IN THE COUNTY OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO ___________________________________ ) TIMOTHY ARTHUR, et al., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CASE NO. A0307157 ) INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & ) FRAGRANCES, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF GLENN INGRAHAM SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA MARCH 31, 2006 Reported by Cheryl M. Boley, CSR No. 9512 PRS Job No. 60-317759 1 Appearances: 2 For Plaintiffs: 3 Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, P.C. By: Steven E. Crick 4 221 West Lexington, Suite 400 Independence, Missouri 64051 5 6 For International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.: 7 Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP By: Frank C. Woodside, III, M.D., J.D. 8 1900 Chemed Center 225 East Fifth Street 9 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 10 For Givaudan Flavors Corporation: 11 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, LLP 12 By: Damond R. Mace 4900 Key Tower 13 127 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1304 14 15 Also Present: 16 Dana Bachmann - Videographer 17 18 19 20 21 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF GLENN INGRAHAM, 22 taken at San Diego International Airport, San Diego, 23 California, on Friday, March 31, 2006, at 8:16 a.m., 24 before Cheryl M. Boley, Certified Shorthand Reporter, in 25 and for the State of California. 2 1 I N D E X 2 WITNESS: Glenn Ingraham 3 4 EXAMINATION PAGE 5 By Mr. Crick 8, 134, 150 6 By Mr. Mace 104, 149, 152 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 GLENN INGRAHAM Arthur vs. International Flavors & Fragrances 2 Friday, March 31, 2006 Cheryl M. Boley, CSR No. 9512 3 4 INDEX TO EXHIBITS 5 EXHIBITS MARKED 6 1 4/30/00 memo 13 7 2 James Lockey, M.D. exam of Clifford 31 Walker 8 3 10/21/96 memo re Pulmonary Medical 35 9 Surveillance Participants 10 4 Tastemaker Incident Report 55 11 5 Tastemaker Operational Procedures 57 12 6 Flavor or Fragrance Ingredient Data 63 Sheet 13 7 1/22/98 letter with attachments 72 14 8 E-mail chain 74 15 9 3/5/97 letter, FEMA letterhead 89 16 10 7/17/97 letter, UCMC letterhead 93 17 11 DataChem invoice 113 18 12 1/16/97 EHS interoffice memo 114 19 13 Givaudan Roure Announcement 115 20 14 Functional Job Title, Liquids 115 21 Compounder 22 15 Tastemaker Pulmonary Data Management 116 23 16 5/9/96 EHS interoffice memo 117 24 17 8/20/96 letter, Tastemaker letterhead 118 25 18 E-mail 120 4 1 INDEX TO EXHIBITS (Continued) 2 EXHIBITS MARKED 3 19 8/27/97 message to Glenn Ingraham 122 4 20 AIHA Code of Ethics 127 5 21 Respiratory Protection 132 6 22 2/14/96 letter, UCMA letterhead 147 7 23 2/22/96 letter, UCMC letterhead, 150 with attachments 8 24 Occupational Exposure Investigation 151 9 Liquids Department 10 11 * * * 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 1 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; 2 FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 2006; 8:16 A.M. 3 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. My name is 8:14:44 5 Dana Bachmann with Paulson Reporting and Litigation 8:15:00 8:15:30 6 Services located at 555 West Beech Street, Suite 111, San 7 Diego, California 92101. 8 This is the deposition of Glenn Keith Ingraham 8:16:00 9 in the matter of Timothy Arthur, et al. versus 10 International Flavors & Fragrances Incorporated, et al., 11 Case Number A030715. 12 This deposition is being videotaped and 13 audiotaped at all times unless specified to go off the 14 record. 15 We're now commencing at 8:16 a.m. on March 31st, 16 2006. 17 Would all present please identify themselves, 18 beginning with the witness. 19 THE WITNESS: This is Glenn Ingraham. 8:16:30 20 MR. MACE: Damond Mace on behalf of Givaudan 21 Flavors Corporation. 22 MR. WOODSIDE: Frank Woodside. I represent 23 International Flavors & Fragrances. 24 MR. MACE: Steven Crick for the plaintiffs. 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. 6 1 Madam court reporter, would you please swear in 2 the witness. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 /// 7 1 GLENN INGRAHAM, 2 having been previously duly sworn, testifies as follows: 3 4 EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. CRICK: 6 Q Would you state your name and address? 7 A My name is Glenn Keith Ingraham, and my address 8:17:00 8 is 40662 Chianti Circle, Murrieta, California. 9 Q Are you a certified industrial hygienist? 10 A Yes, I am. 11 Q And when did you become a certified industrial 12 hygienist? 13 A 1994 or '95. I don't recall the exact date. 8:17:30 14 Q Are you a member of the American Industrial 15 Hygiene Association? 16 A Yes, I am. 17 Q So you would practice according to its bylaws 18 and code of ethics? 19 A That is correct. 20 Q Where do you work today? 21 A I work for Watson Pharmaceuticals. 22 Q In Southern California? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q What do you do at Watson Pharmaceuticals? 25 A I'm the associate director for environmental 8 1 health and safety technical operations. 2 Q And why does a company like Watson 8:18:00 3 Pharmaceuticals need a certified industrial hygienist? 4 A Watson Pharmaceuticals uses active 5 pharmaceutical ingredients in the manufacture of solid 6 dosage pharmaceuticals. 7 Q Where did you work before that company? 8 A I worked for Givaudan Flavors. 9 Q And was that in Cincinatti, Ohio? 10 A That's correct. 8:18:30 11 Q And how long did you work at that flavor plant 12 in Cincinatti, Ohio? 13 MR. MACE: Objection to the form. 14 You can answer. 15 THE WITNESS: I worked from February of '96 16 until middle, roughly, of 2001. 17 BY MR. CRICK: 18 Q Were you a corporate senior industrial hygienist 19 for Tastemaker and Givaudan? 20 A No. I began my career as a corporate senior 8:19:00 21 industrial hygienist with Tastemaker. 22 Q Okay. And did your position change? 23 A Yes, it did. 24 Q To what? 25 A Once Tastemaker was acquired by Roche, I became 9 1 the environmental health and safety manager for the 2 Cincinatti area facilities. 3 Q Say that again. You became the what? 4 A Environmental health and safety manager. 5 Q Now, you didn't take John Hochstrasser's 8:19:30 6 position, though? 7 A No, I did not. 8 Q Was it essentially just a name change from what 9 you had been doing before? 10 MR. MACE: Objection. 11 THE WITNESS: It was a different job. 12 BY MR. CRICK: 13 Q And how long did you hold the position of 14 manager of environmental health safety for Givaudan? 15 A From the time I was given the position until the 16 time I left. 17 Q So that was in '97 until 2001 you had that 18 position? 19 A That would be correct. 20 Q You said when the company was acquired by Roche. 8:20:00 21 What did you mean? 22 A Well, Tastemaker was acquired by Roche and 23 became part of Givaudan Roure. 24 Q And did you work for Givaudan Roure? 25 A Yes, I did. 10 1 Q Did you report to anyone at Roche on matters of 2 safety concerning the Givaudan plant? 3 A I reported to my supervisor. 8:20:30 4 Q Did you ever have communications or dealings 5 with safety or medical personnel at the Roche company 6 concerning matters at Givaudan Cincinatti? 7 A Yes, I did. 8 Q And would that have been with Andy Fluckiger? 9 A I did have conversations with Dr. Andreas 10 Fluckiger, yes. 11 Q Sometimes he goes by Andy? 12 A Yes, he does. 13 Q And you say Fluckiger? 14 A Fluckiger. 15 Q Fluckiger? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q Thank you. And he was a medical doctor with 18 Roche? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Am I correct then that -- strike that. 8:21:00 21 You had access to employee medical information 22 during your time at Tastemaker and Givaudan; is that 23 correct? 24 MR. MACE: Objection, overbroad. Objection to 25 form. 11 1 MR. WOODSIDE: Excuse me. Before you go on, I 2 forgot. Could we have the understanding we usually do, 3 which is that an objection made by one defendant is as 4 though being made on behalf of all defendants so I don't 5 have to -- 8:21:30 6 MR. CRICK: Yes. 7 THE WITNESS: Could you restate the question, 8 please? 9 BY MR. CRICK: 10 Q What sorts of information did you share with 11 Dr. Fluckiger concerning Tastemaker and the bronchiolitis 12 obliterans matter? 13 A Information relative to the progress of 14 activities to investigate and resolve any issues 8:22:00 15 identified. 16 Q And why was it necessary to involve 17 Dr. Fluckiger? 18 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes. 19 You can answer. 20 THE WITNESS: Dr. Fluckiger, acting on behalf of 21 Roche as the Roche medical director, had authority for 22 providing guidance on those matters. 23 BY MR. CRICK: 24 Q And so information specific to the bronchiolitis 25 obliterans matter at Cincinatti was provided to 12 1 Dr. Fluckiger? 8:22:30 2 A Dr. Fluckiger and I conversed and collaborated 3 on a number of aspects of occupational health at 4 Givaudan. 5 Q Let me show you Exhibit Number 1. 6 Before I do that, it's true, is it not, that 7 there were diagnoses of employees of Tastemaker/Givaudan 8 with bronchiolitis obliterans? 8:23:00 9 A It's my understanding that that occurred, yes. 10 Q Okay. Let me show you Exhibit Number 1. 11 I think I may have given you two copies. 12 A All right. 13 MR. WOODSIDE: Thank you. 14 (Exhibit 1 marked) 15 BY MR. CRICK: 16 Q What is Exhibit Number 1, please? 17 A Exhibit Number 1 appears to be a memorandum from 8:23:30 18 Dr. Andreas Fluckiger, to Dr. Raymond Calame, Dr. Hans 19 Kunzi and Mike Davis. 20 Q With copies given to, among others, Glenn 21 Ingraham? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q That would be you? 24 A That's correct. 25 Q And this would be a memo that you would have 13 1 received around April of 2000 from Dr. Fluckiger? 2 A Appears to be, yes. 3 Q And this contains a summary from the doctor 4 about the bronchiolitis obliterans that had been found at 8:24:00 5 the Givaudan Cincinatti plant; is that right? 6 A That's what it appears to be about, yes. 7 Q It says in the first portion of the memo under 8 the summary section, "When the Cincinatti facility of 9 Tastemaker was bought by Givaudan Roure, several current 10 and former employees were affected by a rare occupational 11 lung disease, bronchiolitis obliterans," closed quote. 8:24:30 12 I read that right, didn't I? 13 MR. MACE: Objection, hearsay. Move to strike. 14 BY MR. CRICK: 15 Q That's a yes? 16 A Sounds like you did, yes. 17 Q And that's consistent with what you understood 18 at the plant when you were with environmental health and 19 safety? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q And the second sentence says, quote, "A single 22 cause of these lung disease cases has never been 23 identified, however exposure to a combination of 24 respiratory irritants appears to be the most likely 25 explanation for the development of this cluster of 14 8:25:00 1 cases." 2 Did I read that right? 3 A Yes, you did. 4 Q And does that state what you understood to be 5 the case when you left Givaudan in 2001? 6 MR. MACE: Objection. 7 THE WITNESS: These reflected Dr. Fluckiger's 8 conclusions at that time. 9 BY MR. CRICK: 10 Q What is bronchiolitis obliterans? 8:25:30 11 A I'm not a medical doctor, but my understanding 12 of the disease is that it is rare, progressive and 13 potentially terminal lung disease. 14 Q Okay. That was a cause of great concern at your 15 place of employment that there were that number of 16 individuals with that rare and serious lung disease; is 17 that right? 18 A There was concern that there may have been 8:26:00 19 individuals at my facility or at Givaudan that had been 20 affected by bronchiolitis obliterans, that's correct. 21 Q What is industrial hygiene? 22 A Industrial hygiene is the identification and 23 control of workplace stressors. 24 Q Workplace what? 8:26:30 25 A Stressors. 15 1 Q What does that mean? 2 A Chemical agents, physical agents such as noise, 3 heat, light, musculoskeletal disorders that might arise 4 as a result of cumulative trauma disorder, ergonomic 5 issues. 6 Q It's my understanding that you were hired in 7 1996 in part because of the incidence of lung disease 8 that had been found at the Tastemaker plant. Are you 8:27:00 9 aware of that? 10 MR. MACE: Objection. 11 THE WITNESS: I was hired to perform industrial 12 hygiene services at Tastemaker. 13 BY MR. CRICK: 14 Q When you were hired in 1996, there had already 15 been individuals at the company who had been diagnosed 16 with bronchiolitis obliterans, you understood that? 17 A That was my understanding, yes, sir. 18 Q When you came to the plant, did you come to 19 learn a history about how this disease came to be found 20 and isolated at Tastemaker? 8:27:30 21 MR. MACE: Objection, characterization. 22 You can answer. 23 THE WITNESS: I was given the history of 24 conditions at the facility, yes, sir. 25 /// 16 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q Okay. So you learned that in 1992, it came to 3 the attention of Tastemaker that a former employee at the 4 plant, Janice Menock, had passed away and there was a 5 coroner's inquiry about her death? 6 MR. MACE: Objection. 7 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I don't recall the 8 specific events that were revealed to me at the time of 9 my hiring. 10 BY MR. CRICK: 11 Q Did you know that there had been a coroner's 8:28:00 12 inquiry in '92 concerning an employee's death from lung 13 disease? 14 A I was aware of the fact that there was a history 15 of respiratory issues that may have been associated with 16 the circumstances that you're describing. 17 Q And that also in 1992 another individual named 18 Joey Wallace was found to possibly have bronchiolitis 19 obliterans. Did you know that? 20 A I recall his name, yes, sir. 8:28:30 21 Q Did you ever meet Mr. Wallace? 22 A I don't recall that I did. 23 Q Do you know what area in the plant he worked in? 24 A I don't recall that. I'm sorry. 25 Q And at the same time -- in that same time frame, 17 1 another individual named Cliff Walker was found to 2 possibly have bronchiolitis obliterans as well. Were you 3 aware of that? 4 A That name is familiar to me yes, sir. 5 Q In fact, you know that Cliff Walker was 6 subsequently found have findings consistent with 7 bronchiolitis obliterans by Dr. Lockey? 8:29:00 8 MR. MACE: Objection -- 9 BY MR. CRICK: 10 Q -- you knew that? 11 A Again, sir, I apologize. But the specific 12 details of individual medical histories, it was many 13 years ago and I don't recall. 14 Q You remember Cliff Walker as one of the 15 individuals with lung disease at the plant? 16 A I recall that Cliff Walker was one of the 17 individuals for which there was concern of possible lung 18 disease, yes, sir. 19 Q As well as Mary Sue McGee? 20 A That name is also familiar to me, yes. 21 Q And Robin Gaskins? 22 A Yes, that name is also familiar to me. 23 Q Walter Vaske? 8:29:30 24 A That name is also familiar to me, yes. 25 Q When you say "familiar," you mean familiar in 18 1 relation to this issue of lung disease? 2 A Yes, sir, that's correct. 3 Q And Gary Shea? 4 A Yes. 5 Q How about Ronald Feldcamp? 6 A That name is also familiar within this context, 7 yes, sir. 8 Q Were you aware that Feldcamp and Shea and Vaske, 9 McGee, Gaskins had all filed Workers' Compensation 10 claims against the company? 11 MR. MACE: Objection. 12 You can answer. 13 THE WITNESS: I wasn't aware of the specific 8:30:00 14 progress of any of those specific claims. I was aware 15 that there was Workers' Compensation actions initiated. 16 I don't recall who specifically had initiated a claim and 17 who had not. 18 BY MR. CRICK: 19 Q Were you aware that those individual his made 20 claims alleging that Tastemaker/Givaudan had violated 21 Ohio safety regulations with regard to respiratory and 22 ventilation practices? 23 MR. MACE: Objection, compound. Objection to 24 the form. Objection. 8:30:30 25 THE WITNESS: I recall that there were claims 19 1 regarding VSSR rules, violation of specific safety rules. 2 I apologize, I don't recall exactly who was responsible 3 for initiating those claims. 4 BY MR. CRICK: 5 Q Okay. Just so we're clear on the record, you do 6 recall that there were Workers' Compensation claims 7 alleging violations of Ohio safety statutes? 8:31:00 8 MR. MACE: Continuing objections. 9 You can answer. 10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 11 BY MR. CRICK: 12 Q And were you asked by the company to look into 13 and investigate those safety violations? 14 A I was asked to review documentation that could 15 be used as part of the assessment or investigation into 16 that, yes. 17 Q And was there an Ohio Workers' Compensation 8:31:30 18 investigator who actually came to the Givaudan plant? 19 A I apologize, I don't recall. There very well 20 may have been. I don't recall if there had been. 21 Q You wouldn't be surprised if there had been an 22 investigator as a part of that specific Workers' 23 Compensation claims? 24 A No, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm -- I'm not 25 certain that there is a correlation between the VSSR and 20 8:32:00 1 Workers' Compensation. Workers' Compensation and VSSR 2 are typically, in my experience, not linked. 3 Q When you say "VSSR," for people on the jury, 4 what does that mean? 5 A VSSR is an acronym that refers to the violation 6 of specific safety rules. It's an Ohio law. 7 Q Okay. So you know that there were Workers' 8:32:30 8 Compensation claims, and you also know that there were 9 allegations of violations of specific safety rules -- 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q -- all concerning your plant? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 MR. MACE: Continuing objection. 14 Mr. Ingraham, if you could wait for a second 15 when Mr. Crick is done asking a question so I can make an 16 objection without talking over you. 17 THE WITNESS: I apologize. 