Document MJeDZnO1zDrJgkokgnyk88DpV

TO S. G. Collins / Attached are my comments on the Agent Orange Q/A which you sent over this morning. Bob Berendt has reviewed and signed off on this. Please note that I have taken the liberty of substantially revising the answers to Questions 2 and 3. In addition, Bob and I both feel that we should not answer questions of the nature of Nos. 4 and 5. These matters go directly to the heart of the liti gation and we feel that it would be most unwise to depart from our long-standing position of declining comment on these matters. I have supplied the number of gallons of Agent Orange which we sold as obtained from Court documents we filed last month. Please feel free to contact Bob Berendt if you wish to discuss further any of the enclosed answers. TMB:ke Attachments Thomas M. Bistline CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER. C14200 t 3`:ty~ '. ;X 1 2rsrWe ido-iiot '-at- this time have sufficient information to 'draw any conclusions with respect to the information contained in this document. For example, we do not know at this time how the Agent Orange allegedly produced by Monsanto was identified as such, how the product so identified had been stored, how the samples were taken or how the samples were analyzed. Further, it is impossible to determine from this one document whether the Agent Orange sampled - . by the Government in this-one test--was-representative of all the product, supplied to the Government by Monsanto-- or by any other producer. Accordingly, it would be.-improper to draw general conclusions ;on the.basis: of.this single document as-to, the level -of ,dioxin.-contained in-the.Agent Orange*supplied-by any producer during the Vietnam conflict. j_, -ir t I * . *!: , J - ' Ti , - * -- ----- -- . s/ r JLMEii SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER. C14201 3. Because we lack crucial information as to the manner in which the Agent Orange allegedly produced by Monsanto was identified and analyzed, it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions based on the information contained in the government document. As a general matter, it should be borne in mind that there are some 75 members of the dioxin family and that their toxicity varies widely. Of those, only one, 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is regulated by the Government because of its toxicity. Further, the analytical capability to identify 2,3,7,8-TCDD unambiguously from all the other members of the dioxin family simply did not exist prior to 1979. We believe that the analysis reflected on the government document was conducted prior to 1979. Thus, we have significant doubt as to the accuracy-- or even the meaning-- of the figures reflected there. SUBJECT TO C14202 tiiMoftianto (N A M E --LO C A T IO N --PH O N E j S. G. Collins - A3ND - 4-3860' d a te SU B JECT REFERENCE June 3, 1982 cc' J. R. Condray G. D. Ingenthron T O R. T. Berendt - E2ND T. M. Attached is a Q/A on Agent Orange. May I have your comments please. :cm Attachment \ Sarah Gainer Collins ^ CuJkcJQe * SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER. IN- tO tREV. 0 /7 7 * C14203 te * fi i s% 4 CONFIDENTIAL 5 - 7 ^ 0 2 ------- 6. n. r-..:-- Q/A AGENT ORANGE 1. Q. A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT SAYS THAT A SAMPLE TAKEN FROM THE AGENT ORANGE SUPPLIED BY MONSANTO WAS HIGHLY CONTAMINATED ... WITH DIOXIN.. . IS..,THIS CORRECT?.. u -1- 1 - ^ r,i-' ^ ,, r " p i K p w 'k t a ^ r u o r - A. We are aware of one government document that^showe-numerical ranges for imH v i d u a l samples frotni wwfOj/Agent Orange ^-tfAZnu-producers^ including * Monsanto -pgaduefr. 0 2. Q. WHAT IS MONSANTO's OPINION OF THE DOCUMENT? ;A * r W e t Tip samples or numbers represent.^ were an idual SMj ip* - . ------ - v , --- _ --- fore, is difficult tn...Hra w -- an-- < w e ^ k _ rnncl nsi an 3. Q. DOESN'T THE DOCUMENT SHOW THAT THE AGENT ORANGE USED IN VIETNAM WAS HIGHLY TOXIC AND CONTAMINATED WITH DIOXIN? Ws VyinM -I,Ebu N I I n i " I ll n H h g n i T m n p r g epresent because we don^t know what .dioxins were-^ound. re are ovj 75 isomers or-m^mhejs of the diioxin fami y^aiLd---onIyone, 2,3,7,8-Tetra-c hi orodibenaar pjdApx) r'TCDDVis the isomer regulated by tie goviih^nt^hfcause^h: s to\icity. The anaijrt;i_QaL4tieliniqueb^p>isolate'TCDD.-were\ not developed untjJ^tSTlTXLjEne government document is dated^around, 1977 ^aria does not break damwthe-d-io-x-in-- numbers-- intol^necl'fi c-- -- ^ ' ----------------- C14204 4. Q. DID MONSANTO KNOW ITS PRODUCT WAS CONTAMINATED WITH DIOXINS? Lsa n to p r o d u c e d t h e r n m p n n v i l *~u f A r m r^ f t i iinj_i j T _n t q . g o v e r n m e n t --s p e c i g ^ c a t i o n s ^ - T h e p r o d u c t s ^ uplri-ed^iothe governmentwsre-'Of*'high^quality and pief' or surpasse^TTrfte^-sjiedjLfj^afTon s . At the time of production, we anaj^a^rtlie^^C^SpI^cbmpondnT: using state-of-the^a^fe-Technology and did fTidw^gry low levels of dj^XOlinrS ,thft-woTG p_rm^idg.r-C.d_^to Lbo- iiw ^TlLo* 4 CL~fYVtajXlA) JJL lCj Jb4 JUMc.duf<*yo 4 -,-- * 6/3/82 2 i 5, Q. DOESN'T THE FACT DIOXINS WERE FOUND MAKE ANY LEVEL FOUND SIGNIFICANT? es lems. __^ent___ ,, tifi c\eyi dence problem) -- -,i- ^ 5- Iiuij^^uUr "other V < HOW MUCH AGENT ORANGE DID MONSANTO PRODUCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT? % [Monsanto supplied approximately ________ million. gallons for the U.S .government between the years 1963 and 1969. DOES MONSANTO STILL PRODUCE EITHER 2,4,5-T or 2,4-D? 1 1 i * i f C14205 i* A.o. SSf 3 t*va O b CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER. CU206 AGENT ORANGE___ MONSANTO COMPANY POSITION We genuinely sympathize with the plight of our Vietnam Veterans. The unpopular war they fought has left inevitable scars and Agent Orange has become an outlet for accumulated frustrations. As a result, this controversy has continued to grow despite the lack of virtuallyany scientific evidence that this herbicide posed a danger to the veterans. To the contrary, there is a substantial amount of scientific/ . medical evidence on the record-(attached) that says there is no link between Agent Orange and human health problems of the magnitude claimed by the veterans. Monsanto was one of the companies asked to produce this herbicide mixture for the government during the war.-'"-' Now, much to pur regret, we find that we are both an object of the veterans* frustrations and a target of the many lawsuits brought on their behalf. Obviously, this conflict i s n o t of our making. However, having been drawn into it, we have no alternative but to defend ourselves. We are confident that good science will ultimately prevail over the emotions of the moment and exonerate the producers of Agent Orange. At the same time, we sincerely hope that good science will also provide many of the answers the veterans now seek regarding possible service-related health problems. -0O0- Rev. Oct. 23, 1980 For additional information, contact: Dan R. Bishop Environmental Communie Monsanto Company '800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Mo. 63166 (314) 694-2891