Document 3JdN337nb2B2NLp9Dq1vrRDn6

I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION CECIL SCOTT, ET AL VS. MONSANTO COMPANY * * * * CIVIL ACTION * NO. B-84-1103-CA * it September 2, 1987 Volume XIII BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOE J. FISHER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, AND A JURY Reported by: C. Frank McMillan Federal Court Reporting Co. P. 0. BOX 2664 Beaumont, Texas 77006 (409) 839-2518 HARTOLDMON0020167 1965 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS: 4 MR. DAVID M. LACEY MR. MICHAEL A. POHL 5 MS. SUSAN BAKER Gilpin, Pohl & Bennett 6 1300 Post Oak Boulevard Houston, Texas 77056 7 MR. THOMAS HENDERSON 8 MR. ANTONIO PYLE Henderson & Goldberg 9 1030 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 10 MR. BENTON MUSSLEWHITE 11 609 Fannin, Suite 517 Houston, Texas 77002 12 13 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT: 14 MR. ROBERTA. HALL MR. ROBERTA. JONES 15 MR. JONATHAN SHOEBOTHAM Woodard, Hall & Primm 16 4700 Texas Commerce Tower Houston, Texas 77002 17 MR. TANNER T. HUNT, JR. 18 MS. CHERYL D. OLESEN MR. WALTER CRAWFORD 19 MR. MARK FREEMAN Wells, Peyton, Beard, Greenberg, 20 Hunt & Crawford P. 0. Box 3708 21 Beaumont, Texas 77056 22 ALSO PRESENT: 23 Mr. William Papageorge, Corporate 24 Representative for the Monsanto Chemical Company. 25 HARTOLDMON0020168 1 INDEX 2 3 WITNESS: ERIC D. CAINE 4 Direct Examination by Mr. Freeman Cross Examination by Mr. Pyle 5 6 WITNESS: DR. PAUL L. WRIGHT 7 Showing of Video Deposition Reading from Video Deposition 8 9 WITNESS: DAN R. BISHOP 10 Showing of Video Deposition Reading from Video Deposition 11 12 WITNESS: DR. WARD R. RICHTER 13 Showing of Video Deposition Reading from Video Deposition 14 15 WITNESS: MICHAEL EDWARD WISE 16 Direct Examination by Mr. Pohl Cross Examination by Mr. Freeman 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Pohl 18 WITNESS: DR. IRA LYMAN MITCHELL 19 Reading from Deposition 20 21 WITNESS: DR. S.L. REDDY 22 Reading from Deposition 23 WITNESS: DR. JOHN MICHAEL OWNINGS 24 Reading from Deposition 25 19 6 6 PAGE 1967 1971 PAGE 1983 1992 PAGE 2009 2018 PAGE 2032 2048 PAGE 2065 2087 2114 PAGE 2115 PAGE 2118 PAGE 2124 HARTOLDMON0020169 TTO' 1 THE COURT: Yes, the Court will request 2 the jury to disregard any portion of Mr. 3 Wright's testimony that has been read. All 4 right. 5 MR. POHL: Your Honor, at this time we 6 would -7 THE COURT: Do not give it any 8 consideration or affect to Dr. Wright's 9 deposition in regard to your deliberation as 10 a jury in this case. Do not give it any 11 affect or consideration in your rulings. 12 All right. 13 MR. POHL: Your Honor, we would read 14 from the deposition and offer a summary of 15 Dan R. Bishop taken June 29, 1987. And I 16 will read a summary and there are some 17 questions and answers and I would ask Mr. 18 Musslewhite to respond to the questions. 19 THE COURT: All right. What witness is 20 this? 21 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: This is the last one 22 that I mentioned to Your Honor of the last 23 witness we have that was Monsanto's - 24 public relations man. It's a short offer. 25 THE COURT: You may proceed. HARTOLDMON0020170 T9T6 1 MR. POHL: Your Honor, in order to show 2 the jury the witness, not at the front but 3 later on there are some question and 4 answers, which we would like to show on 5 video. I'm told that they are 12 minutes 6 long. 7 THE COURT: All right. 8 MR. POHL: Dan Bishop has a bachelor 9 degree in journalism from the University of 10 Missouri. He graduated in 1956. He started 11 at Monsanto in 1966 as manager of public 12 relations for Monsanto's agricultural 13 division. 14 He is currently director of public 15 relations for Monsanto Chemical Company. 16 With regard to PCBs, Bishop's role was to 17 disseminate information internally that it 18 appeared in the news media, keep people who 19 had some involvement with PCBs informed of 20 what was being said and done in the public 21 arena and serve as the point of contact for 22 the media when they had questions concerning 23 PCBs . 24 He would translate technical 25 information and would reduce it to lay HARTOLDMON0020171 19 97 1 terminology so that people could understand 2 it. 3 Bishop's major goal is to insure the 4 dissemination of factual accurate 5 information. With regard to Monsanto's 6 history of the use of PCBs, Bishop and 7 others put together a "white paper". 8 The white paper was used as the source 9 of his information in communicating with the 10 news media and others regarding PCBs. The 11 information contained in the white paper 12 came principally from Bill Papageorge, David 13 Wood and George Levinsksas. 