18 MR. MACE: Thank you. 19 BY MR. CRICK: 20 Q And both those Workers' Comp and the VSSR 21 allegations all concern the bronchiolitis obliterans 22 matter at the plant? 8:33:00 23 A I believe that that's an accurate conclusion. 24 Q Okay. Would you agree with me that industrial 25 hygienists should report and communicate information 21 1 which is necessary to protect the health and safety of 2 workers in the community? 3 MR. MACE: Objection to form. 4 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection to the form. 5 MR. MACE: Can you read it back to me, please. 6 (Record read) 8:33:30 7 MR. WOODSIDE: Object to the form of the 8 question. 9 MR. MACE: Same objections. 10 THE WITNESS: It is a responsibility of 11 industrial hygienists to ensure that the information that 12 is identified regarding workplace health conditions is 13 communicated to affected individuals and all parties, 8:34:00 14 yes. 15 BY MR. CRICK: 16 Q Now, what I just read to you was a quote from 17 the AIHA code of ethics. 18 A Uh-huh. 19 Q So let me read it again. "Industrial hygienists 20 should report and communicate information which is 21 necessary to protect the health and safety of workers and 22 community." 23 Would you agree with that provision of the AIHA 24 code of ethics? 25 MR. MACE: Same objection. 22 1 MR. WOODSIDE: Same objection. 2 BY MR. CRICK: 3 Q Yes? 4 A Yes, I do. 5 Q Would you agree with this: Health initiatives 6 must be integrated with business strategies? 8:34:30 7 MR. MACE: Objection. 8 THE WITNESS: Health initiatives must be 9 integrated with business strategies. 10 I would require more explanation of the intent 11 of that statement, sir. 12 BY MR. CRICK: 13 Q Okay. Have you ever made that statement? 14 A It's possible in a given context. 15 Q Okay. How about this, do you agree with this: 16 Workplace health issues affect the bottom line. 17 MR. MACE: Objection. 8:35:00 18 THE WITNESS: In the proper context, I could see 19 that statement being accurately made, yes. 20 BY MR. CRICK: 21 Q What context? 22 A When discussing the impact of occupational 23 health issues in a business environment, it's not unusual 24 to draw a correlation between the cost of managing 25 occupational health issues and the ability of business 23 8:35:30 1 objectives to -- business to meet its objectives. 2 Q So workplace health issues. Can workplace 3 health issues regarding -- strike that. 4 You agree with me that the discovery that a 8:36:00 5 product that is sold may be hazardous can affect the 6 bottom line? 7 MR. MACE: Objection. 8 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection. 9 THE WITNESS: There are so many variables and 10 factors that would influence the finding of hazardous 11 that it's difficult to blanketly answer that statement. 8:36:30 12 It would be misleading to blanketly answer that 13 statement. 14 BY MR. CRICK: 15 Q So you don't agree? 16 A Again, it's contextual. I think the answer 17 would be best framed within a context. 18 Q Well, let me ask you this: Would the fact that 19 a product that was made by Tastemaker/Givaudan had been 20 found to be a health hazard and could cause bronchiolitis 21 obliterans, that could have affected the company's bottom 8:37:00 22 line? 23 MR. MACE: Objection. 24 THE WITNESS: Sir, I'm not aware of any product 25 that had been found to cause bronchiolitis obliterans. 24 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q That wasn't my question. 3 A I'm sorry, could you please restate it. 4 Q The fact that a product that was being made and 5 sold by Givaudan and Tastemaker could cause bronchiolitis 6 obliterans, that was a possibility that could have 7 affected the bottom line? 8 MR. MACE: Objection, form. Objection, 9 compound. Objection, assumes. Objection, 10 mischaracterization. 11 You can answer. 12 THE WITNESS: That could affect the bottom line, 8:37:30 13 yes, sir. 14 BY MR. CRICK: 15 Q What is bronchiolitis obliterans? 16 MR. MACE: Objection, asked and answered. 17 MR. CRICK: Okay. I did ask that. Thank you. 18 BY MR. CRICK: 19 Q We were talking about bronchiolitis obliterans. 20 Were you part of the investigation to determine 21 the cause of bronchiolitis obliterans at the Cincinatti 22 plant? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And what was your role? 8:38:00 25 A As an industrial hygienist and as the 25 1 environmental health and safety manager, I had a role in 2 the team that was coordinating the activities in that 3 investigation, mainly speaking to technical issues on 4 occupational health and safety. 5 Q Were you involved in prioritizing which 8:38:30 6 chemicals would be evaluated? 7 A I would say yes, sir. However, evaluation is a 8 broad term. 9 Q So what was the role? What was your role with 10 regard -- excuse me. 11 What was your role with regard to the company's 12 prioritization of chemicals for evaluation regarding this 13 bronchiolitis obliterans matter? 14 A My role at the facility, sir -- and I don't mean 8:39:00 15 to be obtuse here -- but my role at the facility was to 16 facilitate the characterization of and management of 17 workplace exposure issues and other occupational health 18 and safety. 19 I played a role on the team in helping to 8:39:30 20 coordinate, again, the activities of the investigation 21 around this issue. 22 Q So were you involved with the team in coming up 23 with a program -- were you involved with a team at the 24 company to work on a program to prioritize chemicals for 25 evaluation regarding this issue of lung disease? 26 1 MR. MACE: Objection. 2 You can answer. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 BY MR. CRICK: 5 Q And were you on that group with Nancy Higley and 8:40:00 6 Jerry Biscopink and John Hochstrasser? 7 MR. MACE: Objection. 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct. 9 BY MR. CRICK: 10 Q Specifically with regard to isolating and 11 prioritizing chemicals for evaluation, what was your 12 role? 8:40:30 13 MR. MACE: Objection. 14 You can answer. 15 THE WITNESS: My role was to provide 16 information to identify -- to provide information and 17 identify workplace conditions that were needed by the 18 investigative team to conduct their investigation. 19 BY MR. CRICK: 20 Q What does that mean? 8:41:00 21 A As the environmental health and safety manager, 22 I had access to training records, to the coordination of 23 environmental health and safety activities like -- such 24 as air sampling. 25 I played a role in coordinating the activities 27 8:41:30 1 between the members of our investigative team both 2 internally and externally. 3 Q You did what with regard to the investigative 4 team? 5 A I helped to play a role in the coordination of 6 information between members of the team internally and 7 externally with regard to environmental health and safety 8 conditions. 8:42:00 9 Q And the team, who was on the team? 10 A The team consisted of the members, the 11 individuals that you had previously stated. 12 Q Higley, Hochstrasser, Biscopink? 13 A When Hochstrasser was there. His role changed 14 over time, of course. And Dr. Lockey, utilizing the 15 services of other outside consultants as well. 16 Q Dr. Pinney, Roy McKay? 17 A That is correct. 18 Q How about Dr. Baughman? 8:42:30 19 A Dr. Baughman was not on the team. 20 Q How about Gerald Shaneg? 21 A That name is unfamiliar to me. 22 Q Were there any other toxicologists that were 23 retained by the company, outside toxicologists? 24 A If that was the case, Nancy Higley would 25 probably be the better resource. I'm not aware of that. 28 1 MR. MACE: I don't know if it will help 2 communication, but you said Shaneg, which isn't the 3 correct pronunciation. 4 MR. CRICK: What is the correct pronunciation? 8:43:00 5 MR. MACE: Shoneg. 6 BY MR. CRICK: 7 Q Okay. Shoneg? 8 A No, that name is not familiar to me. 9 Q You're not aware of any outside toxicology 10 companies or toxicologists that were retained by the 11 company to investigate this issue? 12 A To investigate this issue. I believe Nancy 13 Higley -- Dr. Higley was working with outside agencies on 14 characterization of health risks relative to groups of 15 compounds. But I don't recall that it was specifically 8:43:30 16 linked to -- that their activities were specifically 17 linked to workplace conditions. 18 Q I'm sorry, I interrupted you. 19 A That's okay. 20 Q Are you aware of an investigation that was 21 performed by the National Institute for Occupational 22 Safety and Health in around 2001 at a microwave popcorn 23 plant in Jasper, Missouri? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Were you still with Givaudan when you learned 29 1 about that? 2 A No, I was not. 8:44:00 3 Q Were you with Watson at that time? 4 A Yes, that is correct. 5 Q And so you learned that NIOSH had gone to a 6 microwave popcorn plant in Southern Missouri and found 7 cases of bronchiolitis obliterans? 8 MR. MACE: Objection. 9 THE WITNESS: That was my understanding, yes. 10 BY MR. CRICK: 11 Q And what did you read on that subject? Did you 12 read the NIOSH alert? Did you read their article in the 13 New England Journal of Medicine? What was it that you 14 read to learn about this? 8:44:30 15 A It was several years ago. I believe I read the 16 NIOSH alert and other documentation that was made 17 available. And I apologize, I don't recall the source 18 where I got the information, it may have been from the 19 NIOSH website. But mostly the NIOSH alert, would be my 20 recollection. 21 Q And you saw that NIOSH had concluded that butter 22 flavoring that was used at the microwave popcorn plant 23 was the likely cause of the bronchiolitis obliterans at 24 the plant? 25 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection. 30 8:45:00 1 MR. MACE: Objection. Move to strike. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, that was my recollection of 3 that article. 4 BY MR. CRICK: 5 Q Prior to your leaving Givaudan, there were 6 employees at your company that complained of breathing 7 problems from working around diacetyl and butter 8 flavoring. Do you recall that? 9 MR. MACE: Objection. 10 THE WITNESS: No, sir, I do not. 11 (Exhibit 2 marked) 12 BY MR. CRICK: 13 Q I'm going to show you Exhibit 2. This is an 8:45:30 14 October 24, 1995 report of James Lockey, one of your task 15 force members, concerning Clifford Walker, the individual 16 we discussed before. 17 A Okay. 18 Q Do you see at the top it indicates that this was 19 sent from corporate legal to Frost Jacobs? You 8:46:00 20 understand Frost Jacobs to be the Workers' Compensation 21 attorneys for Givaudan? 22 MR. MACE: I'll just make a continuing objection 23 to the document, foundation, form, hearsay. 24 Go ahead. 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, Frost and Jacobs was retained 31 1 to work on Department of Labor issues for Givaudan. 8:46:30 2 (Off the record) 3 BY MR. CRICK: 4 Q Would you turn to Page 4 of Dr Lockey's report? 5 MR. MACE: Same objections. 6 BY MR. CRICK: 7 Q Down at the bottom there's a section called 8 "Discussion." 9 That says, "Mr. Clifford Walker is a 48-year-old 8:47:00 10 gentleman who has clinical findings as well as laboratory 11 results consistent with bronchiolitis obliterans." 12 Did I read that right? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q If you turn to Page 2 of Dr. Lockey's report, 15 under the section "Occupational History," do you see 16 that? 17 A Yes. 18 Q At the last sentence of that paragraph he says, 19 quote, "He noted the following chemical agents that would 8:47:30 20 cause him to have breathing problems." 21 Number 1, what is that chemical Dr. Lockey 22 identified? 23 MR. MACE: Objection. Same objections. Move to 24 strike. Also rule of completeness. 25 THE WITNESS: The chemical listed in the 32 1 beginning of paragraph labeled as Number 1 is diacetyl. 2 BY MR. CRICK: 3 Q And you understand diacetyl to be an ingredient 4 that's used in butter flavoring? 8:48:00 5 A Yes, sir. 6 MR. MACE: Objection, rule of completeness. It 7 goes on to state -- 8 MR. CRICK: Wait. Wait. Wait. That's not the 9 rule of completeness. I'm not through with my 10 questioning. 11 Let me read that paragraph. It says, Number 1, 12 "diacetyl - this would be added to butter. It would 13 reach a certain temperature and flash. He subsequently 14 would awaken at night with chest tightness and cough and 15 difficulty breathing. This would last approximately four 16 to five days and then resolve. There is no associated 17 fever, chills, muscle aches or pains. This occurred two 8:48:30 18 or three times per week until this butter operation was 19 transferred to the spray dry area approximately two years 20 prior to this evaluation." 21 Did I read that right? 22 MR. MACE: Objection to the form. 23 MR. CRICK: I'm not through. Just do your 24 objection. 25 MR. MACE: Rule of completeness. 33 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q Did I read that right? 3 A It sounds to me as you did, sir, yes. 4 Q And he goes on to say Number 2, "Garlics." 5 Do you see that? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Quote, "He noted the onset of this approximately 8:49:00 8 two to three years prior to being evaluated. He would 9 work with garlics approximately twice per month. He 10 would have the same type of reaction with the diacetyl 11 except it was also associated with sinus congestion and 12 upper respiratory irritation. Again, this would last 13 approximately one week." 14 Did I read that right? 15 MR. MACE: Same objections. Move to strike. 16 BY MR. CRICK: 17 Q And he also listed "Toasted." 18 Is toasted -- is that a chemical or just a 19 process of making chemicals? 8:49:30 20 A I don't recall, sir. 21 Q Okay. 22 MR. MACE: Objection. It goes on to talk about 23 enzymes. And also under "Occupational History" talks 24 about his past work at Proctor and Gamble and at Grace 25 Chemicals for one year filling hoppers with an unknown 34 1 powdered chemical. Had frequent chest colds during this 2 one-year employment. Did not wear a respirator. 3 BY MR. CRICK: 4 Q There were other employees while you were at the 8:50:00 5 company that had complained about being sensitized or 6 breathing problems working around diacetyl. Do you 7 recall that? 8 A No. 9 MR. MACE: Objection to the form. Objection, 10 compound. 11 (Exhibit 3 marked) 12 BY MR. CRICK: 13 Q Let me show you Exhibit Number 3. This is an 14 October 21, 1996 memo, confidential, from Janice Dees to 15 Karen Duros, John Hochstrasser, with a copy to Nancy 16 Higley. 17 You worked with all those individuals; is that 18 right? 19 A Yes, sir, that's correct. 8:50:30 20 Q In October of '96 you were with the company as a 21 corporate senior industrial hygienist? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Were you provided with a copy of this 24 confidential memorandum? 25 A My name is not on here and I don't recall seeing 35 1 it, no, sir. 2 Q Attached to Ms. Dees' memorandum -- well, 3 actually, let me state that the subject of this 4 memorandum is the "Pulmonary Medical Surveillance 8:51:00 5 Participants (Cincinatti)." 6 There was a medical surveillance program going 7 on to determine how many people at the plant had 8 respiratory problems; is that right? 9 MR. MACE: Objection. 10 You can answer. 11 THE WITNESS: There was a surveillance program 12 going on, yes, sir. 13 BY MR. CRICK: 14 Q And Roy McKay was the industrial hygienist from 15 the University of Cincinatti who was involved in doing 16 pulmonary fit testing and had some involvement with the 8:51:30 17 respiratory protection program that was going on at the 18 plant? 19 A Dr. Roy McKay from the University of 20 Cincinatti -- 21 Q I asked that wrong. Let me restate my question. 22 Dr. McKay at the University of Cincinatti had 23 some role in the pulmonary function testing? 24 A That's correct, yes, sir. 25 Q And he was also involved in the respiratory 36 1 protection policy that was going on at Tastemaker, fit 2 testing? 3 A Yes, sir, he was involved in the respiratory 8:52:00 4 protection program, yes. 5 Q Okay. And Dr. Lockey and Dr. Pinney were both 6 involved in some manners with the medical monitoring 7 program that was going on at the plant? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q People that took pulmonary function tests and 10 tested poorly would then be sent to Dr. Lockey for 11 further medical evaluation? 12 A That is a fair characterization, yes, sir. 13 Q And the people that tested poorly that 8:52:30 14 Dr. Lockey had seen would be part of this statistical 15 analysis that Dr. Pinney, the epidemiologist, was 16 performing at the plant? 17 A Yes. That information was sent to Dr. Pinney, 18 along with all of the other data that was being 19 collected. 20 Q Yes, sir. Including the people that tested 21 well, did not have breathing problems? 22 A That is correct. 23 Q Because not everybody at the plant had a 24 breathing problem? 25 A (No audible response). 37 1 Q Were you provided with the summaries of the 8:53:00 2 tests that took place at the plant? 3 A That was not my role, no, sir. 4 Q Were you provided information about the medical 5 questionnaires that were completed by the employees as a 6 part of their pulmonary function testing? 7 A Where appropriate, information may have been 8 shared with me. I was not routinely -- that information 9 was not routinely divulged to me, no, sir. 10 Q Janice Dees was a nurse who worked at 8:53:30 11 Tastemaker? 12 A That is correct. 13 Q And she left the company. Was she fired? 14 A I have no knowledge of the terms of her 15 departure from the company. 16 Q She left the company, but she was not replaced 17 by another nurse; is that correct? 18 A That is correct. Another nurse was not hired to 19 replace her. 20 Q Did you take over some of her responsibilities? 21 A Where appropriate, I may have helped to ensure 8:54:00 22 that progress continued to be made in various activities. 