish a $180 m illion fund from which the veterans and their fam ilies will be reimbursed for relevant m edical expenses. Our agreement to settle the case, however, should not be taken as a sig nal to others that it's open season on Monsanto. There are still other dioxin- related lawsuits in which Monsanto is a defendant. The circumstances in those cases are vastly different, and each will be judged on its own merit. Recent scientific studies have con firmed our position that dioxin is not the dangerous chem ical the public has been led to believe, and we have no intention o f allowing our decision on the Agent Orange case to be used as precedent in other cases. Monsanto was the second largest producer of Agent Orange for the government (Dow Chem ical was first). The defoliant was a 50-50 mixture of the herbicides 2,4,D (made at the Krummrich plant) and 2,4,5-T (made at the Nitro plant). Q Studies exam ine effects o f dioxin There is a growing and substantial body of scientific/medical evidence on the record which clearly indicates there is no link between Agent Orange and/or its dioxin contaminant and serious long term human health effects, following is a list of some of the more recent and most significant studies: 3 . Investigations o f the health effects in U.S. Air force Personnel ("Ranch Hand Studies") following exposure to Herbicide Orange: A Baseline Mortal ity Assessment and a follow-up Baseline Morbidity Study, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, San Antonio, Tex., July, 1983, and Febru ary, 1984. 1. A study of long-term health effects of occupational exposure to 2, 4, 5-T and its dioxin contaminants, con ducted by Raymond A Suskind, M .D., University of Cincinnati. The study examined the current health status o f 254 present and former Monsanto employees who had worked in the 2 ,4 , 5-T production unit at the com pany's Nitro, W. Vb,, plant between 1948 and 1969 com pared to the status o f a control group of 63 employees who worked in the other areas of the plant during the same time frame. The results were published in the May 11, 1984, issue of the Journal o f the American Medi cal Association (JAMA). 4 . A review o f the medical evidence regarding the long-term health effects o f Agent Orange and dioxin contami nants, conducted by the American Medical Association's Council on Sci entific Affairs and published in the Oct. 15, 1982 issue o f the Journal of the American M edical Association (JAMA). 5 . Special review of the latest evi dence on the safety of phenoxy herbicides, including 2 ,4 ,5-T by R. Kilpatrick, et al., the Advisory Com mittee on Pesticides, Ministry of Agriculture, fisheries and food, United Kingdom, December, 1982. 2 . Two recently completed mortality (cause o f death) studies on groups of former Monsanto employees who had worked with 2, 4, 5-T since 1948. One group experienced high peak expo sure over 30 years ago. 6 . `Agent Orange Toxicity: A Quantita tive Perspective," Human Toxicol, (1981, 1,31-39, Kingsley M. Stevens, M .D., Department of Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Justice, Mercy and Agent Orange (continue d from page t) crops and forests in Vietnam was the Government's idea, and the Govern ment's moral duty to the veterans transcends that of the chem ical com panies that supplied the herbicide. Whether or not Agent Orange is a real cause o f disease, it has becom e a metaphor for the veterans' sufferings. Washington takes refuge in the doctrine that the Government may not be sued for injuries incurred in military service. That's a necessary posture in general. But Agent Orange is a special case. By participating in the settlement Judge Weinstein has devised, the Government can show that it, too, knows the difference between justice and mercy c1984 by the New 1brt Times Company R eprinted by perm ission. Annual M eeting: M ahoney describes the gam e plan for future success After describing the stiff competition ahead, President and Chief Executive Officer Richard J. Mahoney character ized Monsanto's game plan for future success as striving to be the "best in whatever we choose to do." Speaking at the company's Annual Meeting in St. Louis April 27, Mr. Mahoney said that "being the best means carefully selecting markets where we have, or can develop, a strong competitive edge -- not doing everything -- but selecting a few important things to do -- things of substance -- then doing them very well indeed." "for our employees, being the best means nurturing an urge for action -- an impatience with delays -- a willing ness to try," Mr. Mahoney declared, management, it means direction riderstanding and reaching for new opportunities -- training and motivating our employees -- and then getting out of the way so our employ ees can, in fact, be the best." Being the best has an important societal component, he declared. And our behavior as a progressive com pany must be exemplary. To meet the fear {continued an nnoe Rl Strategy for Monsanto success is outlined by President and CEO RichardJ. Mahoney atAnnualMeeting o fshareholders. Seated from left are R frhnrsi W nttPSPnhprB *& n in r nir*> n ro c tri^ n f f f f- v .;-