14 Other than the information which Bishop 15 obtained from Papageorge, Wood and 16 Levinsksas, he made no independent inquiries 17 but rather relied on what they had told him 18 about PCBs. 19 Regarding his job of editing papers 20 relating to PCBs, Bishop testified as 21 follows: 22 23 (Reading from video deposition) 24 Q Is one of the goals that you would have in 25 editing papers for Monsanto to be sure that the HARTOLDMON0020172 TM3 1 proper message is communicated to the reader? 2 A My major goal is to ensure the dissemination 3 of factual accurate information, yes. 4 Q And what you try to do is make sure that you 5 have a good mental understanding of the issue; is 6 that correct? 7 A Well, to the extent that my nontechnical 8 background will permit. 9 Q Then you try to take your understanding of 10 the issue and you try to communicate in an honest 11 and truthful way to whoever the reader might be? 12 A Yes, and before I do that, though, I test it 13 with my contacts to make sure that I have indeed 14 kept the accuracy of the information. 15 Q And who would be the contact -- who would 16 the contacts be as impacts the PCBs? 17 A The same, same ones I mentioned earlier. 18 Q Papageorge, Wood and Levinsksas? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And you use the word in one of your answers, 21 "not misleading." Would one of the roles that 22 you play be to make sure that the wording was 23 such that the average reader could comprehend it 24 in a way that wouldn't be calculated to mislead 25 the reader? HARTOLDMON0020173 1999 1 A Yes. 2 Q And would that be important to you? 3 A Yes, it would. 4 Q And with regard to any chemical, no matter 5 how dangerous or nondangerous it might be, you 6 would want to make sure that whoever the reader 7 was that they would be presented a full, fair and 8 accurate picture of that chemicals propensities? 9 A Yes. 10 Q As part of his job at Monsanto, Bishop 11 collected clippings from newspapers, magazines 12 and the scientific literature regarding PCBs. 13 Monsanto subscribed to clipping service which 14 gathered all such information and provided it to 15 Monsanto. 16 If Monsanto considered a periodicals 17 characterization of PCBs inaccurate, Monsanto 18 would let them know. If a newspaper, for 19 example, referred to PCBs as a carcinogen or a 20 "deadly toxin," Monsanto would challenge the 21 accuracy of such a characterization. 22 Such characterizations in Bishop's opinion 23 would be grossly inaccurate based on everything 24 he's ever been told and read. If one going to 25 going to communicate information to the public. HARTOLDMON0020174 2000 1 you would want to err on the side of being most 2 cautions. 3 Bishop has enormous confidence in the 4 public's ability to understand an issue. "If 5 they're given all the facts, if they're given 6 both sides." 7 One of Bishop's jobs in public relations was 8 to be sure the public was given "all the relevant 9 facts" recording PCBs. 10 Monsanto issued press releases regarding the 11 IBT's criminal trial. Regarding the relationship 12 between IBT and Monsanto, Bishop did not know the 13 employees of Monsanto and employees of IBT had 14 traveled together in Europe. 15 Further, he did not know the dollar volume 16 of business between IBT and Monsanto. Bishop 17 Exhibit 6 is a memo prepared by Bishop regarding 18 a Monsanto press release to coincide with Dr. 19 Kimbrough's presentation to the Society of 20 Toxicologists in Chicago, Illinois. 21 The press release is designated for 22 immediate release. The press release was to 23 coincide with Dr. Kimbrough's speech in order "to 24 give another side to the issue." 25 Dr. Levinsksas had told Bishop "that Dr. HARTOLDMON0020175 2001 1 Pour was the one who had done the most thorough 2 review of Dr. Kimbrough's work." Dr. Levinsksas 3 also told Bishop that Dr. Pour disagreed with Dr. 4 Kimbrough's findings. 5 Q Now, as to the others that looked at Dr. 6 Kimbrough's findings, what did he tell you, if 7 anything, about the substance of what they found? 8 A I don't remember discussing with anyone Dr. 9 Levinsksas or anyone else whether or not anybody 10 else looked at any aspect of the study. I just 11 know that Dr. Pour's work was characterized to me 12 as a thorough review of all of Dr. Kimbrough's 13 work and the only one that had been done 14 thoroughly. 