23 But I'm not an occupational health nurse and my 24 activities were limited to those things appropriate for 25 my profession. 38 1 Q Were you given access to employees' confidential 2 medical records? 3 MR. MACE: Objection, overbroad. 4 THE WITNESS: Again, I may have seen information 8:54:30 5 relative to the pulmonary function testing that was going 6 on. But to say that I had access to employees' 7 confidential medical records may be too broad of a 8 statement. 9 BY MR. CRICK: 10 Q We were talking about Ms. Dees' memo of October 11 21, '96 to Ms. Duros and Mr. Hochstrasser. It says 12 "Confidential" at the top. 13 Karen Duros was a general counsel for 14 Tastemaker; is that right? 15 A That is my understanding, yes, sir. 16 Q The memo says -- down in the "Results" section 8:55:00 17 she gives a summary of the pulmonary function tests that 18 had been performed at the plant since January of '95. Do 19 you see that? 20 A Yes, I do. 21 MR. MACE: Same objections. Continuing 22 objections with this document with this witness. 23 BY MR. CRICK: 24 Q She says, "26 employees or 16 percent have met 25 the criteria and will be administered pulmonary function 39 1 tests on a quarterly basis." 2 When she says "met the criteria," do you know 8:55:30 3 what that meant? 4 MR. MACE: Objection, calls for speculation. 5 MR. CRICK: Strike that. 6 BY MR. CRICK: 7 Q The criteria meant those individuals would then 8 be tested on a quarterly basis because their lung 9 function tests were deficient? 10 MR. MACE: Objection. 11 BY MR. CRICK: 12 Q Is that right? 13 MR. MACE: Mischaracterization. Objection to 14 the form. 15 THE WITNESS: Well, sir, that wouldn't be how I 16 would characterize it. I would characterize it as 17 thresholds were established that would require further 8:56:00 18 analysis. 19 BY MR. CRICK: 20 Q And she describes what that threshold is in her 21 memo. It's in the "Background" section right on the 22 front page. 23 MR. MACE: Same objections. 24 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. 25 /// 40 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q Do you see that? 3 A I see that section "Background," yes, sir. 4 Q And she says, "26 employees or 16 percent have 5 met the criteria and will be administered pulmonary 6 function tests on a quarterly basis," and that a summary 7 of the results of those 26 is attached. And if you turn 8 to the attachment -- 8:56:30 9 MR. MACE: Same objections. 10 BY MR. CRICK: 11 Q -- there's a chart called "Workers With 12 Pulmonary Loss As Defined By Code A, B, C, Or Some 13 Combination." 14 Were you shown this document by Janice Dees or 15 Hochstrasser or Duros or Higley? 16 A Again, sir, as I stated previously, I'm not 17 listed as one of the recipients of the document and I 18 don't recall having seen it. 19 Q Okay. See if this refreshes your recollection. 20 The chart shows -- purports to show information 8:57:00 21 about the 26 individuals who met the pulmonary function 22 test criteria for quarterly exams. And the first 23 category there's a caption, "Current Job Title." 24 Do you see that? 25 A I do. 41 1 Q With "Current Work Area." Then it goes on with 2 A, B and C to show what their test result was for the 3 particular test. Then you see "Diagnosis" as the sixth 8:57:30 4 column? 5 MR. MACE: Same objections. 6 BY MR. CRICK: 7 Q Do you see that? 8 A I see that it says, "Diag." So I assume that 9 means diagnosis. 10 Q And on the last column there's a heading called 11 "Sensitivity." 12 Do you see that? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Were you provided information like this in your 15 role as corporate senior industrial hygienist? 16 MR. MACE: Objection, vague and ambiguous. 17 Objection to the form. Objection, asked and answered. 8:58:00 18 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't be surprised if -- to 19 see documents that supported that there was information 20 like this that I saw. Again, it certainly makes sense 21 that I would have. 22 BY MR. CRICK: 23 Q Do you recall receiving information like this? 24 Do you recall -- let me ask you this way. 25 Do you recall being given information that 42 1 people with -- who met this pulmonary function test 2 criteria, some of them had complained of sensitivity or 3 chest tightness working around diacetyl or butter? 8:58:30 4 MR. MACE: Objection, compound. Objection to 5 the form. 6 THE WITNESS: It may be more fair to say that I 7 had knowledge of individuals who had identified that 8 there were materials for which they felt some 9 sensitivity. 10 BY MR. CRICK: 11 Q Okay. The first -- there's a section called 12 "Lead Operator," the fourth one down. 13 A Yes. 14 Q Worked in spray dry. It says, "Probable BO." 8:59:00 15 Do you know that's a reference to bronchiolitis 16 obliterans? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And then for "Sensitivity," it's listed as, 19 "Acetaldehyde; Benzeladehyde; Dimethyl Sulfide; Onion; 20 Garlic Oils; Apple Oils." 21 Do you see that? 22 A Yes, sir, I do. 23 Q Do you understand that dimethyl sulfide was an 24 ingredient used in Givaudan's butter flavoring? 25 MR. MACE: Objection. 43 1 THE WITNESS: I don't recall that it -- 2 specifically what products it was used to make. 3 BY MR. CRICK: 4 Q Dimethyl sulfide was one of the chemicals that 8:59:30 5 Givaudan and Tastemaker required respirators around; is 6 that right? 7 A I want to say yes, because it's a pretty nasty 8 material. I mean, just in terms of its odor. A lot of 9 materials were -- respirators were provided to 10 individuals because they were just nasty to be around. 11 Q The next one on the chart is "Operator" and the 12 "Spray Dry," and it shows a sensitivity to diacetyl, 9:00:00 13 acetaldehyde and benzaldehyde. 14 MR. MACE: Same objections. 15 BY MR. CRICK: 16 Q Were you provided this information about this 17 operator in spray dry? 18 A I don't recall specifically this information for 19 this operator. 20 Q And then down below, the second from the bottom, 21 "Operator" and "Spray Dry," showed a sensitivity to 22 diacetyl and dimethyl sulfide. 23 Do you see that? 24 MR. MACE: Same objections. 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I do. 44 9:00:30 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q And you know that diacetyl was an ingredient in 3 the company's butter flavoring, don't you? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q If you turn to the next page, there's a person 6 referenced as senior chemist in the pilot plant. Do you 7 see that? 8 A Yes, sir, I do. 9 Q Diagnosis is "H/O." Do you know what that's a 10 reference to? 11 A No, sir. 9:01:00 12 Q Maybe it's a typo. 13 MR. MACE: Objection. 14 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection, speculation. 15 Maybe it's got something to do with a gunshot 16 wound. 17 MR. MACE: Yeah, it says, "H/O gunshot wound to 18 the lung." 19 MR. CRICK: Okay, smart aleck. You can ask your 20 own questions. 21 MR. WOODSIDE: I've been pretty quiet. I 22 couldn't resist that one. 23 BY MR. CRICK: 24 Q Senior chemist, pilot plant. Has checks under 25 Category C for an FVC of less than 65 percent of 45 9:01:30 1 predicted. 2 Do you see that? 3 A I see the check under. 4 MR. MACE: Same objections. 5 BY MR. CRICK: 6 Q C? 7 A Oh, yes. 8 Q And he referenced -- or he or she referenced a 9 sensitivity to acetaldehyde, diacetyl, capsicum, 10 encapsulation in the lab. 11 Do you see that? 12 A I see where that's written, yes. 13 Q And the person below "Operator, Spray Dry," 14 lists as the diagnosis, bronchiolitis obliterans, and for 9:02:00 15 sensitivity, "Capsicum, Diacetyl, Benzaldehyde, 16 Acetaldehyde, Punch Oils, Mustard Seed Oils." 17 Do you see that? 18 MR. MACE: Objection. 19 THE WITNESS: I see under "Diag." it says "BO." 20 And, yes, those materials are listed under "Sensitivity." 21 BY MR. CRICK: 22 Q Okay. Now, if you look at -- we've said this 9:02:30 23 "Diag." a few times. Look at Janice Dees' memo, if you 24 would again, second page. 25 She's giving a description of what the chart 46 1 says. And the first one at the top of Page 2, see it 2 says "Diagnosis." 3 MR. MACE: Objection. 4 BY MR. CRICK: 5 Q It says, "Diagnoses include those reported on 6 the questionnaire, as well as diagnoses by Dr. Baughman. 9:03:00 7 If the space is blank, no diagnosis has been reported." 8 Do you see that? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q So we'll go back to the chart. Person next is 11 the operator in process. 12 MR. WOODSIDE: Are you on the last page? 13 MR. CRICK: The second page of the chart. The 14 next to the last person on the chart, or the third to the 15 last. 16 BY MR. CRICK: 17 Q Operator in process. Do you see that? 9:03:30 18 A Yes, I do. 19 Q Diagnosis, bronchiolitis obliterans. And for 20 sensitivity, it says garlic, toasted and butters. 21 Do you see that? 22 A Yes. 23 MR. MACE: Objection, foundation, multiple 24 hearsay, move to strike. 25 /// 47 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q Garlic, toasted and butters is the exact same 3 comments that Cliff Walker provided in his mention of 4 Dr. Lockey's report, Exhibit Number 2? 5 MR. MACE: Objection. He also talked about 9:04:00 6 enzymes. 7 BY MR. CRICK: 8 Q Do you agree with that? 9 A I would have to go back to Dr. Lockey's -- 10 Q It's in front of you, Exhibit 2, Page 2. 11 A I see those listed as well, yes, sir. 12 Q You were not provided this information, though? 13 A This memo? 14 Q This memo or even the information about Cliff 15 Walker and these other individuals that they were 16 claiming sensitivity or breathing problems working around 17 these chemicals? 9:04:30 18 MR. MACE: Objection; asked and answered. 19 Objection, mischaracterization. 20 THE WITNESS: Sir, I was provided a variety of 21 data points and information throughout my time, and much 22 of it may have had to do with areas of sensitivities that 23 individuals were experiencing. The nature of industrial 24 hygiene is to identify and correct those issues. 25 /// 48 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q I understand. It's been a while since you left 3 the plant and I'm showing you a document you had never 9:05:00 4 been shown before. 5 I think I understand what you're trying to get 6 at is that you don't remember all the details today, but 7 in your role on the team, you were advised when people 8 had breathing problems what areas or what issues they 9 complained of so you could make that part of your 10 investigation? 11 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes. Objection, 12 overbroad. Objection, foundation. Objection to the 13 form. 14 THE WITNESS: I was provided information 9:05:30 15 regarding sensitivities that individuals may have had. I 16 have no knowledge whether the information I was provided 17 was all the information. I -- 18 BY MR. CRICK: 19 Q You indicated that you believe Nancy Higley had 20 shared some information or involved in another agency to 21 assist in the determination of what chemicals might be 22 the cause. Do you recall that a few minutes ago? 23 A I don't recall that's the way I characterized 9:06:00 24 it, sir. 25 Q Why don't you tell me again. 49 1 A What I recall was that Dr. Nancy Higley utilized 2 outside toxicology consultants to gain more information 3 on the potential health effects of chemical groups. 4 Q Do you understand there's an organization, we 5 just talked about it, NIOSH? 6 A (No audible response). 7 Q That's a "yes"? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And NIOSH is based in Cincinatti, the same place 9:06:30 10 where Tastemaker and Givaudan were located; correct? 11 A That is correct, sir. 12 Q Did you know an individual named Dr. Stewart 13 Brooks? Did you ever meet him? 14 A No, I don't recall ever having met Dr. Brooks. 15 Q Were you aware that before Dr. Lockey was 16 brought into Tastemaker, that Dr. Stewart Brooks, an 17 occupational physician, had been hired to do an 18 investigation at the plant on the findings of lung 19 disease? 20 MR. MACE: Objection. 21 THE WITNESS: I don't recall Dr. Brooks' exact 9:07:00 22 role. I do recall Dr. Brooks' name and I remember that 23 he had a role. I don't know what it was. 24 BY MR. CRICK: 25 Q When you were at the company, was there ever a 50 1 phone call made to NIOSH to ask for assistance about the 2 bronchiolitis obliterans at the plant? 3 A Not to my knowledge. 4 Q You're aware that NIOSH had done an 5 investigation at another food manufacturing plant and had 9:07:30 6 found bronchiolitis obliterans? 7 A If you're referring to what we previously 8 discussed, this was information I learned after I left 9 Givaudan, yes, that is correct. 10 Q I'm also referring to a study that NIOSH 11 performed at the International Bakers Services plant in 12 Indiana where they found two cases of bronchiolitis 13 obliterans in the manufacturing of food products. Were 14 you aware of that? 9:08:00 15 MR. MACE: Objection. 16 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. I'm sorry. 17 BY MR. CRICK: 18 Q Go ahead. 19 A I recall that Dr. Lockey shared information with 20 me regarding his knowledge and experience of BO in 21 industry, and that sounds familiar, sounds like something 22 that he likely shared with me. 23 Q Okay. Why didn't your company invite the 9:08:30 24 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 25 like what happened at the Jasper, Missouri popcorn plant? 51 1 MR. MACE: Objection. 2 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection. 3 THE WITNESS: There was every reason to believe 4 that the credible professional experts that had been 5 brought together to address this issue was adequate. 9:09:00 6 BY MR. CRICK: 7 Q Now, you came to the plant in 1996, right? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And you know that the first case of 10 bronchiolitis obliterans was made known to Tastemaker in 11 1992, the Menock, Garrick and the Wallace cases. You 12 knew that? 13 MR. MACE: Objection. 14 THE WITNESS: I recall they occurred before I 15 got there, yes. I don't recall the exact dates. 16 BY MR. CRICK: 17 Q Were you aware that NIOSH came to the plant in 18 Jasper, Missouri, and within about 18 months came to a 9:09:30 19 resolution as to what the cause of the bronchiolitis 20 obliterans was in the plant? 21 MR. MACE: Objection, mischaracterization. 22 Objection to the form. 23 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection. 24 THE WITNESS: I don't know the time frame that 25 they worked within to reach their conclusions. 52 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q And when you were hired four years after 3 Wallace, Menock, Garrick had been disclosed to 4 Tastemaker, there still was not a specific finding as to 5 what it was that was the cause. Is that true? 6 A When I was hired, there was a general conclusion 9:10:00 7 of causation that had been arrived at. 8 Q Now, that was tentative at best. You saw 9 Exhibit Number 1, Dr. Fluckiger's memo to you, where he 10 said, "A single cause of these lung diseases has never 11 been identified. However, exposure to a combination of 9:10:30 12 respiratory irritants appears to be the most likely 13 explanation for the development of this cluster of 14 cases." 15 That's what the medical director from your 16 parent company was saying in 2000, four years before you 17 came to the company. 18 MR. MACE: Objection, move to strike. 19 BY MR. CRICK: 20 Q Is that right? 21 A Well, in the first place, this memo was not to 22 me. It was copied to me, but it was addressed to Dr. 23 Raymond Calame, Dr. Kunzi and Mike Davis. 24 Q Mike Davis was the president of the company? 25 A That's correct, sir. 53 1 Q 2000, that's eight years after Joey Wallace and 9:11:00 2 Janice Menock first came to the attention of Tastemaker. 3 You understand that now? 4 MR. MACE: Objection. 5 THE WITNESS: I knew it had occurred prior to my 6 arrival. 7 BY MR. CRICK: 8 Q And in eight years, Dr. Fluckiger is saying that 9 your company still hasn't been able to figure out what 10 the cause was. 11 MR. MACE: Objection. 12 THE WITNESS: (No audible response). 13 BY MR. CRICK: 14 Q My question is, why didn't you call NIOSH? 15 MR. MACE: Objection, asked and answered. 16 Objection to the form. 17 THE WITNESS: Again, sir, we had toxicologists, 9:11:30 18 pulmonary health experts, occupational physicians, 19 epidemiologists. There was every reason to believe that 20 Tastemaker and Givaudan had made sound and prudent 21 efforts to marshal the technical resources necessary to 22 investigate this case. 23 BY MR. CRICK: 24 Q And some -- now we talked a few minutes ago 25 about complaints that individuals made around working 54 1 around butter flavoring. There were actually complaints 2 about conditions in the workplace because of the butter 9:12:00 3 flavoring. Do you recall that? 4 MR. MACE: Objection. 5 BY MR. CRICK: 6 Q Do you recall that? 7 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, you'll have to refresh 8 my memory specifically. 9 BY MR. CRICK: 10 Q Were you with the company in May of '96? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q Let me show you Exhibit 4. 13 (Exhibit 4 marked) 14 BY MR. CRICK: 15 Q This a May 29, 1996 Tastemaker Incident Report 9:12:30 16 filed by Rich Patton. 17 Do you remember Rich Patton? 18 A I remember the name. 19 Q Do you recall Mr. Patton making a complaint or 20 making an incident report about a problem when making a 9:13:00 21 butter flavor product at the plant? 22 MR. MACE: Objection. 23 THE WITNESS: No, sir, I don't recall it 24 specifically, but I see the document here. 25 /// 55 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q He says in here in the description where it 3 says, "Describe clearly how incident occurred," quote, "A 4 steam coil was being used to heat a batch of 540088U 5 butter. The batch was heated beyond boiling creating a 6 huge chemical vapor cloud that was approximately 8 to 9 9:13:30 7 feet off of the floor continuing up to the ceiling, and 8 extending half of the length of the building." 