Document e78BaXrxN6gny8QN7vk21QgyM

eM ONSANTO W ORLD c o ^ itecfWE PRO CQ2607 M ONSANTO COMPANY, ST. LOUIS, MO. M/W 7984 VOLUME 3, NUMBER 6 WA stahtemyenMt froomnMsonasannttoomasnaegtemtleentd: the Agent Orange casi We settled this controversial case try's lack of concern for their welfare. because, when all the factors are The Agent Orange case to them, and t weighed, it was the right thing to do. many average citizens watching this Contrary to what you might have heard issue debated on the evening news, or read in the media, we settled in was no longer simply a lawsuit again* spite o f our firm belief that we had a chemical companies. The question ol very strong case, and in spite o f the whether or not dioxin exposure could lack of scientific evidence that expo reasonably be cited as a cause of thei sure to trace amounts of dioxin could health problems was often confused cause the human health effects by the larger social and political claimed by the veterans. issues. To many observers, the case But it sometimes happens in life that had become a " cause", a rallying the right thing to do is different from point, representing the failure of our being right. Even though we believe government to discharge its responsi that Monsanto and the other chemical bility to those who had served it well. Senior Vice President and General Counsel Richard W Duesenberg. left, and Robert T. Berendt. assistant general counsel-litigation, have directed Monsanto s defense in the Agent companies involved in the suit were "right" on the legal issues, there were compelling reasons for not letting the suit go to trial. For many years, this painful and complex 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 defeat. The anger and resentment of these veterans and their families focused, not surprisingly, on what they saw as a It should be noted that Judge Wein stein helped both the plaintiffs and th defendants focus our thinking on the* 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 Orange litigation Editor's note: Editorial reaction to the Agent Orange settlement has been favorable to the chemical companies. In its editorial. "The Vietnam BuyOff.' " The Wall Street Journal sug 'gested that as strong as the defendant companies scientific arguments were, they knew "what they were facing in the courts and from the publicity mills of their critics. They faced the whims of a jury after a trial conducted by per "haps the most skillfully activist judge on the federal bench and while the companies "might prevail on appeal, the legal costs would be staggering " The Washington Post said. "One clearly good thing about the settlement . . . is that it minimizes the possibility that the only real beneficiaries o f the Agent Orange dispute w ould be the lawyers. For the companies, the settle ment ... at least avoids the prospects o f s till more staggering liability from a ju ry whose sympathies would almost surety run to the veterans " National Public Radio reported that "sources close to the case say they 've 'uncovered other factors in the veter ans ' and their families lives that could explain their health problems a lot more easily than dioxin exposure." Perhaps the most insightful o f a ll the editorial comment, reviewed to date, came from the The New York Times. It is reprinted here in its entirety very concrete example of their coun Icontinued from pagt iNirtttliork Simes Justice, Mercy and Agent Orange VwowaNtnbsdtgvahtOtbsgpudsdchihhepmaeafoaeheirliopiiohareaedcotesoeTTnlirvtctjlnatsaanaetieouittoxuonldeanAhhamdfneyteyarsvuitrcnfonugeeidaeaosnatcgsjetfetoandwiespume.nirecaerdActtktmftnseiai.selees.nnhsuaoBektusueaetntgnn'rrTvtseeewr,iasLnmrrnuaoaottecitesv.esOmhhtobilataefnrnfohseathnlpedeetrewseeemnositrpandiiysethgatairtnvcfertOpi'stiswrnsieartsaonagohoaersaa,lwAfidrsnrecrognsilexoeurtfttdbsrfaoessshehmgetefreriosotdauiunvteeotdnereehAsetwhvstsbcette,rtagnfh,haetrkevaecibwnlgarwentlhbaeibdeiaaextiieeaaertreooutOnoiiithyumlplrschnlsjtlopephityueauhiseotsroostoedbixorteecwssawsdeiosufncOlimtafinamoeefnpidaseneerdb'inallceclnsstgeartmeaadand-tiliuofichatihcwgaiseerysraakctslntensnetrteitsehmyrltAonipiaboepadtpaageaeaVtotutsotsabolnhgtc.nurechhssnaetybetrwlioileoedchderlBeeneasesdeattvynitmessstehotoleu.noh.tnoittehodbdahdndomtdaoInmleyhne.teumlu'rip,ysnh tcccbltatecfshioorufooooutobfeiiTuummargesmtussevrcrahye$ptpt.ttetettomi2aectnTlhogoeud5nnaoeanhe.i0tisnvvmf.enetaFfbeamhtsidtcorscliratiiioriotuehndnslahmtanllpegaddhatityotesmtpetpeohnonaomclisfacasnnfetpezyeilahirinvpaoaseetdetpiearotraseimordnirflvranvofwsAestfstocimirtyinovghofaelagplfeenmrenpanaltcmcdnrcy,ntooiowdaneisOinastcuqs.crhtvrtaaslrserueiFoyaluciecnliobniittehtdlereaauigavfsddnbtttewhheeidl,seee