15 Q Assume hypothetically that Dr. Levinsksas 16 had had two other pathologists look at the same 17 slides. Both of whom had agreed in writing that 18 the slides demonstrated carcinogenicity. If you 19 had known that fact, would that have been part of 20 the complete and accurate information that you 21 would have wanted to disseminate to the public 22 had you been told about it? 23 A How do I -- I mean, I don't know how I would 24 respond to that question. It would -- I would 25 have to know a lot of facts that I don't know. HARTOLDMON0020176 2UU2 1 It would depend on the credibility of those 2 people, their scientific credentials, whether 3 they did a thorough job or whether they did a 4 piece meal job, whether they were just a quick 5 and dirty analysis and an opinion or whether it 6 was, you know, the -- all the -- all the 7 technical things that one with a prestigous world 8 cancer research center like Epily would go 9 through. 10 Q You don't -- 11 A You just, you don't compare -- call research 12 by a famous person with a study done by a 13 graduate student, for example, or offer one as a 14 rebuttal to the other. ....... 15 Q Sure. I understand. And, so, what you are 16 telling me is that if they had someone that did 17 less than a thorough job, I forget what words you 18 use -- 19 A Yes. 20 Q A haphazard. 21 A No. 22 Q Quick and dirty. 23 A Less than thorough. 24 Q Quick and dirty was, I think, the words you 25 used. HARTOLDMON0020177 2003 1 A Well, I meant less than thorough. 2 Q Okay. So, if other people did a less than 3 thorough job, then there is no reason to report 4 their findings in your proposed news release, is 5 there? 6 A No. We do not report findings that are not 7 peer reviewed and do not accept findings that are 8 not peer reviewed. It has to pass that test are 9 it's really not a valid scientific study. That's 10 what I have been told over the years and I 11 believe that. I can understand that. 12 Q By Dr. Levinsksas, for example, that's what 13 he told you? 14 A Well, yes, among others, certainly. I mean, 15 that's fairly common policy and knowledge, I 16 would think. And not only with Monsanto, but 17 within the technical community in the United 18 States and probably the world. 19 Q So, that the veiw that ought to be 20 disseminated to the public would be that of the 21 more qualified scientist who have done the most 22 thorough study? 23 A In other words, most studies, yes, most 24 studies. They're published in technical 25 journals, have to go through a peer review HARTOLDMON0020178 1 process by other scientists who have credentials 2 in that area of expertise before it can be 3 published and given authenticity, credibility, if 4 you will. And that's the kinds of studies that 5 Monsanto recognizes and the kinds of studies that 6 we sponsor. 7 Q And so you are relying on Dr. Levinsksas to 8 accurately and fully represent the facts to you? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And you relied on what Dr. Levinsksas told 11 you? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q And you wereassuming that Dr.Levinsksas 14 had accurately told you what was the -- what was 15 a thorough and well-considered review of Dr. 16 Kimbrough's slides by someone else? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And in Dr. Levinsksas'opinion, the only one 19 that he represented to you was Dr. Pour who 20 reviewed Dr. Kimbrough's slides and disagreed 21 with her findings? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q And let me see if I can approach it this 24 way: If there had been findings that were 25 contrary to Dr. Pour's and they -- had not been HARTOLDMON0020179 T07IF 1 quick and dirty but had been very well considered 2 and had been conducted by one or more people that 3 were very prominent in their trade and 4 profession, is that the kind of information that 5 you would have wanted to disseminate to the 6 public? 7 You couldn't answer my question based on the 8 information -- based on the information you have 9 today? 10 A Well, the way I would answer the question 11 would be: If another doctor, another scientist 12 with comparable credentials to those of the 13 people at Etily came up with different 14 conclusions as well, that they would certainly be 15 worthy of consideration just as his should be. 16 Q And you would have expected Dr. Levinsksas 17 to tell you about that if that had happened? 18 A If it had been a thorough evaluation. 19 I would.-- but he would not tell me about 20 every partial or piecemeal less than thorough 21 scientific observation. 