9 Did I read that right? 10 MR. MACE: Object to the form. Objection, 11 foundation. Objection, hearsay. Objection. 12 You can answer. 13 BY MR. CRICK: 14 Q Did I read that right? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q One of the things that -- strike that. 17 You were not advised of this particular 18 incident, were you? 19 A I have no recollection of this specific 20 incident. 9:14:00 21 Q Tastemaker required respirators for working 22 around diacetyl. Is that true? 23 A Along with many other compounds, yes, sir. 24 Q Yes, sir, because there were many compounds at 25 the plant that can be hazardous to someone's health? 56 1 A That would be correct, yes, sir. 2 Q Let me show you Exhibit Number 5. 3 (Exhibit 5 marked) 4 BY MR. CRICK: 5 Q Exhibit 5 is a document called "Tastemaker 9:14:30 6 Operational Procedures," dated August 13, 1992, "Natural 7 and Artificial diacetyl Spray Drying." 8 As a part of your work in industrial hygiene at 9 the plant, you would have seen this document, wouldn't 10 you? 11 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes. Objection, 12 foundation. 13 THE WITNESS: Possibly. This preceded me by 14 several years, so -- 15 BY MR. CRICK: 16 Q Four years before you got to the plant, 17 Tastemaker had a system in place for safety precautions 9:15:00 18 working around diacetyl? 19 MR. MACE: Objection. 20 THE WITNESS: And many other compounds, yes, sir. 21 BY MR. CRICK: 22 Q If you look under the section "Procedure," 23 Number 2, it says quote, "Whenever liquid diacetyl or a 24 product where liquid diacetyl is present is to be used, a 25 respirator with chemical resistant gloves must be worn." 57 9:15:30 1 Do you see that? 2 MR. MACE: Objection. Move to strike. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. 4 BY MR. CRICK: 5 Q That was a precaution that was required at 6 Tastemaker/Givaudan when you were there. Is that true? 7 MR. MACE: Objection. 8 THE WITNESS: Respirators were required for 9 compounds including diacetyl when I was there, yes, sir. 10 BY MR. CRICK: 11 Q Yes, sir. And Number 3 on the procedures says, 12 quote, "Any room containing diacetyl in a liquid state 9:16:00 13 must be labeled respirator required." 14 Did I read that right? 15 MR. MACE: Objection. 16 THE WITNESS: Yes, you did. 17 BY MR. CRICK: 18 Q That was also a requirement when you were at the 19 plant, along with concerning other chemicals? 20 MR. MACE: Objection. 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 22 BY MR. CRICK: 23 Q Number 7 says, "Whenever material is in any 24 tank, lids must be closed. If ventilation (mechanical) 25 is not connected to tank or is unavailable, a respirator 58 9:16:30 1 must be worn at all times while in the room." 2 Did I read that right? 3 MR. MACE: Objection. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, you did. 5 BY MR. CRICK: 6 Q And that was a requirement while you were with 7 the company? 8 MR. MACE: Objection. 9 THE WITNESS: Again, yes, sir, along with many 10 other materials. 11 BY MR. CRICK: 12 Q Mr. Ingraham, what is diacetyl? 9:17:00 13 A Diacetyl is a chemical compound. I believe its 9:17:30 14 proper name is -- I may -- drudging up the archives here, 15 the proper name may be 23 butanedion. 9:18:00 16 Q And do you know how diacetyl is composed 17 chemically? 18 A I know it's a ketone, in the class of chemicals 19 known as ketones. But no, I don't. 20 Q What's a ketone? 21 A A ketone is a compound that -- I believe it 22 contains an oxygen with a double bond to carbon. 9:18:30 23 Q Do you agree that diacetyl is an irritant to the 24 lungs? 25 A I don't know if it's specifically classified as 59 1 a respiratory or lung irritant. 2 Q You don't know? 3 A No, I don't recall. 4 Q Would you look at Exhibit Number 5 at the bottom 5 of the page? 6 A Uh-huh. 7 Q Tastemaker Operational Procedures from 2002. 8 Do you see at the bottom, "Safety Concerns for 9:19:00 9 Each Step of Procedure." Do you see that? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And Number 2, "Vapor is irritating to throat and 12 lungs." Do you see that? 13 A Yes, sir, that's been included with other 14 warnings regarding the vapors. 15 Q It's also irritating to skin and it can severely 16 burn eyes; is that right? 17 A That's what it says here, yes, sir. 18 Q How does diacetyl severely burn eyes? What is 9:19:30 19 it about the diacetyl that causes it to burn your eyes? 20 A I'm not a toxicologist. I don't have that 21 explanation. 22 Q But you know it did happen at the plant, that 23 people at the plant got burned eyes from working around 24 diacetyl? 25 MR. MACE: Objection. 60 1 THE WITNESS: No, sir, I'm not aware of burned 2 eyes as a result of exposure to diacetyl. 3 BY MR. CRICK: 4 Q You weren't aware that Cliff Walker had to leave 5 work because his eyes were burned because of diacetyl? 6 MR. MACE: Objection. Move to strike. 7 THE WITNESS: I don't recall that specific 9:20:00 8 incident, no, sir. 9 BY MR. CRICK: 10 Q Were you aware of any individuals who had to 11 leave the plant and be off work because of burning on 12 their eyes because of working around diacetyl? 13 A Not -- I don't recall. 14 Q Nobody told you that? 15 A I didn't say that, sir. Somebody may have told 16 me that. I don't recall that that actually occurred. 17 Q As a part of your work as a safety professional 18 to make the workplace more safe, did you come to learn 19 how diacetyl can burn your eyes? 20 MR. MACE: Objection, asked and answered. 9:20:30 21 THE WITNESS: I was aware that diacetyl 22 contained various toxicological properties. One of those 23 properties may have been eye irritation. 24 BY MR. CRICK: 25 Q Okay. Yes. Did you come to learn how and why 61 1 it is that it does that? What about the diacetyl will 2 burn your eyes? 3 MR. MACE: Objection. 4 THE WITNESS: No. 5 BY MR. CRICK: 6 Q Did you come to learn how or why it is that 9:21:00 7 diacetyl will affect your skin? 8 A Again, skin irritation certainly would be one 9 the properties I would attribute to diacetyl. 10 Q What about the diacetyl? What's in the 11 diacetyl? What causes diacetyl to irritate the skin? 12 MR. MACE: Objection. 13 THE WITNESS: I'm not a toxicologist, sir. 14 BY MR. CRICK: 15 Q What about the diacetyl causes it to be 16 irritating to the lungs? 17 A Sir, I'm not a toxicologist. I don't have that 9:21:30 18 information. 19 Q Were you told that Tastemaker was a member of a 20 group called the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers 21 Association? 22 A I was familiar with that, yes, sir. 23 Q In fact, you went to a conference of that 24 organization specifically on the subject of respiratory 25 safety in the flavoring workplace? 62 1 A Respirators were discussed in that conference, 2 yes, sir. 3 Q Let me show you Exhibit Number 6. 4 (Exhibit 6 marked) 5 BY MR. CRICK: 6 Q Are you familiar with the RIFM FEMA database? 9:22:00 7 A That sounds familiar. If I am, if I saw it, it 8 would have been likely through Dr. Nancy Higley. 9 Q Okay. RIFM stands or Research Institute for 10 Fragrance Materials. Do you recall that? Were you ever 11 given access to the RIFM FEMA database? 9:22:30 12 A Well, if I did, again, it was not routine thing. 13 It may have been something that I had access to through 14 Nancy Higley, but it's not something I recall. 15 Q I showed you Exhibit Number 6, which is called 16 "Flavor or Fragrance Ingredient Data Sheet," dated 17 September 2, '85, regarding the chemical diacetyl. 9:23:00 18 Do you see that? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 MR. MACE: Do you have a date, Counsel? 21 MR. CRICK: Down at the bottom right there. 22 MR. MACE: Objection. Objection to the 23 characterization. Objection, assumption. Objection to 24 form. Move to strike. 25 /// 63 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q Do you see this fragrance, the "Flavor or 3 Fragrance Data Sheet" concerning diacetyl that I just 4 placed before you, Exhibit 6? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q It's got a Bates stamp of TM001789. It was 9:23:30 7 produced to me by the attorneys for Givaudan. 8 Have you seen this before? 9 A If I have, I don't recall it. 10 Q It says on the second page under the section 11 Roman Numeral IV, "Human Health Effects Data." 12 Do you see that section? 13 A Yes, sir, I do. 14 Q Number 1 under that section says, "Known Health 15 Effects of Acute Exposure," and below that it says, 9:24:00 16 "Inhalation: Harmful." 17 Do you see that? 18 MR. MACE: Continuing objection, foundation. 19 Objection to the form. Move to strike. Hearsay. 20 BY MR. CRICK: 21 Q Do you see that? 22 A Yes, sir, I do. 23 Q What is it that's about the diacetyl that makes 24 it harmful? 25 MR. MACE: Objection. 64 1 THE WITNESS: Well, again, this would be along 2 the lines that we previously discussed. Not being a 3 toxicologist, it's difficult for me to characterize the 4 specific properties of the chemical that make it harmful. 9:24:30 5 BY MR. CRICK: 6 Q Did you ever have communications with customers 7 of microwave popcorn? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Did you ever tell any of the customers that 10 butter flavoring or diacetyl had been found in at least a 11 FEMA document to be harmful? 12 MR. MACE: Objection. 13 Can you read it back, too, please? 14 (Record read) 9:25:00 15 MR. MACE: Objection, compound. Objection to 16 the form. Objection, assumes. Objection, foundation. 17 You can answer. 18 THE WITNESS: We shared health risk information 19 regarding Givaudan products with customers. 20 BY MR. CRICK: 21 Q Did you tell any microwave popcorn customers 22 that inhalation of butter flavoring or diacetyl fumes 9:25:30 23 could be harmful to the lung? 24 MR. MACE: Objection, compound. Objection to 25 the form. Objection, assumes. 65 1 You can answer. 2 THE WITNESS: No, sir. Inhalation was not 3 perceived as a cause of adverse health effects at 4 Givaudan. 5 BY MR. CRICK: 6 Q The answer is "no"? 7 A (No audible response). 8 Q You specifically went to the popcorn plant in 9 Sioux City, Iowa; is that right? 9:26:00 10 A That is correct. 11 Q Which popcorn plant was that? 12 A I know I visited, I believe -- and I believe it 13 was General Mills on two occasions. 14 Q Did you ever tell anyone at General Mills about 15 the fact that there had been incidents of bronchiolitis 16 obliterans at the Tastemaker plant? 17 MR. MACE: Objection. 18 THE WITNESS: No, sir. 19 BY MR. CRICK: 20 Q Do you know what dimethyl sulfide is? 9:26:30 21 A Dimethyl sulfide is a compound used in flavor 22 manufacturing. 23 Q What is acetaldehyde? 24 A Acetaldehyde is also a compound used in flavor 25 manufacturing. 66 1 MR. WOODSIDE: Object to the form of the 2 question. And move to strike the answer, because he 9:27:00 3 doesn't have any idea whether it's used by everybody in 4 flavor manufacturing or not, and that's the basis of my 5 objection. 6 MR. MACE: Or even at Tastemaker/Givaudan. 7 MR. WOODSIDE: No foundation was laid. 8 MR. MACE: Same objections. Move to strike. 9 MR. CRICK: Are you guys done? 10 MR. WOODSIDE: I'll probably think of a few 11 more. 12 MR. CRICK: You're gonna miss your planes. 13 MR. WOODSIDE: That's not a criteria for failure 14 to object. 15 BY MR. CRICK: 16 Q What is acetaldehyde chemically? What is it 9:27:30 17 composed of? 18 A Again, its chemical structure, it falls within 19 the class of compounds known as aldehydes, and it is, I 20 believe, even subdivided into aliphatic aldehydes. 21 Q Do you agree that exposure to acetaldehyde 22 causes bronchiolitis obliterans? 9:28:00 23 MR. MACE: Objection. 24 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection. 25 THE WITNESS: I don't have that information, 67 1 sir. 2 BY MR. CRICK: 3 Q When you were at Tastemaker, did Tastemaker have 4 the opinion that as acetaldehyde causes bronchiolitis 5 obliterans? 6 MR. MACE: Objection. 7 THE WITNESS: It was the general conclusion that 8 the source of respiratory issues at Tastemaker were 9 attributable to acetaldehyde exposure. 9:28:30 10 BY MR. CRICK: 11 Q So there was a conclusion while you were there 12 that acetaldehyde does cause bronchiolitis obliterans? 13 MR. MACE: Objection. 14 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection to the form of the 15 question. The basis of my objection, if you want to 16 know, is because it's so general. 17 THE WITNESS: I'd have to say, sir, that that's 18 a general speculation that it does cause. Again, it was 19 concluded that acetaldehyde may have been the causative 20 agent of the respiratory issues. 21 BY MR. CRICK: 22 Q Were you involved in the air sampling that took 9:29:00 23 place at the plant? 24 A Yes, sir. 9:29:30 25 Q Who made the decision as to what was going to be 68 1 looked for in the air samples? 2 A There were several individuals involved in that 3 determination process. 4 Q Including you? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q Did you only look for chemicals that had a 9:30:00 7 threshold limit value? 8 A Oh, no. 9 Q So you looked at all the chemicals that people 10 claimed a sensitivity to? 11 MR. MACE: Objection. 12 THE WITNESS: That's really not possible, sir. 13 BY MR. CRICK: 14 Q Did you look for all the chemicals that -- 15 individuals who had substandard pulmonary function tests, 16 did you look at the chemicals that they claim sensitivity 17 to? 18 A You'll have to excuse me, but as an industrial 19 hygienist, when you say "Look at chemicals," that's a 9:30:30 20 very, very broad statement because the process of 21 analysis involves qualitative, semi-quantitative and 22 quantitative risk assessments. 23 So when you say "Do air sampling," typically 24 that describes quantitative air sampling. And you only 25 do quantitative air sampling for those materials for 69 1 which you have an analytical method. And there wasn't 2 always an industrial hygiene analytical method for, 3 we're talking 4,500 different chemicals that existed at 9:31:00 4 that facility. 5 Q You know that there was an analytical method for 6 diacetyl, don't you? 7 MR. MACE: Objection. 8 THE WITNESS: There may have been. 9 BY MR. CRICK: 10 Q If there was an analytical method for diacetyl, 11 that would have been one of the chemicals that you were 12 air sampling for? 13 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes. Objection, 14 foundation. Objection to the form. 15 You can answer. 16 THE WITNESS: If an -- if an American Industrial 17 Hygiene Associated accredited laboratory, whom we would 9:31:30 18 hire to do our analysis, had a method for diacetyl, then 19 we would have sampled for it. 20 BY MR. CRICK: 21 Q How about OSHA? If OSHA had a protocol for 22 diacetyl, would you have sampled for diacetyl? 23 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes. Objection, 24 compound. Objection to form. 25 THE WITNESS: Well, again, sir, our primary 70 1 source of analysis was through an AIHA accredited 2 laboratory. 3 BY MR. CRICK: 4 Q As opposed to through a governmental agency such 5 as the Occupational Safety and Health Organization? 9:32:00 6 A They don't do analysis, sir. 7 Q I'd asked if you looked to see if OSHA had 8 protocol for air sampling for diacetyl? 9 MR. MACE: Objection. You didn't ask him that. 10 Objection. 11 THE WITNESS: Sir, you didn't ask me that. 12 BY MR. CRICK: 13 Q Okay. Did you use an OSHA protocol for air 14 sampling of diacetyl? 15 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes. Objection, 16 mischaracterization. 17 THE WITNESS: When we did air sampling, we would 18 look at a variety of sources of information including 19 EPA, OSHA, NIOSH, et cetera. 9:32:30 20 BY MR. CRICK: 21 Q You made a statement about acetaldehyde and a 22 conclusion at the plant. Were you aware that in the 23 Workers' Compensation claims of Gaskins and McGee that 24 Tastemaker/Givaudan specifically denied that acetaldehyde 25 causes bronchiolitis obliterans? 71 1 MR. MACE: Objection. 2 THE WITNESS: I'd have to see what you're 3 referring to, sir. I'm not aware of that. I don't know. 9:33:00 4 (Exhibit 7 marked) 5 BY MR. CRICK: 6 Q Let me show you Exhibit 7. Exhibit 7 is a 7 letter from Frost and Jacobs dated January 22, 1998 to 8 the Industrial Commission of Ohio, the VSSR claims 9 examiner, regarding claimant Walter Vaske. All I've 10 enclosed here is the letter and the affidavit of Nancy 9:33:30 11 Higley. 12 Were you ever shown this document? 13 MR. MACE: Objection. 14 THE WITNESS: I don't recall having seen it. 15 BY MR. CRICK: 16 Q And I think it may be copied on both pages. 17 A Uh-huh. 18 Q If you go to the affidavit of Nancy Higley, 19 yes. 20 MR. MACE: He's on the CV. I think you wanted 21 the affidavit. 9:34:00 22 BY MR. CRICK: 23 Q There you go. It's a two-page affidavit signed 24 by Nancy Higley notarized by Stephanie Schrimpf Thomson. 25 Do you know her to be an attorney for Givaudan, 72 1 don't you? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q Did Nancy Higley show you this document before 4 she signed it? 5 A Again, I don't recall having seen this document, 6 sir. 7 Q She says in Paragraph 5 -- or actually she says 9:34:30 8 in her affidavit, "I, Dr. Nancy A. Higley, being first 9 duly sworn, deposed and state that, Number 1, I am 10 employed by Givaudan Roure Flavors Corporation, formerly 11 Tastemaker, in the position of Vice President Product 12 Safety and Regulatory Assurance." 13 Do you see that? 14 MR. MACE: Objection. Move to strike. 15 BY MR. CRICK: 16 Q And in Paragraph 5 she says, quote, "I 17 understand that Walter Vaske may have attributed his 18 bronchiolitis obliterans condition to exposure to 9:35:00 19 acetaldehyde. When I became aware of this issue, I 20 conducted a comprehensive review of scientific literature 21 on this subject of any relationship between bronchiolitis 22 obliterans and acetaldehyde and did not find any reported 23 association," closed quote. 