dWructcastcrshhauieqceohpmdeefpnhsTumaeriaettiiaoihmaerelbrnpabsaatavvsoaieanrlbttoeeorun'nedslicsednifetsusnaaatstcmfoAbshohuatmofyreivegeaceamosaefentrUvanuooyrnpyiibsrrfntcSfewbmpeelvettO.norretihheoatmssoDosreseillavaltv.sdhriseotcnsieiiTaedsntsasogtvhroeehgthsenicieylnceele.?auabldt;dgOstseelaJmisWoeaeun.ownwtn,tozndtBehoaelwyedgeioutinetebebmhhstreleaaesJft,enrinfhatnroeikcesetrttkhde if only chloracne were to be recog wwewncminaoiiiogzullsmllueceadltphpdhb,rseewyecnfcrseieisaeeuwdarfnmtemottaviriroaiafeencbinjtclolehl,yayrrabsaavucsanlneernsdsoitrittsafewsotvhreifiloevceoollunoern.srlemd.deiTstotypshtrieleeeneoscngmfc.esodiLasevuiotnaseer,cttkiat vOtwcaephjsoscfhuaaiolreofieorrhslaasvtTmmnvaletennoteainsaashr,cpincgealdagnfedeioaeerotnydegei,vinVnulu,iow.clibtcsdtlgcenaylrTddaouaaheetngteerhltir?fatihdlssiroeeoteaivaiaeTstsronncnii'vnvrsnhsctn.vadweseVgahnesewdtatAanieulytaesowipnhromrldmtaerilaentcamliaaanhlrmalnayaycyptnsimgigiunnnteacmeowtosgsetituhesershose.hlepxtdtreamrfooStcgrpoatrhpoyiihbaetrdvhacrcv.iyoyreoteaoaoiiTuhsdAevnanmcduwlohenedoogmivompcistemntesaeeahpnbeotedasttewisoaei AapbegsBneesnunettcOimefrseaaornmccgyioe,enttychgaettsrrhueeel.'syDdameefsevetaarnnasdtnsaagttnieontsgdiinsthe (contwmed an page 4. ) - Aft .I W h yw e settled A gent Orange (continued from page I ) before the people in the court of public opinion. We knew that there was no way to get the 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 War By 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 families w ill 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 ire 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 that there is no credible scientific evi dence to suggest that their medical problems are caused by dioxin. Despite the evidence, the veterans, their families, and many Americans w ill 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 to convince the courts -- or the world. We do not believe that the expense of a long trial, the nega tive media attention, and most iTnportant, the potential damage to Monsanto's reputation as a concerned, sensitive, socially responsible com pany was an acceptable price to pay. On the other hand, the settlement is, in our opinion, a fair arrangement to put the Agent Orange case behind us once and for all Btriyasl,etMtlionngsapnritooratnodththee other defendants are agreeing to establish a $180 million fund from which the veterans and their families will be reimbursed for relevant medical 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 w ill be judged on its own merit. Recent scientific studies have con firmed our position that dioxin is not the dangerous chemical the public has been led to believe, and we have no intention of 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 Chemical 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). Studies examine effects of dioxin There is a growing and substantial body of seientific/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 of 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 of 254 present and former Monsanto employees who had worked in the 2. 4, 5-T production unit at the company's Nitro. W Va., plant between 1948 and 1969 com pared to the status of 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). .2 Two recently completed mortality (cause of 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. .4 A review of the medical evidence regarding the long-term health effects of 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 of the Journal of the American Medical 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. 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 (continued from page I) crops and forests in Vietnam was the Government's idea, and the Govern ment's moral duty to the veterans transcends that of the chemical com panies that supplied the herbicide. Whether or not Agent Orange is a real cause of disease, it has become a metaphor for the veterans' sufferings. Washington takes refuge in the doctrine that the Government may not be sued for injuries incurred in m ilitary 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. CI984 by the New >fc** Times Company Reprinted by permission Annual Meeting: Mahoney describes the game 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 w illing ness to try." Mr Mahoney declared. "fo r management, it means direction -- understanding 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 company must be exemplary. To meet the fear (continued on page 8) Strategy for Monsanto success is outlined by President and CEORichard J Mahoney at Annual Meeting o f shareholders Seated from left are Richard M?Duesenberg. senior vice president, secretary and general counsel, and Chairman Louis Fernandez