22 Q If it was less than thorough, you're 23 satisfied in your own mind that you really 24 wouldn't have to consider that in your position 25 in public relations? HARTOLDMON0020180 1 A I wouldn't consider it avalidscientific 2 information to communicate until it was peer 3 reviewed and thorough. 4 Q And if it was a thorough analysis, then it 5 was something that you should have considered? 6 A Yes, it would have been. 7 Q Okay. 8 A And .there were a number ofanalysis that we 9 had never used because we didn't consider that 10 they were thorough. Although, they would have 11 supported our position on a matter, on a given 12 matter. But we wouldn't use them. 13 Q Did Dr. Levinsksas ever tell you that he had 14 obtained a written report from at least two 15 separate pathologists, named Donovan Gordon and 16 Ward Richter confirming Dr. Kimbrough's findings? 17 A Not to my knowledge. Not to as best I can 18 recall, no. 19 Q Did Dr.. Levinsksas ever tell you that the 20 reason he hired Dr. Parvis Pour was to try to 21 find somebody who would criticize Dr. Kimbrough's 22 findings? 23 A No, sir . 24 Q Did Dr. Levinsksas tell you that he hired 25 Dr. Pour after he had already personally looked HARTOLDMON0020181 2007 1 at Dr. Kimbrough's findings in the presence of 2 Drs. Squire, Gordon and Richter, all of whom 3 confirmed carcinogenicity in his presence? 4 A I don't remember that. 5 Q He never told you that? 6 A Not the best I can recall, no. 7 Q Even to this day, he hasn't told you that? 8 A No, sir. 9 Q Let me hand you a document that's marked 10 Levinsksas Exhibit 15, which is a letter from Dr. 11 Gordon to Dr. Levinsksas enclosing a written 12 report from Dr. Gordon and Dr. Richter confirming 13 carcinogenicity in the slides by Dr. Kimbrough 14 and ask you if Dr. Levinsksas ever to this day 15 has shown you the documents that I'm showing you 16 now? 17 A To the best of my knowledge, I have never 18 seen any of these documents or had any knowledge 19 of that whatsoever. 20 Q One of the documents has a paragraph 21 numbered 5 above the signature line of a man 22 named Ward R. Richter, D.B.M. diplomate, American 23 College of Veterinary Pathology. Would you read 24 to the Court and jury the paragraph numbered 5? 25 A I had nothing to do with any of this. I HARTOLDMON0020182 2008 1 have never seen it before. 2 Q Well, let me read the document. You tell me 3 if I read it correctly. 4 "However, the lesions in Dr. Kimbrough's 5 study were more severe than those in the Biotest 6 study. The lesions that she and Dr. Squire are 7 calling carcinoma are also carcinoma by my 8 criterion. I would conclude from an examination 9 of their material that Dr. Kimbrough's study 10 demonstrated carcinogenicity. Signed, Ward R. 11 Richter." 12 Did I read that correctly? 13 A That's what -- you read the words that I'm 14 looking at, yes, sir. '' 15 Q And your testimony is, that Dr. Levinsksas 16 never showed you this document even up until this 17 day? 18 A That's correct. 19 Q He never communicated to you the substance 20 of the facts that I just read aloud to you? 21 A Not that I recall. 22 (End of reading) 23 24 MR. POHL: Regarding warnings, Bishop 25 testified as follows: HARTOLDMON0020183 2009 1 2 (Reading from video deposition) 3 Q Because of your educational background and 4 because of your many years in advertising and 5 public relations, I think we have established 6 you're very skilled at the use of the English 7 language; is that correct? 8 A I will accept that. 9 Q And did Monsanto ever consult you about how 10 to word its warnings so that the message about 11 any dangers associated with PCBs could be most 12 effectively communicated to the average man? 13 A No, sir. 14 Q Or woman? 15 A No, sir. 16 (End of reading) 17 18 MR. POHL: Your Honor, at this point, 19 we would offer a brief excerpt from this 20 deposition on video to show the witness to 21 the jury. 22 23 24 (WHEREUPON THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THE VIDEO 25 DEPOSITION WERE SHOWN TO THE JURY.) HARTOLDMON0020184 Tom 1 2 3 Q References in some of your documents to the 4 fact that PCBs were equated with common table 5 salt? 6 A Uh-huh. 7 Q That's one of the comparisons you would like 8 to make back in the 70's when you were dealing 9 with PCBs? 10 A Well, it was --it was an analogy that people 11 could understand and relate to. And it was 12 recommended by our technical experts that -- that 13 we use an analogy like that because I was looking 14 for one to further elaborate on what mildly toxic 15 was . 