24 Did I read that right? 25 MR. MACE: Objection. Move to strike. 73 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 2 BY MR. CRICK: 3 Q Did you or Tastemaker/Givaudan, to your 4 knowledge, ever tell the industrial commission of Ohio 5 that exposure to acetaldehyde will cause bronchiolitis 9:35:30 6 obliterans? 7 MR. MACE: Objection, compound. Objection, 8 assumes. Objection, foundation. Object to the form. 9 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of that having 10 occurred. 11 BY MR. CRICK: 12 Q In fact, the company actually was criticized 13 by John Hochstrasser as looking too much at acetaldehyde. 14 Isn't that true? 15 MR. MACE: Objection. 16 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of that particular 9:36:00 17 statement. 18 MR. CRICK: I'll show you Exhibit Number 8, 19 which is a February 25, 1997 e-mail from John 20 Hochstrasser to Karen Duros, Nancy Higley and Glenn 21 Ingraham. 22 (Exhibit 8 marked) 23 BY MR. CRICK: 24 Q That's you, isn't it? 25 A Yes, sir. 74 1 Q So this would have been an e-mail you would have 2 received. This would have been an e-mail you would have 9:36:30 3 received; correct? 9:37:43 4 A Yes, sir, along with many, many more, I'm sure. 5 Q What do you mean, many, many more e-mails you 6 would have received? 7 A Oh, certainly. 8 Q This particular one is from Mr. Hochstrasser, 9 who at this time was your boss, right? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q He said quote, "I will follow up with Lewis and 9:38:00 12 Bruce on Thursday to see if any additional issues had 13 been raised. Also, I'm going to meet with Roy McKay upon 14 his return to determine why he singled out acetaldehyde 15 in his training again, and why he continues to exercise 16 channel vision when he knows that the problem may be much 17 broader in scope." 18 Did I read that right? 9:38:30 19 MR. MACE: Objection, rule of completeness. 20 MR. CRICK: Wait. 21 BY MR. CRICK: 22 Q Did I read that right? 23 A Yes, sir, you did. 24 MR. MACE: Objection, rule of completeness. 25 It goes on to say, "I am now concerned that this 75 1 constant focus on acetaldehyde is detracting from the 2 message that we want to deliver to our facilities 3 regarding the need for caution when handling flavor 4 ingredients." And goes on to say, "We certainly don't 5 want employees (including management) to get a message 6 they need to be very cautious in handling acetaldehyde 7 and disregard those precautions with handling 8 gluteraldehyde or butyraldehyde." 9:39:00 9 BY MR. CRICK: 10 Q When you were investigating the cause of lung 11 disease at your company, was it the thought that the 9:39:30 12 prognosis for identifying a single etiologic agent was 13 not good? 14 MR. MACE: Objection, timing. Objection to the 15 form. 16 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure that I understand 17 your question, sir. Could you -- 18 BY MR. CRICK: 19 Q It was difficult to try to find which specific 20 chemical was causing the disease because you use so many? 21 A When evaluating the impact on respiratory 9:40:00 22 health, yes. When you have so many raw materials, it's a 23 challenge. 24 Q And there could have been two or more chemicals 25 acting synergistically to cause the problem? 76 1 MR. MACE: Objection; calls for speculation. 2 Object to the form. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. That's why we -- that's 4 why we included the experts that we did. 5 BY MR. CRICK: 6 Q And synergistically, does that mean that when 7 Chemical A and Chemical B are mixed together, that 9:40:30 8 together they had the potential of creating this problem? 9 Is that what synergistically means? 10 MR. MACE: Objection. 11 THE WITNESS: Well, actually, no, sir. 12 Synergism -- synergy really describes the increased 13 effect that two or more materials can have together 14 beyond the addition of their individual effects. So in 15 this case, it's 1 plus 1 equals 3 is the better example. 9:41:00 16 BY MR. CRICK: 17 Q Much better stated than what I said. Thank you. 18 Let's take a five-minute break. 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 9:41 a.m. 20 (Recess taken) 9:41:30 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 9:53 a.m. 9:52:42 22 Beginning of Tape Number 2. 9:53:00 23 BY MR. CRICK: 24 Q You're familiar with material safety data sheets? 25 A Yes, sir. 77 1 Q Did you have a role with regard to the 9:53:30 2 production of material safety data sheets for products 3 that Tastemaker and Givaudan were making? 4 A No. Any MSDS's, material safety data sheets 5 that were prepared were done, I believe, through 6 Dr. Higley. 7 Q So you were never asked to even review material 8 safety data sheets that were going out with any of the 9:54:00 9 butter flavoring products? 10 A Not to my knowledge. 11 Q Were you asked to give any consultation with 12 regard to material safety data sheets that were going out 13 with the products? 14 A No, no, sir. 15 Q You indicated you had contact with one -- strike 16 that. 17 Do you know how the material data sheets were 18 even prepared? 19 A No. I was aware that there was a process and, 9:54:30 20 again, I believe -- I apologize if I'm not completely 21 correct here -- but I believe that Dr. Higley had 22 developed a process for accumulation of relevant data on 23 a material that would have included information needed to 24 produce material safety data sheets. 25 Q This task force that you were on to investigate 78 9:55:00 1 the cause of bronchiolitis obliterans at the Tastemaker 2 plant, how were material safety data sheets for Givaudan 3 products changed because of that investigation? 4 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes. Objection to the 5 form. Objection, foundation. 6 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of changes that 7 occurred as a result of that investigation. 8 BY MR. CRICK: 9 Q You indicated that you had communication or a 10 plant visit at the popcorn plant in Iowa you thought 9:55:30 11 might be a General Mills plant? 12 A That is correct, sir. 13 Q What was the occasion of your going to that 14 plant? 15 A We had been contacted by General Mills because 16 they were experiencing occupational health issues 17 relative to the use of the butter flavoring, specifically 9:56:00 18 dermal issues, skin issues -- with skin irritation issues 19 with regard to the butter flavors. 20 Q Now, this would have been around what year, '99, 21 2000? 22 A I want to say '99. 23 Q Okay. So did you go to that plant on one or 24 more occasions? 25 A I believe it was two occasions, yes, sir. 79 1 Q And who did you meet with at that plant? 2 A I'm probably not going to have the names right, 9:56:30 3 it's been a few years, but I believe there was an EHS 4 person at the facility. There was -- if I saw a list of 5 names I could probably pick them out. But I think it was 6 an EHS person from the facility, maybe a division or 7 corporate EHS person, some of their production people, 8 and I think they had an occupational physician. And I 9 believe the name Crimmans -- like Dr. Crimmans comes to 10 mind. I don't know if that's accurate or not. 9:57:00 11 Q So you went and Janice Flick went? 12 A She may have gone on one of those two trips, 13 yes. 14 Q Who else besides you do you recall having gone 15 on those trips? 16 A I recall at least one of those trips Don Ball, 17 our engineering director, and I think a salesperson was 18 on at least one of the trips. I recall that one trip 19 there was a much larger contingent from Givaudan than 20 there was on the other trip. But I, again, don't recall 9:57:30 21 who was on which one. 22 Q And your role was to check their equipment to 23 determine if there were any problems? 24 MR. MACE: Objection. 25 /// 80 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q Strike that. 3 What was your role? What did you do when you 4 went to the plant? 5 A They asked that we visit their facility, review 6 their procedures for and practices in handling our 9:58:00 7 product in their microwave popcorn manufacturing process, 8 and evaluate and determine if there were improvements 9 that they might be able to make to help resolve some of 10 their dermal exposure issues that they were identifying. 9:58:30 11 Q Did you do that? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q What did you recommend? 14 A Again, I'm sure that the archives are going to 15 be much more accurate than my memory. But as I recall, 16 we identified material transfer issues that were 17 contributing to housekeeping problems they were having. 18 And I don't mean to denigrate the folks and 9:59:00 19 their facility, but it was a mess. Their ability to 20 properly implement basic occupational health and safety 21 or industrial hygiene practices to manage exposure risks 22 were less than adequate. 23 Q Now, do you know how many years General Mills 24 had been buying product from Tastemaker or Givaudan? 25 MR. MACE: Objection. 81 1 THE WITNESS: No, sir, I do not. 2 BY MR. CRICK: 3 Q Do you know how many times someone from 9:59:30 4 Tastemaker or Givaudan had been to that plant before? 5 A No, I do not. 6 Q Do you know how many thousands or millions of 7 dollars General Mills had paid to Givaudan or Tastemaker 8 in the years before you got there for butter flavoring? 9 MR. MACE: Objection. Objection, compound. 10 Objection, relevance. Objection, move to strike. 10:00:00 11 THE WITNESS: Sir, that would not be information 12 I had access to. 13 BY MR. CRICK: 14 Q But in any event, General Mills had a question 15 about the butter flavoring and health, and you went there 16 to help them address problems? 17 A That would be fair, yes, sir. 18 Q Did you tell them about the problems that 19 Tastemaker and Givaudan had with regard to Cliff Walker? 10:00:30 20 MR. MACE: Objection. 21 THE WITNESS: That wasn't relevant, sir. No, we 22 did not. 23 BY MR. CRICK: 24 Q Did you tell them about your own medical 25 monitoring at the plant in the other individuals who had 82 1 claimed sensitization for being around diacetyl? 2 MR. MACE: Objection to form. Objection. 3 You can answer. 4 THE WITNESS: Again, sir, that wouldn't have 5 been relevant to them. 6 BY MR. CRICK: 7 Q Did you tell them about the investigation into 8 bronchiolitis obliterans at your plant? 9 A I had no relevance to them, no, sir. 10:01:00 10 Q Do you understand that individuals from that 11 plant have been diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans? 12 MR. MACE: Objection. 13 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection. 14 MR. MACE: Move to strike. 15 THE WITNESS: In our discussions, before, during 16 and after our visits to General Mills, at no time was 10:01:30 17 there any indication, to my knowledge, that there were 18 respiratory issues. They were characterized purely as 19 dermal issues. This is just based on my recollection of 20 the events. 21 BY MR. CRICK: 22 Q So any recommendations that you made to General 10:02:00 23 Mills had more to do with protecting employees from skin 24 irritation than from any other real issue? 25 A Well, that may have been our primary focus. But 83 1 let me emphasize that as an industrial hygienist, I'm 2 going to provide recommendations for the variety of 3 exposure routes that could occur. 4 And while skin irritation was clearly the 10:02:30 5 primary motivator or initiator for our visit, I would 6 have certainly provided them with exposure control 7 recommendations for any route of exposure that would have 8 been evident. 9 Q But you certainly never told them that inhaling 10 butter flavoring or diacetyl could cause lung problems? 10:03:00 11 MR. MACE: Objection. 12 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't have told them that, 13 sir, because that wasn't something we recognized as an 14 issue. 15 BY MR. CRICK: 16 Q And you didn't tell them about the bronchiolitis 17 obliterans at your own plant? 18 MR. MACE: Objection, asked and answered. 19 Object to the form. Objection. 20 You can answer. 21 BY MR. CRICK: 22 Q Sir? 23 A Sir, that wasn't relevant to the -- 24 Q I see. Do you receive any professional 25 journals? 84 1 A Sure. 2 Q What journals do you receive? 10:03:30 3 A The American Industrial Hygiene Association 4 journal. 5 Q Is that it? 6 A That's one. I mean, there are other magazines, 7 I hesitate to call them journals, that are produced by 8 various entities within the environmental health and 9 safety world. But in terms of journals, it would be the 10 American Industrial Hygiene Association. 11 Q And is the American Industrial Hygiene 12 Association journal a valuable resource to you? 10:04:00 13 A It contains information relevant to issues that 14 I face in my field. 15 Q Have you ever written -- strike that. 16 When you say it has information, what kind of 17 information would be in an AIHA journal? 18 A It varies widely. Typically information 19 regarding the assessment of various workplace chemical or 10:04:30 20 physical stressors, equipment that might be used, 21 variables that could influence accuracy. It's a pretty 22 broad field. 23 Q Have you ever written any articles for 24 publication in a journal? 10:05:00 25 A Yeah, but it didn't get published. 85 1 Q What was the article on? 2 A It was on the modification of custom molded 3 insert-type hearing protectors. A fascinating read. 4 Q Did you ever write an article that had anything 5 to do with the bronchiolitis obliterans at the Tastemaker 6 or Givaudan plant? 7 MR. MACE: Objection. 8 THE WITNESS: No, sir. 9 BY MR. CRICK: 10 Q Do you attend industrial hygiene conferences? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And why? 13 A To gain professional knowledge. 10:05:30 14 Q Okay. Have you ever spoken at an industrial -- 15 have you ever spoken at an industrial hygiene conference? 16 A Yes, sir, I have. 17 Q Have you ever spoken on the topic of the 18 bronchiolitis obliterans at the Tastemaker plant? 19 A No, sir, I have not. 20 Q Have you ever made a presentation outside of the 21 company about bronchiolitis obliterans? 10:06:00 22 A No, sir, I have not. 23 Q Have you made a presentation within Tastemaker 24 about bronchiolitis obliterans? 25 A I made a variety of presentations in the course 86 1 of my duties as environmental health and safety manager 2 and corporate senior industrial hygienist with 3 Tastemaker, Givaudan Roure or Givaudan. And it's very 4 likely that in the course of those various training 10:06:30 5 presentations and educational presentations, that 6 bronchiolitis obliterans may have been mentioned. But I 7 don't recall that it would have ever been the subject of 8 a presentation. 9 Q Did you ever give a presentation to all the 10 employees at the Cincinatti facility about the findings 10:07:00 11 of bronchiolitis obliterans at the plant? 12 A Did I ever give a presentation? 13 Q Yes. 14 A Not to my knowledge. I may have been involved 15 in a larger scale presentation that was given to discuss 16 the activities around investigating respiratory issues. 10:07:30 17 Q You mean a meeting to advise employees that 18 there were going to be pulmonary function tests? 19 MR. MACE: Objection. 20 THE WITNESS: Well, yes, and the rationale 21 perhaps for doing them. And I hesitate only because I 22 don't recall the exact nature of the timing. 23 I joined Tastemaker as these programs were 24 already active and presentations had already been made. 10:08:00 25 And it was so early in my employment there, I don't 87 1 recall 10 years ago. I don't recall whether there was a 2 presentation early in my employment I may have been 3 involved in. 4 BY MR. CRICK: 5 Q Are you aware of any written materials given to 6 your employees about the diagnoses of bronchiolitis 7 obliterans at the plant? 8 A I don't recall, no, sir. 9 Q Did you attend a Flavor and Extract 10:08:30 10 Manufacturers Association conference in March of '97 on 11 the topic of respiratory safety in the flavor and 12 fragrance workplace? 13 A Yes, sir. As we previously discussed, there was 14 a presentation -- or rather a seminar, if you will, that 10:09:00 15 I was a part of or that I attended, I should say. 16 Q Do you know why FEMA put on that conference? 17 A I'd be speculating. 18 Q What's your speculation? 19 MR. MACE: Objection, calls for speculation. 20 THE WITNESS: Well, it's purely speculation, but 21 Nancy Higley was heavily involved in FEMA. And it 22 wouldn't surprise me if she had been one of the primary 10:09:30 23 initiators behind this conference. 24 BY MR. CRICK: 25 Q Did Dr. Higley speak at the conference? 88 1 A I don't recall. 2 Q Did you speak at the conference? 3 A No. 4 Q Do you know if Mr. Hochstrasser spoke at the 5 conference? 6 A I don't think he did. 10:10:00 7 Q Do you know of any Givaudan employees who spoke 8 at the conference? 9 A Well, you say Givaudan employees. We were 10 Tastemaker at that time, so -- 11 Q Same plant. Do you know of anyone from your 12 plant who spoke at the conference? 13 MR. MACE: Objection. 14 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. 15 BY MR. CRICK: 16 Q Do you know if Dr. Lockey spoke at the 17 conference? 18 A Again, I apologize. I don't recall the 10:10:30 19 specifics of who spoke. 20 Q I'll show you Exhibit Number 9. 21 (Exhibit 9 marked) 22 BY MR. CRICK: 23 Q Exhibit Number 9 is a March 5, 1997 letter from 24 FEMA to FEMA members regarding a March 27, 1997 10:11:00 25 conference. 89 1 See your name's in handwriting -- 2 A I see that, yes, sir. 3 Q -- at the top. This is the conference that you 4 attended, isn't it? 5 A I believe so. I believe I was only at one FEMA 6 conference, and I think this was it. 7 Q And it says two experts on workplace safety, 8 Cecile Rose, M.D. and John Martyny, Ph.D. would speak. 9 Did you see a doctor and an industrial hygienist 10:11:30 10 speak at the conference? 11 A Again, as I stated previously, I don't recall 12 exactly who spoke. I wouldn't be surprised if these were 13 the exact two individuals who spoke, but -- 14 Q Had you ever met Dr. Rose before? 