German OECD NCP 21/9/2026
Email sent 21/09/2026
To: German National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct
Re: Bayer AG / Monsanto — request for Initial Assessment following Australian NCP Complaint 36
Dear German National Contact Point,
I request an Initial Assessment concerning Bayer AG/Monsanto under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct.
The Australian NCP published its Final Statement in Complaint 36 on 22 May 2026 without assessing the substantive evidence on its merits.
Approximately three weeks later, the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs materially changed its official public history of Agent Orange.
The Australian NCP Final Statement is here:
I am therefore asking the German NCP to place the following evidence on the record and assess it under the OECD Guidelines.
Evidence
1952 — Monsanto
The Australian Royal Commission record reproduced in Complaint 36 records a Monsanto warning to some US military personnel concerning the TCDD by-product associated with manufacture of 2,4,5-T.
1956 — Germany
Wilhelm Sandermann and colleagues identified/synthesised 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Germany in work arising from the trichlorophenol toxicity problem.
1957 — Germany
Kimmig and Schulz published German clinical evidence concerning chloracne associated with TCDD.
1959 — Europe → Edgewood Chemical Warfare Laboratories
Friedrich Hoffmann of the US Army’s Edgewood Chemical Warfare Laboratories obtained European information concerning severe dioxin toxicity.
The subsequent Hoffmann Trip Report carried this information into the US Army Chemical Corps system.
Later federal litigation records the Hoffmann evidence and its distribution at Edgewood.
9 July 1962 — Diamond Shamrock
An E. L. Chandler memorandum concerned chloracne complaints involving Diamond esters.
26 April 1963 — Edgewood Arsenal
The US Army convened a meeting specifically entitled:
“Minutes of a Meeting Held to Discuss and Evaluate the Toxicity of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T Compounds.”
Participants included government and military personnel and representatives of Dow Chemical and AmChem Products.
9 May 1963 — White House scientific advisers
The President’s Science Advisory Committee received a briefing entitled:
“Possible Health Hazard of Phenoxyacetates as Related to Defoliation Operations in Vietnam.”
1963 — National Cancer Institute / Bionetics
Dr Paul Kotin subsequently told Congress that NCI initiated the research programme in 1963 that produced the Bionetics findings.
The programme included testing pesticides and industrial chemicals for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity.
1963 — selection of 2,4,5-T
Agent Orange litigation discovery specifically sought documents concerning why 2,4,5-T was selected for testing, including records concerning possible hazards and teratogenicity.
1963 — Marcus Key
Dr Marcus Key of the US Public Health Service testified that he applied 2,4,5-T herbicide to his own forearm and developed chloracne. He also testified concerning his knowledge of the Kimmig and Schulz work.
1964–65 — Dow
Historical evidence records Dow taking manufacturing action concerning TCDD contamination and subsequently modifying its process.
Complaint 36 records Dow’s statement that its modified process could produce 2,4,5-T containing no more than approximately 1 ppm TCDD.
1965 — President’s Science Advisory Committee
Later federal court findings record knowledge within PSAC that Agent Orange contained 2,4,5-T, that dioxin contaminated 2,4,5-T and that dioxin was toxic.
1965 — manufacturer information exchange
The historical record includes communications concerning dioxin/chloracne among manufacturers, including Dow and European industry, and testing of Monsanto material.
1968 — Bionetics
The Bionetics research produced developmental-toxicity findings involving technical-grade 2,4,5-T containing TCDD.
August 1968 — findings not publicly available
Congressional evidence subsequently recorded:
“No further action was taken on the findings of the Bionetics study after August 1968 nor was the information on teratogenesis publicly available.”
1969 — Vietnam
Reports concerning congenital abnormalities and abnormal pregnancies appeared in Vietnam. Congressional material subsequently cautioned that these reports were anecdotal and did not establish causation.
29 October 1969 — White House
The US Government announced action concerning 2,4,5-T following disclosure of the developmental-toxicity findings.
1970 — 2,4,5-T restrictions
Federal restrictions followed concerning uses of 2,4,5-T.
Monsanto and the Australian Royal Commission
1984–85 — Monsanto Australia
Monsanto Australia participated in the Australian Royal Commission concerning Agent Orange.
Its material included:
Monsanto Australia Limited, “Axelson and Hardell — The Odd Men Out”, Exhibit 1881.
1985 — Monsanto submission / Royal Commission text
Brian Martin subsequently compared Monsanto’s submission with Volume IV of the Royal Commission report and reported extensive textual correspondence.
4 December 1985 — Richard Doll → Justice Phillip Evatt
Richard Doll wrote directly to the presiding Royal Commissioner, Justice Phillip Evatt.
The archival reference identified by Hardell et al. is:
40-X-016.
1986 — Monsanto → Richard Doll
Surviving archival records document Doll’s Monsanto consultancy.
The records include a Monsanto letter extending the consultancy and increasing Doll’s fee from US$1,000 to US$1,500 per day.
Archive:
Wellcome Library Special Collections, Doll Papers PP/DOL/B/5/3.
1986 — scientific rebuttal
Olav Axelson edited Rebuttals of the Final Report on Cancer by the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam.
The document is preserved in Agent Orange archival collections.
2006/07 — Doll/Monsanto archival evidence published
Hardell et al., Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research.
Continuing impacts
2006–07 — New Zealand
The New Zealand Crown established measures concerning Vietnam veterans and their children and grandchildren, including registration and commitments concerning research into intergenerational effects of dioxin exposure.
My father was living in New Zealand under this framework when, after my back collapsed in Australia in 2010, he visited me in 2011 and told me that he believed my condition was connected to his Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam where he was a Plant Operator December 1969 to December 1970, prior to my birth.
2023 — US Air Force Health Study offspring research
Knafl et al. analysed offspring outcomes using measured paternal dioxin data from the US Air Force Health Study.
United Nations
UN Special Rapporteur Marcos Orellana reported to the UN General Assembly on Military activities and toxics, including continuing toxic legacies and remediation.
The UN International Law Commission uses Agent Orange/dioxin as an example of responding to the environmental and health effects of armed conflict, immediately before its discussion of nuclear-test compensation: A/CN.4/728, p. 70, paras. 152–153.
In 2026, Agent Orange keeps appearing in international discussions of toxic remnants of war, victim assistance and remediation — but for veterans’ children, the issue still remains unresolved.
22 May 2026 — Complaint 36
The Australian NCP closed Complaint 36 without determining the substantive evidence on its merits.
June 2026 — Australian Government
DVA changed its official Agent Orange history.
It now records veterans’ concerns regarding birth defects in their children, previous Australian Government denial of exposure, and that the Australian Government and Monsanto contributed funding to the defence during the Royal Commission while veterans ultimately ran out of money for legal advice.
I ask the German NCP to:
place this evidence and the supporting documents on the record;
undertake an Initial Assessment under the current OECD Guidelines;
assess the evidence concerning disclosure, human rights, environment, due diligence and remediation; consider the continuing impacts on children and subsequent generations of exposed Vietnam veterans; seek Bayer AG’s response to this evidence; offer good offices between the parties; consider what present-day due diligence and remediation are appropriate where historical corporate activities may continue to affect identifiable populations; and
identify a practical pathway through which affected descendants can obtain further investigation, engagement and remedy.
I also ask the German NCP to identify what further evidence it requires from me and what additional process is available to determine the continuing impacts on Vietnam veterans’ descendants.
Warm Agent Orange Burns regards,
Danielle Stevens (née Pitcher)
Geneva AP1 Article 77
We will always be a child of a Vietnam Veteran
Comments