16 Q And who was it that suggested that you 17 compare PCBs to table salt? 18 A Well, it wasn't specifically table salt. He 19 gave us several choices. And it was Dr. 20 Levinsksas. He would say you could compare it 21 with table salt or motor oil. 22 Q I saw in the documents references to the 23 word "mineral oil"? 24 A Mineral oil, as well. There is three 25 different -- HARTOLDMON0020185 2011 1 Q Three different ones: table salt, motor oil 2 and mineral oil? 3 A There were a lot of others but they would be 4 products that I don't remember what they were but 5 at the time I recall that at the time they were 6 products that the public wouldn't readily 7 identify with nor did I. 8 Q Do you recall what any others were today? 9 A No. 10 Q So, three products that you remember 11 equating to PCBs in the 1970's were table salt, 12 mineral oil and motor oil? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Was there ever a time when you stopped using 15 the comparison of PCBs and common table salt as 16 being accurate? 17 A Not as beingaccurate. 18 Q And that would be your position today as 19 well? 20 A Yes, sir . 21 22 (WHEREUPON THE VIDEO DEPOSITION WAS INTERRUPTED) 23 24 THE COURT: All right. 25 What do you have next, Mr. Pohl? HARTOLDMON0020186 2012 1 MR. POHL: We can go ahead and read 2 from question and answer. Mr. Musslewhite 3 will take the stand. We will finish it up 4 very shortly. 5 He can go ahead and take the stand and 6 we'll do this -7 8 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD) 9 10 MR. POHL: This was part of the first 11 12 minutes we were going to offer and that 12 was all -- go ahead -- 13 THE COURT: Proceed. 14 15 16 (WHEREUPON THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THE 17 VIDEO DEPOSITION WERE SHOWN TO THE JURY.) 18 19 Q Wasn't there a time when there was 20 considerable concern, not only about health 21 effects but also the environmental effects? 22 A The enviromental effects were the first 23 issue to emerge, the subject of PCBs in the time 24 frame when I was in the industrial chemicals 25 companies and had a responsibility for all HARTOLDMON0020187 2013 1 products, including PCBs, yes. 2 Q Okay. And what was your position in public 3 relations with regard to the environmental damage 4 of PCBs, if any? 5 A That there was a growing body of knowledge 6 that suggested that they were persistent in the 7 environment and that precautions needed to be 8 taken to insure that they were disposed of in the 9 proper way. 10 Q Did you tell people that asked that PCBs 11 could kill birds and fish? 12 A No oneasked me that. 13 Q No one ever asked you? 14 A No one ever asked me that. 15 Q If they had of asked you, what would you 16 have told them? 17 A That there is evidence to suggest that that 18 has happened. 19 Q Did it ever cause you any concern that if a 20 product could kill birds and fish that it might 21 hurt people? 22 A That is something that you would have to be 23 concerned about, certainly, to watch out. 24 Q Were you concerned about it? 25 A Yes, I was, but I was assured by our HARTOLDMON0020188 '2014 1 technical people that that wasn't a problem. 2 Q Did you ask your technical people what their 3 own experience has been with PCBs when they first 4 embarked on manufacturing PCBs? 5 A I didn't know who the first technical people 6 were that embarked on that back in late 20's or 7 early 30's. 8 Q Did you ever make inquiry yourself to see 9 what the human health effects were of exposure to 10 PCBs by Monsanto workers when they first 11 commenced making PCBs? 12 A I have no way or wherewithal to do that sort 13 of thing, and it certainly wasn't within my area 14 of responsibility, no. 15 Q Did you understand that Monsanto had 16 purchased Swann Chemical Company that was the 17 original manufacturer of PCBs? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And did you understand that Monsanto had 20 acquired Swann Chemical Company's patent for the 21 making of PCBs? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Okay. And did you understand that there 24 were documents that were available to Monsanto 25 which demonstrated the health effects associated HARTOLDMON0020189 2015 1 with this very early manufacturing of PCBs? 2 A No. 3 Q Did you ever ask Dr. Levinsksas or Mr. 4 Papageorge or Mr. Wood if they could provide you 5 with any documents that would show what the 6 effects were on the Swann or Monsanto workers 7 from their early exposure to PCBs? 8 A I didn't ask for documents, no. 9 Q Did you ask them verbally? 10 A I didn't have to. They told me. 11 Q What did they tell you? 12 A They told me thatbased on our experiences 13 that there was no evidence to suggest that there 14 was any concern on worker exposure. 