15 A Not to my knowledge. 16 Q Have you ever met John Martyny before? 17 A Not to my knowledge. 18 Q Do you know if they'd ever done any consultation 19 work for Tastemaker or Givaudan? 20 A I don't know whether they had or not. 10:12:00 21 Q Bronchiolitis obliterans was discussed at the 22 conference, though, wasn't it? 23 A If it was, I don't recall that it was, quite 24 honestly. I know we discussed respirators and respirator 10:12:30 25 use and the need for providing respirators. I recall 90 1 that it was focused mainly around the application of 2 respirators and potential health effects that could be 3 avoided by using respirators, in that general area. 4 Q When you were at the conference, did you tell 5 anyone about your experiences with bronchiolitis 6 obliterans at the Tastemaker plant? 10:13:00 7 A No, sir. 8 Q Do you know any industrial hygienists from IFF 9 or BBA? 10 MR. MACE: At any time? Today or at any time? 11 THE WITNESS: No, I don't recall associating 12 with those folks. 13 BY MR. CRICK: 14 Q Do you know any industrial hygienists from any 15 other flavoring companies? 16 A Not off the top of my head, no, sir. 17 Q Are you familiar with the Americans with 10:13:30 18 Disabilities Act? 19 A Somewhat. 20 Q Was one of your jobs at the plant to try to find 21 safe places to work for employees who had been diagnosed 10:14:00 22 with bronchiolitis obliterans? 23 MR. MACE: Objection. 24 THE WITNESS: If I could rephrase that. One of 25 my jobs as the environmental health and safety manager, 91 1 once I had that position, was to determine if we could 2 accommodate individuals who had restrictions imposed on 3 their return to work process. 4 BY MR. CRICK: 5 Q What were the restrictions -- strike that. 10:14:30 6 Did you try to find places in the workplace 7 for some of the individuals who were diagnosed with 8 bronchiolitis obliterans? 9 A Again, excuse me, sir, but that's so specific. 10:15:00 10 I recall that there were individuals who -- for whom work 11 restrictions had been imposed that required that their 12 potential for exposure to chemicals was a significant 13 issue. 14 Q For their breathing? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Okay. Robin Gaskins was one of those people? 10:15:30 17 A I'm sorry, I don't recall the specifics of 18 whether she was somebody who we were trying to get back 19 in or not. It's very, very possible. 20 Q What was the drum sampling area? 21 A There were several areas. I'd be speculating. 22 I don't recall specifically, but perhaps it was an area 10:16:00 23 within the liquids manufacturing department. 24 MR. MACE: Let me object, speculation. Move to 25 strike. 92 1 (Exhibit 10 marked) 2 BY MR. CRICK: 3 Q I'll show you Exhibit Number 10. This is a July 10:16:30 4 17, 1997 letter from James Lockey M.D. to John Barlow 5 regarding Robin Gaskins with a cc to Glenn Ingraham. 6 That would be you? 7 A That's correct. 8 Q Take a look at this letter, please. 9 A Okay. 10:17:00 10 Q This would be a letter that Dr. Lockey wrote and 10:17:41 11 you would have received in July of '97; is that right? 12 A That's correct, sir. 13 Q Dr. Lockey says, referring to Robin Gaskins in 10:18:00 14 the, quote, "Because of her subjective symptomatic 15 improvement when she was away from her workplace and 16 because of the current status of her pulmonary function 17 test results, it is my recommendation that she have an 18 opportunity to work in a job position with no potential 19 for exposure to chemical or physical agents used in a 20 laboratory or production setting at Givaudan Roure. A 21 potential suitable job area may be the corporate office 10:18:30 22 area or perhaps administrative type work that could be 23 done from a home office." 24 Did I read that right? 25 MR. MACE: Objection to the form. Objection, 93 1 hearsay. Move to strike. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, you did. 3 BY MR. CRICK: 4 Q He further said, quote, "If this type of 5 opportunity would not be available, it would then be my 6 suggestion that Ms. Gaskins consider looking for other 7 job opportunities that would not expose her to any 8 potential irritating dusts, gases, fumes or mists." 10:19:00 9 Did I read that right? 10 MR. MACE: Same objections. Move to strike. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, you did. 12 BY MR. CRICK: 13 Q And did you try to find Ms. Gaskins a place at 14 the company where she could work and not be exposed to 15 irritating dusts, gases, fumes or mists? 16 A Certainly if I received this letter, that would 17 have initiated that process. 18 Q Do you know that Ms. Gaskins ended up having to 19 leave the plant? 10:19:30 20 MR. MACE: Objection. 21 THE WITNESS: Okay. 22 BY MR. CRICK: 23 Q Did you try to find alternate employment within 24 the company for Walter Vaske? 25 A I remember working -- yeah, to work with Walter 94 1 Vaske and within the manufacturing department. 2 Q You know he ended up leaving the plant too? 3 MR. MACE: Objection. 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. 5 BY MR. CRICK: 6 Q Did you try to find alternative employment for 10:20:00 7 Clifford Walker? 8 A I don't recall working with Clifford Walker. 9 Q Did you try to find ultimate employment for Mary 10 Sue McGee? 11 A I don't recall. 12 Q How about for Gary Shea? 13 A Gary Shea seems more familiar, like someone with 14 whom we may have worked more extensively. 15 Q You know McGee, she left the company? 16 MR. MACE: Objection. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't doubt that. I don't know. 18 I don't have those specifics, I apologize. 10:20:30 19 MR. MACE: Objection, speculation. Move to 20 strike. 21 BY MR. CRICK: 22 Q When you were doing your testing at the plant, 23 did you do any air testing of the use of the product? 24 MR. MACE: Objection. 25 /// 95 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q Strike that. I'm finished with my question. 10:21:00 3 When you were testing at the plant, you were 4 testing in the areas where the products were being made; 5 is that right? 6 A Manufacturing areas, yes, sir. 7 Q Did you do any air testing at the General Mills 8 plant in Iowa? 9 A No, sir, that wouldn't have been appropriate. 10 Q Do you know what level of exposure to diacetyl 10:21:30 11 causes skin irritation? 12 MR. WOODSIDE: Object to the form of the 13 question. 14 THE WITNESS: I would characterize the exposure 15 risk resulting in skin irritation as skin contact. So as 16 a result, airborne concentrations aren't directly 17 relevant. 18 BY MR. CRICK: 19 Q Do you know how eye irritation develops from 20 exposure to diacetyl? Is that from dipping their face 21 into it or from having it in the air? 10:22:00 22 MR. MACE: Objection. What? 23 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any face dipping 24 having occurred in the plant. 25 /// 96 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q So how does eye irritation occur with diacetyl? 3 MR. MACE: Objection, asked and answered. 4 THE WITNESS: As I mentioned earlier, not being 5 a toxicologist, having no specific information regarding 6 causation, but I would draw a connection between vapors 7 in the air and mucous membranes such as those around the 10:22:30 8 eye. 9 BY MR. CRICK: 10 Q Do you know what level of exposure to diacetyl 11 in the air causes lung irritation? 12 MR. MACE: Objection. 13 THE WITNESS: No, sir, I don't. 14 BY MR. CRICK: 15 Q When you were doing your air testing as a part 16 of the bronchiolitis obliterans investigation, did you do 17 any air monitoring of products made by Givaudan as they 18 were used by your customers? 19 MR. MACE: Objection. Objection, assumes. 10:23:00 20 Objection, foundation. Object to the form. Objection, 21 compound. 22 THE WITNESS: No, sir, that wouldn't have been 23 relevant for us. 24 MR. CRICK: Move to strike. And I'll just ask 25 the question again. It's a yes or no question. 97 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q When you were doing your air testing, did you do 3 any air monitoring of Givaudan products, measuring the 4 levels of exposure when those products are used by your 10:23:30 5 customers? 6 MR. MACE: Objection. Same objections. Move to 7 strike. 8 THE WITNESS: I apologize. But for me to answer 9 the question, it needs to be framed a little bit more 10 specifically. And if what you're suggesting is that we 11 may have done air sampling at our customer's facilities, 12 of course that's inappropriate. We wouldn't do that. 13 That's up to them to do that. 14 If it's asking if we tried to set up air 10:24:00 15 sampling to replicate the kind of exposure risk they may 16 experience in their facility, it's so facility, task, 17 equipment, work practice specific that it's really 18 something that the employers at the individual facilities 19 are responsible for performing. And there's really very 20 little relevance from one facility to another. 21 BY MR. CRICK: 22 Q As a part of your group's investigation, did you 23 contact customers of products to see if they were 10:24:30 24 experiencing lung injuries at their plants -- 25 MR. MACE: Objection. 98 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q -- as a part of your information gathering? 3 MR. MACE: Objection. 4 THE WITNESS: No, sir, we weren't. 5 BY MR. CRICK: 6 Q Do you have any specialized knowledge in 10:25:00 7 ventilation? 10:25:55 8 MR. MACE: Objection. 10:26:00 9 You can answer. 10 THE WITNESS: I would not consider that an area 11 of expertise within the field of industrial hygiene for 12 me. 13 BY MR. CRICK: 14 Q You do know that Givaudan/Tastemaker improved 15 the ventilation in its plant? 16 A Improved from -- 17 Q Do you know that they improved the ventilation 18 at their plant? 19 MR. MACE: Objection, compound. Objection to 10:26:30 20 the form. 21 THE WITNESS: Well, we're always improving 22 things, sir. I don't mean to be glib, but continuous 23 improvement. 24 BY MR. CRICK: 25 Q Were you aware that as a result of the discovery 99 1 of the Janice Menock and Joey Wallace, Cliff Walker 2 bronchiolitis obliterans, that changes were made in the 3 ventilation system at Tastemaker? 4 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes. Objection to the 5 form. Objection, compound. 6 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't be surprised if during 7 that period, improvements were made. But again, we were 10:27:00 8 always looking for opportunities for using engineering 9 controls to manage exposure risk. 10 BY MR. CRICK: 11 Q Have you -- do you have any ventilation books 12 that you rely on for your work in industrial hygiene? 13 A I've used the American Conference of 14 Governmental Industrial Hygienists ventilation manual, 15 comes to mind. 16 Q Okay. Anything else? Are you familiar with 10:27:30 17 HEMEON on ventilation? 18 A No. 19 Q What are you familiar with besides the ACGIH 20 book? 21 A I'm familiar with various individuals that may 22 be more knowledgeable regarding ventilation and 23 industrial hygiene. 24 Q Such as? 25 A Jeff Burton is somebody who comes to mind. He's 100 1 an industrial hygienist engineer. 10:28:00 2 Q Would you agree with this statement: A 3 recognition of exact sources of a contaminant and 4 mechanism of contamination is an essential element in a 5 study of many ventilation problems, because it may lead 6 to a more effective solution to the problem than general 7 ventilation? 8 MR. MACE: Did you say "is a," Counsel? I 9 couldn't hear you. 10 MR. WOODSIDE: Could you read that again, 11 because when you got to the "is" or whatever part, it was 12 garbled. 13 MR. CRICK: I'll read it again. 10:28:30 14 BY MR. CRICK: 15 Q Would you agree with this statement: A 16 recognition of exact sources of a contaminant and the 17 mechanism of contamination is an essential element in a 18 study of many ventilation problems, because it may lead 19 to a more effective solution to the problem than general 20 ventilation? 21 MR. MACE: Objection. 22 THE WITNESS: That sounds like a very general, 23 but reasonable approach, yes, sir. It's very important 10:29:00 24 to distinguish between the type of contaminants. For 25 example, you handle vapors differently than you handle 101 1 particulates. 2 BY MR. CRICK: 3 Q Would you agree with this: Containment of a 4 good understanding of the character of a given 5 ventilation problem is required before a proper basis for 6 ventilation can be laid? 7 MR. MACE: Objection. 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I would. 9 BY MR. CRICK: 10 Q Have you ever had any discussions with anyone 10:29:30 11 from General Mills or ConAgra -- excuse me. You said 12 General Mills. 13 Have you had any discussions with anyone from 14 Golden Valley or ConAgra? 15 A I recall having conversations with a variety of 16 customers on different issues. I can't exclude them, but 10:30:00 17 I don't recall specifically having had them. 18 Q Do you recall telling anyone from any popcorn 19 company about the problems of bronchiolitis obliterans 20 that Tastemaker had at its plant? 21 MR. MACE: Objection. 22 THE WITNESS: No, sir, it wasn't relevant. 23 BY MR. CRICK: 24 Q You said that you had a meeting of plant 25 employees on one or more occasions and told them a little 102 1 bit about some of the things that were happening. 2 Did you ever invite customers to the plant to 10:30:30 3 talk to them about what you were experiencing and things 4 that perhaps they should be looking for? 5 MR. MACE: Objection, compound. Objection to 6 the form. Objection, assumes. 7 THE WITNESS: If I could qualify the answer just 8 a bit, because -- and I've said this on several 9 occasions, and that is with regard to relevance. 10 Dealing with concentrated materials as raw 11 materials in the manufacturing process is a completely 12 different exposure management industrial hygiene issue 10:31:00 13 than those same compounds in a dilute form with other 14 materials in a completely different manufacturing 15 environment. 16 So issues -- occupational health issues that may 17 have been observed or identified when handling raw 18 materials are completely different than occupational 19 health issues that may occur when handling finished form 10:31:30 20 products. 21 BY MR. CRICK: 22 Q So you attended a FEMA conference on respiratory 23 safety in the flavoring workplace; correct? 24 A That's correct. 25 Q Did Tastemaker ever sponsor a seminar for its 103 1 customers on respiratory safety in workplaces that use 2 flavoring products? 3 A No, sir, we did not. 10:32:00 4 Q I don't have any other questions. Thank you. 5 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. MACE: 8 Q Mr. Ingraham, I believe you said you were hired 9 in February of '96 as the corporate industrial hygienist 10:32:30 10 for Tastemaker? 11 A That's correct. 12 Q And in '97, after Roche purchased the Tastemaker 13 plant through Givaudan Roure, what was your title then? 14 A I was offered the position of environmental 15 health and safety manager for Cincinatti area facilities. 16 Q And you worked in that position until July of 17 '01? 18 A That's correct. 19 Q Throughout your involvement at the Cincinatti 20 plant from '96 to 2001, did you ever form a belief that 21 diacetyl was causing any lung disease in employees at the 10:33:00 22 plant? 23 A No, sir, I did not. 24 Q Did you ever form a belief that butter flavoring 25 was causing any lung disease in employees at the plant? 104 1 A No, we did not. 2 Q Was Dr. Lockey given full access to all the 3 available information at the plant? 4 A Yeah. It was manufacturing processes, 5 chemicals, work practices, everything was very 6 transparent to the consultants we had hired. 7 Q At any point in time did Dr. Lockey or any of 8 the outside experts ever suggest to you that diacetyl or 10:33:30 9 butter flavoring was causing any lung disease in 10 employees at the plant? 11 A No, it was not. 12 Q Did you have discussions with Dr. Lockey 13 regarding potential causative agents? 14 A Yes. 15 Q What do you recall Dr. Lockey saying about that? 16 A I recall that Dr. Lockey alluded to two 10:34:00 17 different possible sources of -- or agents that may be -- 18 may have been responsible for or contributing to 19 respiratory issues at the facility. And one of them was 20 acetaldehyde and the other was large molecular weight 21 proteins. 22 Q Do you recall what it was that he said about 23 these high molecular weight proteins? 24 A I recall that he was -- he was attributing the 10:34:30 25 health effects that could occur from exposure to these 105 1 materials; that he was linking the exposure and their 2 subsequent health effects to some of the industrial 3 asthma-type conditions that could occur. 4 Q Is either diacetyl or butter flavoring a high 5 molecular weight protein? 10:35:00 6 A Not to my knowledge, no. 7 Q In any of these discussions at any point did 8 Dr. Lockey ever suggest diacetyl as the cause of lung 9 disease at Tastemaker? 10 A No. 11 Q In any of these discussions at any point did 12 Dr. Lockey ever suggest butter flavor as the cause of 13 lung disease at Tastemaker? 14 A No, he did not. 15 Q Did Dr. Lockey ever suggest that it was a 16 product that was going out the door to the customer that 17 was causing any lung disease? 18 MR. CRICK: Form. 19 THE WITNESS: No. 20 BY MR. MACE: 21 Q Are you aware of a single recommendation that 22 Dr. Lockey made that Tastemaker did not follow? 10:35:30 23 A No, I'm not. 24 Q Did you ever think that a product that 25 Tastemaker or Givaudan was shipping out the door was 106 1 causing bronchiolitis obliterans or lung disease? 2 A No, I had no reason to believe that. 3 Q Throughout this period you were involved, from 4 '96 to 2001, did you ever hear anybody even suggest that 5 a product that Tastemaker was shipping out the door was 6 causing bronchiolitis obliterans or lung disease? 7 A No, not at all. 8 Q Did you ever feel that any of your customers had 9 a risk of similar issues? 10 MR. CRICK: Leading. 11 THE WITNESS: No, I did not. 10:36:00 12 BY MR. MACE: 13 Q Did Dr. Lockey or any of the outside consultants 14 ever recommend that Tastemaker notify any customer about 15 any respiratory issues or preventative measures? 16 A No, I don't recall that that ever occurred. 17 Q You were asked whether you told any customers 18 about bronchiolitis obliterans issues at the plant. 19 Why didn't you tell any customers about that? 20 A Well, again, the factors contributing to adverse 10:36:30 21 health effects and exposure vary widely by facility. 22 They're very specific to the tasks, the controls, 23 environmental conditions and work practices that exist at 24 each facility. 25 And again, handling raw materials that is pure 107 1 substances in their raw form, is a completely different 2 industrial hygiene exposure challenge than is handling 10:37:00 3 more dilute materials in their final form in a product. 4 Q I think you mentioned before, approximately how 5 many raw materials were used at the Tastemaker plant? 6 A The number 4,500 comes to mind. 7 Q To the best of your knowledge, were any of those 8 raw materials sent to the ConAgra plant or any customer 9 that was using butter flavorings? 10 A Not to my knowledge, no. 11 Q As part of the investigation at the Tastemaker 10:37:30 12 plant, was there any discussion about general 13 environmental factors in the Cincinatti area? 14 A Yeah. As we were evaluating respiratory issues, 15 it's perfectly reasonable to consider nonoccupational 16 influences as contributing factors to respiratory 17 conditions. 18 Q Was there anything discussed with respect to the 10:38:00 19 environmental factors in the Cincinatti area 20 specifically? 21 A Well, sure. Sure. We were interested in 22 understanding the prevalence of asthma, for example, in 23 that area so that we could understand if health 24 conditions that were being observed in the facility were 25 consistent with background in the population or were they 108 10:38:30 1 overtly unique. 2 Q And was there any geographic factors with regard 3 to Cincinatti that were discussed about that? 4 A Well -- and I'm not a geographist, if that's a 5 correct use of the term -- but lying as it did in, as I 6 believe, the Ohio Valley, at least my conversations with 7 Dr. Lockey, suggested that that imposed a respiratory 8 stress, if you will, on residents of the Ohio Valley. 10:39:00 9 And that as a result, respiratory issues may have been 10 more prevalent. 11 Q Mr. Crick mentioned Dr. Baughman. What was 12 Dr. Baughman's role? 13 A Dr. Baughman really served as what I would 14 describe as the employee advocate, physician for 15 employees. 16 Q You mentioned Dr. Lockey, Dr. McKay, Dr. Pinney 10:39:30 17 was mentioned. Did Tastemaker have the in-house 18 technical expertise needed to look into these issues? 19 A Well, we had a Ph.D. industrial hygienist, 20 Dr. John Hochstrasser, who was there when I got there. 21 In fact, he was my boss. Dr. Nancy Higley, a 22 toxicologist, I think set a good foundation for beginning 23 to understand the resources that were needed to fully 10:40:00 24 investigate the issue. 25 Q Did you say an outside industrial hygienist 109 1 helped? 2 A Certainly. 3 Q Did you obtain outside toxicology help? 4 A Again, if we did -- I don't recall specifically, 5 but if we did, it was through Nancy. And again, it had 6 to do with this grouping of chemicals that I referred to 7 earlier. 8 Q You were asked about breathing problems due to 10:40:30 9 diacetyl at the plant, and you were an industrial 10 hygienist. Was your office at that plant when you were 11 an industrial hygienist there? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And you became the EHS manager for that plant. 14 Were there any health effects that you saw with 15 respect to diacetyl? 16 A I observed, in my capacity as EHS manager, 17 dermal irritation, dermal issues, skin issues associated 10:41:00 18 with contact, physical skin contact with diacetyl. 19 Q You were asked about the General Mills plant. 20 You said you visited that plant? 21 A That's correct. 22 Q On how many occasions? 23 A I believe on two occasions. 24 Q What did you find there? 25 A We found some significant challenges in exposure 110 1 management of skin contact to industrial hygiene 10:41:30 2 practices. They were significantly challenged in their 3 ability to provide proper housekeeping around the 4 additions and transfers of the materials in their 5 manufacturing processes. 6 Q Dimethyl sulfide was mentioned. Did you have 7 any issues at the Cincinatti plant with dimethyl sulfide? 10:42:00 8 A Issues that were no different than any other 9 smelly material that our folks worked with. 10 Q Did you have any complaints of physical symptoms 11 or complaints of injuries with respect to dimethyl 12 sulfide? 13 A Not that I recall, no. 14 Q What involvement did you have with the PFT 10:42:30 15 testing? 16 A The PFT testing, or pulmonary function testing, 17 was the screening test that was done. And my role was to 18 help coordinate the communication between some of our 19 outside folks and internal resources over time and to 20 help make sure that data was made available to our 10:43:00 21 outside consultants. 22 Q Did you receive any training with regard to the 23 PFT testing? 24 A Yeah. After I'd been at the facility for a few 25 years, I don't recall exactly how long it was or when 111 1 this occurred, I attended Dr. Roy McKay's multi-day 2 training seminar on pulmonary function testing, which 3 qualified me to perform pulmonary function testing. 4 Q What did you learn about PFTs? 10:43:30 5 A I learned that it's a very sensitive test. It's 6 a test that is subject to many variables. And if not 7 done consistently with specific volumetric equipment, as 8 opposed to flow based equipment, and if not done with 9 specific attention to, again, those variables and 10 conditions that affect the outcome of the test, you can 10:44:00 11 have some have significant variability in the outcome in 12 the results of the test. 13 Q Did Dr. McKay look at some of the historical 14 PFT testing that had been done at Tastemaker prior to his 15 involvement? 16 A It's my understanding that he did, yes. 17 Q Do you recall getting a report back on that? 18 A I don't recall the specific report or the nature 19 of the report. I remember the gist of the conversation, 20 though, and it was consistent with his position on this 21 issue. And that is, that the testing that had been done 10:44:30 22 previous to his involvement, hadn't been done at a level 23 of quality that made the test results directly comparable 24 to the results that he was producing. They weren't at 25 the level that they needed to be. 112 1 Q Let me show you what we're marking as Exhibit 11. 10:45:00 2 (Exhibit 11 marked) 3 BY MR. MACE: 4 Q Do you recognize that? 5 A This appears to be a result of an analysis by 6 DataChem Laboratory that conducts analysis of samples. 10:45:30 7 Q What role did DataChem have in the 8 investigation? 9 A When industrial hygiene sampling was done, 10 DataChem was a laboratory to which the samples could be 11 sent for analysis. 12 Q And it says, "Contact Ingraham." 13 Were you one of the main contacts with DataChem? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And what -- on this particular document, what is 16 it showing in terms of how many or quantity of samples 10:46:00 17 were examined? 18 A This is an invoice showing that approximately 19 six samples were taken, and they were subjected to what's 20 known as an aldehyde screen, which would produce results 21 showing what, if any, aldehydes were present in the 22 sample. 23 Q You mentioned the fact that Dr. Higley, 10:46:30 24 potentially with the help of outside services, was 25 looking into the health issues with various groups of 113 1 chemicals. There was some testimony about that? 2 A Uh-huh, that's correct. 3 Q Do you recall ever getting reports back on the 4 status of those investigations? 10:47:00 5 A I don't, again, recall the specific documents, 6 but I do recall Dr. Higley sharing with me that they had 7 concluded their screening of aliphatic aldehydes, for 8 example, and that they had information around that group 9 compounds. 10 MR. CRICK: Move to strike. Hearsay. 11 MR. MACE: I'll go ahead and mark Exhibit 12. 12 (Exhibit 12 marked) 13 BY MR. MACE: 14 Q What is Exhibit 12, Mr. Ingraham? 10:47:30 15 A Exhibit 12 is a memo from myself to Jerry 16 Biscopink, Karen Duros, Nancy Higley and John 17 Hochstrasser, copying John Barlow, Paul Farrell and Jim 18 Steinke. 19 And its subject is meeting summary from the 20 aliphatic aldehyde BRT, which would have been barrier 10:48:00 21 removal team. 22 Q Just briefly, what was the aliphatic aldehyde 23 BRT or what was its purpose? 24 A As I recall, it was a group that was established 25 and chartered to assess opportunities for control around 114 1 the use of aliphatic aldehydes in our organization. 10:48:30 2 Q Let me show you Exhibit 13. 3 (Exhibit 13 marked) 4 BY MR. MACE: 5 Q What is that? 6 A This is a June 25, 1997 announcement regarding 10:49:00 7 the employee medical surveillance program. 8 Q Did this go out over your name? 9 A Yes, it is -- or yes, it did. 10 Q Did the pulmonary function testing continue 11 after Roche purchased Tastemaker? 12 A Yes. And that appears to be the essence of this 13 memo or this announcement. 14 Q Okay. I'll show what you we're going to mark as 10:49:30 15 Exhibit 14. 16 (Exhibit 14 marked) 17 BY MR. MACE: 18 Q What is that? 19 A This brings back some memories. This is a 20 document that is titled "Uniform Job Title Project." 10:50:00 21 And this document appears to be one that was 22 used to create a functional job title for individuals or 23 groups of individuals as compared to their HR job titles. 24 Q Were you involved in that process? 25 A Oh, certainly. 115 1 Q Counsel asked you about Dr. Pinney and some 10:50:30 2 efforts that were made to try to identify people with 3 respiratory issues and whether it linked up to a 4 particular job title, work area and things. Was that 5 part of that process? 6 MR. CRICK: I didn't ask that. I object to the 7 form. 8 MR. MACE: You did refer to Dr. Pinney and her 9 attempts. We can look back at the record. 10 BY MR. MACE: 11 Q But you can answer. 12 A Yes, this document and its associated documents 13 would have supported that process. 14 MR. CRICK: I object to those questions. 10:51:00 15 There's no date on what you just asked. 16 MR. MACE: I'll show you Exhibit 15. 17 (Exhibit 15 marked) 18 BY MR. MACE: 19 Q I'm going to direct your attention to the back 20 where your name is listed on some of the assigned to 21 columns. 10:51:30 22 Exhibit 15 is entitled "Tastemaker EMS Project: 23 Respiratory Health Program, Data Acquisition and 24 Management." 25 On the back of it there's three items assigned 116 1 to G. Ingraham. First one combined, sort and review job 2 duties towards goal of developing uniform job titles, 3 resolve conflicts with UJT, develop a work center map. 10:52:00 4 Do you recall those recommendations? 5 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, yeah. It makes sense, 7 yes. 8 BY MR. MACE: 9 Q What was that a part of? 10 A Well, this again would have been part of the 11 data collation process to be able to support the 12 activities of data management by Dr. Pinney and our 10:52:30 13 outside consultants. 14 Q I'll show you what we're going to mark as 15 Exhibit 16. 16 (Exhibit 16 marked) 17 BY MR. MACE: 18 Q First I'll ask, are those your handwritten 19 initials on the bottom? 20 A Yes, they are. 21 Q What is this? 22 A This is a memo to Karen Duros from Paul Farrell 23 and myself dated May 9th of '96, regarding the 10:53:00 24 respiratory protection program. 25 Q What was the purpose of your memo? 117 1 A It appears to be a response to a letter from 2 Dr. Roy McKay. The purpose of my memo is to provide a 10:53:30 3 follow-up or to address specific issues that were in the 4 letter from Dr. Roy McKay. 5 Q You were asked some questions about VSSR, 6 violation of specific safety statutes, and whether some 7 employees had made claims that Givaudan or Tastemaker had 8 violated some Ohio regulations or laws. 10:54:00 9 Did you look into those issues at all? 10 A Yes. I was -- I played a role in providing 11 information to support the investigation of those issues. 12 Q Did you make any conclusions as to whether any 13 such regulations had been or had not been violated? 14 MR. CRICK: Calls for conclusions of law. I 15 object. 16 THE WITNESS: My take, based upon the 17 information that I had, was that those specific safety 10:54:30 18 rules had not been violated. But I'm not a lawyer. 19 MR. MACE: Let me show you what we're going to 20 mark as Exhibit 17. 21 (Exhibit 17 marked) 22 BY MR. MACE: 23 Q Is that your signature on the back? 24 A Yes, it is. 25 Q What was this? 118 1 A This is a letter from myself and Janice Dees to 10:55:00 2 Dr. Jim Lockey dated August 20th of '96. 3 Q And which employee does this refer to? 4 A This refers to Robin Gaskins. 5 Q And in the second to the last paragraph on the 6 first page, what substance are you referring to? 7 MR. CRICK: I object to the forms of all these 8 questions as improper use of documents. 10:55:30 9 BY MR. MACE: 10 Q You can answer. 11 A The substance specifically referred to is the 12 group of chemicals known as aldehydes. 13 Q Do you recall Ms. Gaskins having any 14 sensitivities to aldehydes? 15 A My recollection is that it was her memory of 16 exposure to aldehydes that played a key role in helping 10:56:00 17 to guide our experts' conclusion that the respiratory 18 health issues were related to aldehydes, ethyl aldehyde 19 in particular. 20 MR. CRICK: Another rule of completeness. 21 I'll read from the second page where you said, 22 quote, "Additional sources of chemical sensitivity for 10:56:30 23 Robin include volatile emissions from the drum sampling 24 area," closed quote. 25 MR. MACE: Let me show you what we'll mark as 119 1 Exhibit 18. 2 (Exhibit 18 marked) 3 BY MR. MACE: 4 Q Do you recognize that? 5 A I recognize this is a memo -- an e-mail from 6 myself to Mike Connor, yes. 7 Q Were the two statements you made at the end of 10:57:00 8 the e-mail the last two sentences? 9 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 10 THE WITNESS: I can read from this, if you'd 11 like. 12 BY MR. MACE: 13 Q Please. 14 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 15 THE WITNESS: "Dr. Lockey also agreed that it 16 would be prudent to help Robin understand that the 17 workplace is far from the only place that she could 18 experience exposures that could be detrimental to her 19 health. That, in fact, she stands a greater risk at home 20 or at the gas pump than she does here in her current 10:57:30 21 position." 22 MR. CRICK: Move to strike. 23 BY MR. MACE: 24 Q What did you mean by that when you said that? 25 A Well, based on my conversations with Dr. Lockey, 120 1 we understood that everyday life is full of exposures, 2 whether you're pumping gas at the gas pump or using 3 cleaning agents at home or working on painting something 4 in your garage. That exposures are everywhere, and that 5 because of the efforts that were performed at Tastemaker 10:58:00 6 and subsequently Givaudan, that workplace exposure risks 7 were not the only source for potentially hazardous health 8 conditions to someone like Robin. 9 Q As part of the investigation, did you, at least 10 with respect to some of these employees, get information 11 from others in terms of what the employees' exposures had 12 been at the plant? 10:58:30 13 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 14 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I completely 15 understand the question. Could you rephrase it, please? 16 MR. CRICK: Do you have a lot more? 17 MR. MACE: Not a whole lot more. 18 MR. CRICK: Can we take a restroom break? 19 MR. MACE: Okay. 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 10:58 a.m. 21 (Recess taken) 10:59:00 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 11:04 p.m. 11:03:32 11:04:00 23 BY MR. MACE: 24 Q Referring back to Exhibit 18, Mr. Ingraham, was 25 that a true and accurate copy of your e-mail? 121 1 A Yes. 2 Q Let me show you what we've mark as Exhibit 19. 3 (Exhibit 19 marked) 4 BY MR. MACE: 5 Q What is that? 6 A This appears to be a note from Jeff Christ to 11:04:30 7 myself regarding Walt Vaske. 8 Q Were you provided any information regarding what 9 Mr. Vaske's exposures were? 10 MR. CRICK: I don't understand your question. 11 Object to the form. 12 BY MR. MACE: 13 Q You can answer. 14 A In this e-mail, yes, Jeff Christ lists that Walt 15 was using acetaldehyde as an ingredient during his work. 16 Q Is this a true and accurate copy of an e-mail 11:05:00 17 you received from Mr. Christ? 18 A Yes, it appears to be. 19 Q You made a comment earlier about -- counsel was 20 asking you some questions about workplace health issues 21 can affect the bottom line. What does that mean? 22 A Well, it certainly can mean different things to 11:05:30 23 different folks. But to me, what it means is that it's 24 important that workplace health issues be properly 25 managed, because not managing them can result in employee 122 1 injury, employee illness. It can result in productivity 2 issues, costs associated with managing injuries or 3 illnesses, and possible shut-down and detrimental impact 11:06:00 4 on the ability of the company to meet its financial 5 targets for a variety of reasons. 6 But emphasizing that, it's identification and 7 prevention of these conditions that's important to help 8 avoid the detrimental impact on the bottom line. 9 Q You were asked whether you told anyone at 11:06:30 10 General Mills that there had been bronchiolitis 11 obliterans at the Tastemaker plant and you said no. Why 12 not? 13 A Well, because what we were evaluating at General 14 Mills was a very different material than what employees 15 were working with that may have been leading to any 16 issues at the Givaudan facility. 