15 Q So, what you are telling me is that -- Mr. 16 Papageorge, Mr. Wood and Dr. Levinsksas told you 17 or represented to you that from the very earliest 18 exposures to PCBs, there was no evidence of any 19 adverse human health effects? 20 A I don't know that I can say from the very 21 earliest exposure. We were talking in the time 22 frame of the early 1970's, early to mid-1970's. 23 I don't know that -- I don't recall anybody ever 24 talking about any exposure or anything earlier 25 than that. HARTOLDMON0020190 TOTS 1 Q All right. So, you don't have any 2 recollection today of anybody at Monsanto ever 3 having told you about any health problems 4 associated with the manufacturing of PCBs in the 5 1930's? 6 A No, sir . 7 DEFENSE ATTORNEY: That is not what the 8 witness said. 9 A But it is true. I do not -- I do not -- I 10 do not have any knowledge or I don't recall 11 having ever had any knowledge about any health 12 effects in the 30's or 40's or 50's. 13 Q So, even as we speak today in June of 1987, 14 June 29th, of 1987, you don't have any knowledge 15 of ever having been given any information with 16 regard to adverse health effects from the very 17 earliest exposure to PCBs by Monsanto workers? 18 A I don't remember ever hearing anything about 19 health effects or lack thereof or in any time 20 period before the 1970's when I got involved. I 21 never heard of PCBs until I went to work for the 22 industrial chemicals companies in '75. 23 Q And you became educated on PCBs by what the 24 company told you through the people you 25 principally identified, who I believe, were HARTOLDMON0020191 7TJT7 1 Papageorge, Wood and Levinsksas? 2 A That's basically right. 3 Q So, you learned about it that way? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And you never learned, that you can recall, 6 about any adverse health effects going back into 7 the 1930's, for example? 8 A No, no. 9 Q And you are the kind of man that if you had 10 learned about any adverse health effects in the 11 1930's, you would have truthfully and accurately 12 reported that to the media or whoever else might 13 have made inquiry to you? 14 A Well, I'm the kind of man -- I'm an honest 15 person. 16 Q Sure. 17 A Yes. And Ibelieve indisseminating the 18 information factually, yes. I had no knowledge 19 of any health effects in the early 30's, 40's, 20 50's, or 60's. 21 Q And if somebody had told you aboutadverse 22 health effects in the early 30's, for example, 23 you would have truthfully and accurately passed 24 that information on to someone who might have 25 made inquiry of you? HARTOLDMON0020192 TUTU 1 A I would like to think that if there were 2 serious health effects with a product of ours in 3 the 30's, we wouldn't still been making it in the 4 60 1 s or 701s. 5 6 (WHEREUPON THE VIDEO DEPOSITION WAS INTERRUPTED 7 8 MR. POHL: You can stop there. 9 Turning to Page 58, Mr. Musslewhite, 10 line 22. 11 12 (Reading from video deposition) 13 Q And during any of the meetings that you had 14 with Papageorge, Levinsksas or Wood or during any 15 of the Monsanto sponsored luncheons, did anyone 16 at Monsanto ever tell you that Monsanto's 17 earliest experience with the exposures of its 18 workmen to PCBs resulted in the yellow dystrophy 19 of the liver in some of those workmen - 20 (End of reading) 21 22 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: What page did you 23 say? 24 MR. POHL: 58, answer is on 59, line 4. 25 HARTOLDMON0020193 2019 1 (Reading from video deposition) 2 A The presence of the sequence of events of 3 hyper -- 4 (End of reading) 5 6 MR. POHL: No. Page 59, line 4. 7 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: Well, the pages must 8 be numbered differently in this one. Oh, 9 this is the Richter deposition. No wonder. 10 MR. POHL: Let me just read the answer 11 then. 12 13 (Reading from video deposition) 14 A I honestly don't recall that. I honestly do 15 not recall. 16 Q Has anyone ever to this day told you that 17 some of the long-term health effects of exposure 18 to PCBs include liver damage? 19 A I'm vaguely -- I'm familiar vaguely with the 20 health effects observed in the so-called Yusho 21 incident in Japan. 22 I read some of the accounts of that in the 23 news media and I guess at one time or another saw 24 a technical paper that was written on the subject 25 that I was on the distribution for. And as I HARTOLDMON0020194 ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------2THZ1T 1 recall, people ingested great quantities of 2 contaminated rice oil and had some health effects 3 which it's my understanding that they recovered 4 from and they were reversible effects. 5 Q And that included, I guess, the birth 6 defects in their children? 7 A To my knowledge, that's never been 8 documented as being caused by PCBs. 9 Q Now, let's not focus on Yu-Cheng and Yusho 10 right now. I just want to know what Monsanto 11 people told you about what they knew. 12 Did Dr. Levinsksas tell you, for example, 13 that chronic exposure to PCBs can cause hardening 14 or blackening of the fingernails? 15 A No. I don't recall that ever being said to 16 me. 17 Q Did Dr. Levinsksas tell you that PCBs can 18 cause a swelling of the mucous membrane and 19 impair the respiratory function? 20 A No, not that I can recall. 21 Q Did Dr. Levinsksas ever tell you that 22 exposure to PCBs can cause swelling of the 23 eyelids? 24 A No. You are citing a litany of, I suppose, 25 acute health effects from high exposure. HARTOLDMON0020195 2021 1 Q No. I'm not limiting my questions to acute 2 in any way. 3 A Well, the answer in any event is no. I 4 don't recall ever being involved in a discussion 5 like that with anybody. 6 Q All right. Did Dr. Levinsksas ever tell you 7 that severe exposure to PCBs can cause 8 gastrointestinal problems in human beings? 9 A Not that I can recall. 10 (End of reading) 11 12 MR. POHL: Page 61. 13 14 (Reading from video deposition) 15 Q Do you have any recollection today of ever 16 having told anybody from the public that might 17 inquire whether they were from a magazine or 18 whether they were from a newspaper or whether 19 they were just an inquiring member of the public 20 that any type of exposure to PCBs could cause 21 liver damage or gastrointestinal damage? 22 A I don't remember. 23 Q You don't remember telling anybody that? 24 A I don't remember whether I did or didn't. 25 Q Well, if you don't think that it caused HARTOLDMON0020196 T0T7 1 those problems, how could you have told them 2 about it? 3 A I didn't. I don't remember. 4 Q So, you didn't tellthem? 5 A I don't remember. 6 Q All right. 7 A I just don't remember - 8 (End of reading) 9 10 MR. POHL: Page 63. 11 12 (Reading from video deposition) 13 Q If you had known in 1970's that PCBs could 14 cause gastrointestinal problems - 15 (End of reading) 16 17 THE COURT: Mr. Pohl, this is too much 18 argument. Eliminate it. 19 MR. POHL: All right. We'll move to 20 the next subject. Moving to Page 116. I'll 21 just read it. Your Honor. 22 23 (Reading from video deposition) 24 Q Did Dr. Levinsksas ever tell you that he had 25 asked IBT to change the wording of some of the HARTOLDMON0020197 2023 1 conclusions of the Monsanto sponsored PCB 2 studies? 3 A The only knowledge I have of anything 4 regarding that was an article that appeared in 5 Newsweek magazine, as I recall, after the 6 criminal trial was concluded, which reference 7 something about that in one of the documents that 8 became public. 9 And in my capacity as director of 10 enviromental communications, I had occasion to 11 talk with Dr. Levinsksas about that point and he 12 explained to me that he did have correspondence 13 with someone at IBT but that it was based on a 14 request to have the reports consistently reported 15 using the same apples-to-apples comparison. 16 And that was the subject of a letter he sent 17 to Newsweek which they did not publish and that 18 is the only extent of my knowledge of that 19 particular issue that I can remember. 20 (End of reading) 21 22 MR. POHL: Page 118, line 9. 23 24 (Reading from video deposition) 25 Q Your understanding is that he didn't ask HARTOLDMON0020198 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 20-21 1 them to change a conclusion? 2 A No, sir, not a conclusion. 3 (End of reading) 4 5 MR. POHL: Page 123, our final offer, 6 line 4. 7 8 (Reading from video deposition) 9 Q Did you have any independent understanding 10 of the number of reports that he had had changed? 11 A No, sir. I wasn't aware that he had asked 12 for changes in a number of reports. I wasn't 13 aware of that and I'm still not to this day aware 14 of that. 15 Q What number did you understand to be - 16 A I don't have an understanding of what -- of 17 any reports that he asked to have conclusions 18 changed in. I refer back to my comment earlier. 19 Q That is, you're not aware that he asked to 20 have conclusions changed? 21 A I don't recall anything like that. 22 Q Okay. Let me show you, see if I can help 23 you refresh your recollection. 24 A Okay. 25 Q A letter to Dr. Joseph Calandra at HARTOLDMON0020199 2025 1 Industrial Biotest from Dr. George J. Levinsksas 2 which has been marked as Levinsksas Exhibit 21 3 and ask you first, did Dr. Levinsksas ever show 4 you this letter marked Levinsksas 21? 5 A No, sir, I don't recall ever seeing this. 6 Q So, even to this day, June 29, 1987, no one 7 at Monsanto has ever shown you Dr. Levinsksas' 8 letter to Dr. Calandra at IBT dated July 18, 9 1975? 10 A No, sir. 11 (End of reading) 12 13 MR. POHL: And that concludes the offer 14 from the deposition of Dan R. Bishop. 15 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: Your Honor, we have a 16 very short offer from this deposition. 17 Beginning at Page 29, line 25. 18 19 (Reading from video deposition) 20 Q And then sometimes you would write letters 21 back to the newspapers or the magazines if you 22 had some question about the articles they had 23 published regarding PCBs? 24 A Sure. 25 Q And if you had a quarrel with them about the HARTOLDMON0020200 ------ -- TUTT6 1 way they characterized PCBs you would let them 2 know about that, wouldn't you? 3 A If it was inaccurate I would. There were a 4 lot of articles that I didn't care for the way 5 they were characterized, but I didn't challenge 6 them because they were entitled to their opinion. 7 But if it was a -- if it was a factual 8 inaccuracy, yes, 9 (End of reading) 10 11 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: Page 33, line 22. 12 13 (Reading from video deposition) 14 Q So, the three products that you remember 15 equating to PCBs in the 1970's were table salt, 16 mineral oil and motor oil? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Okay. 19 A We are talking about acute toxicity. 20 Q All right. That's going to be my next 21 question. 22 A Yeah. 23 Q And when you compare PCBs to table salt, you 24 are referring only to the acute toxicity aspects, 25 correct? HARTOLDMON0020201 2027 1 A The immediate effects of ingestion. 2 (End of reading) 3 4 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: To page 53, line 7. 5 6 (Reading from video deposition) 7 Q Have you, you have provided some testimony 8 regarding your background to Mr. Pohl, have you 9 ever had any kind of chemistry background? 10 A No, sir, none. 11 Q Have you ever had any kind of toxicology 12 background? 13 A No, sir. 14 Q You don't work or hold yourself out as a 15 toxicologist, do you? 16 A No, sir . 17 Q Have you ever had any kind of pharmacology 18 background? 19 A No, sir. 20 Q You have never held yourself out as a 21 pharmacologist? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q You don't have any kind of medical 24 background? 25 A No, sir. HARTOLDMON0020202 2028 1 Q Okay. Your background as I understand it in 2 answer to Mr. Pohl1s questions is in the area of 3 journalism? 4 A Journalism degree. University of Missouri. 5 Q And your work with Monsanto has been in the 6 Monsanto public relations department? 7 A Public relations and advertising. 8 Q I see. 9 A On and off. 10 Q Now, in your work with the publicrelations 11 department with Monsanto, do you work with 12 technical people on technical issues -- 13 A Sure. 14 Q -- that might arise? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Okay. And I believe you told Mr. Pohl in 17 answer to some of his questions, that you work 18 with some technical people at Monsanto regarding 19 the PCB issues? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And did you find the technical people that 22 you worked with at Monsanto regarding PCBs were 23 open with you? 24 A To my knowledge, they were always very open 25 and straightforward with me, yes. HARTOLDMON0020203 2029 1 Q Did you find that the technical people that 2 you worked with at Monsanto back in the mid-70's 3 would provide you information that you asked for? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And was there ever an occasion when you went 6 to the technical people at Monsanto and asked 7 them for a question concerning PCBs that they 8 didn't provide you with the information that you 9 asked for? 10 A No, never. 11 Q Did you find that the technical people that 12 you worked with concerning PCBs were cooperative 13 with you? ` 14 A Yes. 15 Q And did you find that the technical people 16 that you worked with at Monsanto back in the 17 mid-70's provided you with accurate information? 18 A To my knowledge, yes. 19 (End of reading) 20 21 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: That concludes our 22 offer. Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: All right. What does the 24 plaintiff have next? 25 MR. POHL: Your Honor, at this time we HARTOLDMON0020204