17 Materials in their raw form express very 11:07:00 18 different health risk implications than do those same 19 materials in a more dilute form in final product. And 20 maybe even more importantly, the conditions that existed 21 at Tastemaker/Givaudan were completely unique to 22 Tastemaker and Givaudan and had absolutely no relevance 23 to the conditions that may have existed at the final 24 product users. 11:07:30 25 Q You were asked some questions about air 123 1 sampling, and counsel asked you did you do air samples 2 for all the chemicals to which people had claimed a 3 sensitivity to, and you said that was not possible. 4 What did your comment mean? Why not? 5 A Well, when you do air sampling, you do it 6 knowing the media upon which the sample has to be 7 collected and the method -- the analytical method that is 8 used by the lab to determine the amount of that material 11:08:00 9 that had been collected on the media. 10 And if an analytical method had never been 11 developed, then you really have no way of doing any 12 sampling. And you have to do your sampling according to 13 specific methods that are developed. 14 Q You were asked some questions about 15 acetaldehyde. Do you know if acetaldehyde is or is not 11:08:30 16 used in butter flavors that were sent to the ConAgra 17 Marion plant or any other microwave popcorn plant? 18 A No, I'm not aware of the specific constituents 19 of our products. 20 Q Counsel asked you if you ever contacted any 21 customers to see if they had experienced any lung 22 injuries. 23 Did Dr. Lockey ever recommend that you contact 24 any customers to see if they had experienced any lung 11:09:00 25 injuries? 124 1 A Not to my recollection. 2 Q Do you recall any of the outside experts that 3 you brought in recommending that Tastemaker contact 4 customers to see if they had experienced lung injuries? 5 A I don't recall that recommendation ever being 6 made. 7 MR. MACE: Counsel, I don't know if you have a 8 clean company of Farrell Exhibit 1? You were reading 9 from it earlier. 10 MR. CRICK: No. 11 BY MR. MACE: 12 Q Let me show you what was marked as Exhibit 1 at 13 Mr. Farrell's deposition. It's a copy of the AIHA code 11:09:30 14 of ethics. 15 When you told counsel earlier that as a member 16 of the AIHA, words to the effect, that you would follow 17 their ethical canon? 18 A Uh-huh. 19 Q If you could read Canons 2 and 3. Let's start 20 with 2, Canon 2. 21 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 22 You're just having him read from a document. 23 He's your own witness. 24 BY MR. MACE: 25 Q You can answer. 125 1 A Number 2 is, "Counsel affected parties factually 11:10:00 2 regarding potential health risk and precautions necessary 3 to avoid adverse health effects." 4 Q And in terms of these respiratory issues at the 5 Tastemaker plant, did you feel that you fully complied 6 with that provision? 7 A Very much so. 8 Q Did you ever conclude that there was a health 9 risk and precautions necessary to any customers of 10 Tastemaker or Givaudan? 11 A No, we did not. 11:10:30 12 Q What is Cannon 3? 13 A Number 3 is, "Keep confidential personal and 14 business information obtained during the exercise of 15 industrial hygiene activities, except when required by 16 law or overriding health and safety considerations." 17 Q Did you ever determine that there were any 18 overriding health and safety considerations affecting 19 entities outside of the Tastemaker plant itself with 20 respect to these respiratory issues? 21 A No, we did not. 11:11:00 22 MR. CRICK: Cam I see that? Why don't we mark 23 it. 24 MR. MACE: Well, we've got to get a clean copy 25 to mark it. It's got my notes on it. 126 1 MR. CRICK: I'm okay with this. It's just got 2 your highlighting. 3 MR. MACE: Well, we can substitute a copy. 4 BY MR. MACE: 5 Q If you'll go to Exhibit 2, please. 11:11:30 6 MR. WOODSIDE: Excuse me. Are we going to give 7 that an Exhibit Number? 8 MR. CRICK: Yeah. 9 (Exhibit 20 marked) 10 BY MR. MACE: 11 Q Counsel was asking you questions about Exhibit 12 2, which was Dr. Lockey's history and physical notes 13 regarding Mr. Walker. 14 Under the "Occupational History," did Dr. Lockey 15 note prior exposures at Proctor and Gamble and Grace 16 Chemical before Mr. Walker ever came to the Tastemaker 11:12:00 17 plant? 18 A Yes, he did. 19 Q And counsel mentioned diacetyl -- 20 MR. CRICK: I move to strike that response. He 21 doesn't know that. He doesn't have any foundation for 22 that. 23 BY MR. MACE: 24 Q Did Dr. Lockey, in this document counsel showed 25 you, also reference the fact that Mr. Walker discussed 127 1 breathing problems from garlics, toasted, and enzymes as 2 well? 3 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, those are also listed here. 5 BY MR. MACE: 6 Q Is there anywhere within this document that 7 counsel showed you where Dr. Lockey says that the cause 11:12:30 8 of any lung disease was diacetyl or butter flavoring? 9 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 10 THE WITNESS: I don't see that in here, no. 11 BY MR. MACE: 12 Q If you'll go to Exhibit 3, you were directed to 13 this table which had a reference to sensitivity. 14 What does sensitivity mean to you? 15 A Sensitivity to the workers who were filling 11:13:00 16 these forms out really means discomfort. It means 17 irritation. And I make that distinction because 18 sensitivity to a toxicologist could mean something quite 19 different. 20 Q You were read some language from the first page 21 about there being 26 employees out of 424, and counsel 22 read this number 16 percent. 11:13:30 23 Is 25 out of 424, 16 percent? 24 A I'd need a calculator. 25 MR. CRICK: It is 16 percent, Damond. 128 11:14:00 1 MR. WOODSIDE: Where are we looking? 2 MR. CRICK: 26 out of 424. 3 MR. WOODSIDE: No, it's not. 4 MR. CRICK: Okay. It doesn't make any 5 difference. 6 BY MR. MACE: 7 Q So let me give you this. You can type in the 8 number. Or if you have a calculator, that's fine. 9 A Well, there's one on my phone. 11:14:30 10 Q If you have access to one, that's fine. That 11 would be great. 11:15:00 12 A All right. 16.3 percent. 13 Q How did you calculate that, sir? 14 A Well, by dividing 424 by 26 and -- actually it's 15 not 16 percent. It's -- well -- 16 Q It's the inverse of that. 17 A Yeah. 18 Q Can we agree -- 11:15:30 19 A 1.06. 20 Q What is 10 percent of 424? 21 MR. CRICK: Who cares? You have disease at the 22 plant. What difference does it make? 23 BY MR. MACE: 24 Q Can you calculate what the correct percentage 25 is, please. 26 divided by the 424, I think you said. 129 1 A Well, it is 6 percent, 6.1. 11:16:00 2 Q Back at the table that we were talking about, in 3 terms of the sensitivities, counsel read to you a few of 4 them. But in terms of the other more than 20, what did 5 the first person list as the sensitivity? 6 MR. CRICK: Move to strike. Object to the form. 7 THE WITNESS: Acetaldehyde is listed as the 11:16:30 8 sensitivity in that first entry. 9 BY MR. MACE: 10 Q And the middle of the page, the "Compounder" and 11 "Liquid," which is the diagnosis of BO -- 12 MR. CRICK: Objection to the form. 13 BY MR. MACE: 14 Q -- counsel pointed out to you, what was the 15 sensitivity? 16 A Acetaldehyde exclusively. 17 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. Move to strike. 18 BY MR. MACE: 19 Q The one below that, what was the sensitivity? 20 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 21 MR. MACE: This is all rule of completeness 22 too. 23 THE WITNESS: Lab tech raw material lab? 24 BY MR. MACE: 11:17:00 25 Q Yes. 130 1 A Acetaldehyde. 2 Q Production superintendent of operation. What 3 did they list? 4 A Acetaldehyde. 5 Q The organo tech and the QC lab? 6 A Acetaldehyde and vanolin and ethyl vanolin. 7 Q Compounder and small orders? 8 A Acetaldehyde, capsicum and peppers. Or, yeah, 9 capsicum and peppers. 10 Q The material handler below that? 11 A Acetaldehyde and M-31, which is the primary 11:17:30 12 ingredient in acetaldehyde. 13 Q QA tech, down at the bottom of the page? 14 A Areas of spray dry acetaldehyde, and vapors in 15 liquids. 16 Q You were shown Exhibit 5. You were asked some 17 questions about the respiratory policies at Tastemaker 11:18:00 18 with regard to wearing respirators around diacetyl. 19 In terms of Item 2 that you were referred to, 20 "Whenever liquid diacetyl or a product where liquid 21 diacetyl is present is used, respirator to be worn." 22 What does diacetyl or a product where liquid 23 diacetyl is present referring to? 24 A Well, it refers to the raw material. Refers to 25 pure diacetyl. 131 1 Q Item Number 3, when it talks about diacetyl in a 11:18:30 2 liquid state, what is that referring to? 3 A Again, it's really referring to pure diacetyl, 4 which may have been intended to intermediates that 5 were -- had a significant concentration in diacetyl. But 6 again the intent is around 100 percent pure raw 7 materials. 8 Q And apart from the liquid, down in Number 9 that 9 deals with powder. When diacetyl is in a powdered state 10 or products containing diacetyl in a powdered state, were 11 respirators required then? 11:19:00 12 A No. 13 MR. CRICK: Did you just say the respirators 14 were not required? 15 THE WITNESS: Not according to this document. 16 MR. CRICK: That's not what he said. I move to 17 strike. 18 (Exhibit 21 marked) 19 BY MR. MACE: 20 Q Let me show you Exhibit 21. 21 Do you recognize that? 22 A It looks like a document that likely was 11:19:30 23 generated during my time at Tastemaker/Givaudan. 24 Q In terms of this reference at the top about 25 respiratory protection with a health hazard label rating 132 1 of 3 or 4, do you recall that being a policy at 2 Tastemaker? 3 A Sure, yes. 4 Q You told counsel there were a number of other 5 substances besides as acetaldehyde and dimethyl sulfide 6 and diacetyl where respirators were required. 11:20:00 7 Does this list some of those other materials? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q And what other materials were listed on here? 10 A A variety of materials including enzymes, 11 glutaraldehyde. Hexane, for example. Alcohols, mustard 12 seed oil, mercaptans, glutaraldehyde, benzaldehyde. 13 Q In terms of your respirator policy and your 11:20:30 14 attempts to improve the working conditions, was that 15 limited to attempts to prevent disease? 16 A No, no, not at all. It's certainly common in 17 application of a respiratory protection program to 18 confine it to those individuals who have established and 19 defined respiratory exposure risk. 11:21:00 20 However, in an environment such as this where 21 you're dealing with a lot of materials that have 22 significant odor nuisance issues, it's not unusual to 23 extend the respiratory protection program to include 24 these other materials. 25 Q And in terms of these employees sensitivities 133 1 you were talking about, was everyone sensitive to the 11:21:30 2 same substances? 3 A No, not at all. 4 Q I have nothing further for you at this time. 5 Thank you. 6 MR. CRICK: Frank? 7 MR. WOODSIDE: I have nothing at this time. 8 9 FURTHER EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. CRICK. 11 Q Mr. Mace read to you from the code of ethics of 12 the American Industrial Hygiene Association. I didn't 13 have it in front of me when you were reading it. 14 Paragraph 3, can you read that full paragraph 11:22:00 15 out loud? 16 A "Keep confidential personal and business 17 information obtained during the exercise of industrial 18 hygiene activities, except when required by law or 19 overriding health and safety considerations." 20 Q What is an overriding health and safety 21 consideration? What does that mean? 22 A That could mean that you recognize that there 11:22:30 23 was a risk of employee injury that transcended or 24 extended beyond the -- and had direct application outside 25 of the environment in which it was determined to exist. 134 11:23:00 1 Q I'm going to ask you to read from the next page 2 of the canons of ethical conduct of the AIHA, Paragraph 3 3, the first bullet point. It's highlighted there. 4 A "Industrial hygienists should report and 5 communicate information which is necessary to protect the 6 health and safety of workers and the community." 7 Q Are you familiar with what we call The Golden 11:23:30 8 Rule? 9 MR. MACE: Objection. 10 THE WITNESS: Could you expand on that, sir? 11 The Golden Rule? 12 BY MR. CRICK: 13 Q Do unto others as you would have them do unto 14 you. Have you ever heard of that? 15 A Yes, sir, I have. 16 Q You never told anybody at General Mills that 17 there were any lung issues going on at your plant, did 18 you? 19 MR. MACE: Objection. 20 THE WITNESS: Sir, the lung issues -- 21 BY MR. CRICK: 22 Q Did you tell anybody at General Mills that there 11:24:00 23 were lung issues at your plant? 24 A It wasn't relevant to them sir, no. 25 Q You didn't tell anybody, did you? 135 1 A No. 2 Q You don't know what a safe level of exposure to 3 diacetyl is today, do you? 4 A I don't work with diacetyl today, sir. 5 Q By the time you left in 2001, after five years 6 at the plant, you did not know what a safe level was of 7 exposure to diacetyl? 8 MR. MACE: Objection. 9 THE WITNESS: Diacetyl was not perceived as a 10 respiratory risk at Givaudan/Tastemaker. 11 BY MR. CRICK: 12 Q Even though you had a report from Cliff Walker 11:24:30 13 who said that he had breathing problems working around 14 diacetyl? 15 A And other compounds, yes. 16 Q Absolutely, and other compounds. What specific 17 investigation did you do to find out whether or not Cliff 18 Walker's breathing problems were because of diacetyl? 19 You didn't do any, did you? 20 MR. MACE: Objection. You don't need to raise 21 your voice, Counsel. 22 MR. CRICK: I'm just insulted by this. 23 MR. MACE: You don't need to raise your voice 24 and be insulting to the witness. 25 /// 136 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q You didn't do any investigation? 3 A That's incorrect. 11:25:00 4 Q What investigation did you do to find out 5 whether or not Cliff Walker's bronchiolitis obliterans 6 was caused by diacetyl or garlic or toasted? 7 A We involved the expertise of significant experts 8 in the field of industrial hygiene, occupational 9 medicine, toxicology and epidemiology at great expense 11:25:30 10 and utilization of resources. 11 Q What animal studies did you sponsor? 12 A That would have been inappropriate. 13 Q Did you do an animal study on any chemical at 14 the plant? 15 A That would have been inappropriate. 16 Q How many people got lung disease at your plant 17 because of exposure to chemicals? 18 MR. MACE: Objection. 19 BY MR. CRICK: 20 Q How many? 21 MR. MACE: Objection. 22 THE WITNESS: The professionals that were 23 brought in to assess this issue conducted studies to 11:26:00 24 determine the answer to those questions. 25 /// 137 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q My question to you is how many people at 3 Tastemaker and Givaudan developed bronchiolitis 4 obliterans? 5 MR. MACE: Objection. 6 BY MR. CRICK: 7 Q How many? 8 A Dr. Lockey's documentation should be able to 9 answer that question. 10 Q There were numerous people at your plant who got 11 bronchiolitis obliterans. Isn't that right? 12 MR. MACE: Objection. 13 BY MR. CRICK: 14 Q Numerous. 15 A I appreciate where you're going with this, but 16 that's subject to significant debate. 11:26:30 17 Q There were numerous individuals at your plant 18 who developed lung injury. Isn't that right? 19 A Pulmonary function tests showed that individuals 20 had experienced or were expressing a variety of health 21 conditions, of respiratory health conditions. 22 Q And Dr. Lockey diagnosed some of these employees 23 as having bronchiolitis obliterans. Is that right? 24 MR. MACE: Objection. 25 THE WITNESS: That's my understanding. 138 11:27:00 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q And do you know what bronchiolitis obliterans 3 is? 4 A I've been told by Dr. Lockey and others. 5 Q It's a serious lung disease. It destroys your 6 ability to breathe. 7 MR. MACE: Objection. 8 BY MR. CRICK: 9 Q Do you understand that? 10 MR. MACE: Objection. 11 BY MR. CRICK: 12 Q It reduces your ability to use your full lung to 13 breathe. Do you understand that? 14 A Sir, I worked with this for years. Of course I 15 understand that. 16 Q What is it like for Robin Gaskins to not be able 17 to use her full lung? 18 MR. MACE: Objection, calls for speculation. 19 BY MR. CRICK: 20 Q What's it like to breathe with 17 percent lung 11:27:30 21 capacity? 22 MR. MACE: Objection. 23 THE WITNESS: I'm having a difficult time 24 understanding why you're asking me to speculate on these 25 issues. 139 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q Do you know what it's like to breathe with 17 3 percent lung capacity? 4 MR. MACE: Objection, argumentative. 5 THE WITNESS: Again, I don't understand the 6 purpose of your question. 7 BY MR. CRICK: 8 Q What animal studies did you oversee or did 9 Tastemaker oversee to determine which chemicals at the 10 plant were causing people to get lung disease? 11 MR. MACE: Objection, asked and answered. 12 Objection to form. 13 BY MR. CRICK: 14 Q Which animal studies? 11:28:00 15 A I believe you have my resume at your fingertips. 16 Am I a toxicologist? 17 Q Are you aware of any animal studies that the 18 plant did to see which chemicals got disease? 19 A I'm sure there are other professionals from 20 Givaudan that could answer that question more 21 effectively. 22 Q You're not aware of any animal studies, are you? 23 MR. MACE: Objection, asked and answered. 24 THE WITNESS: And animal studies would have 25 concluded what? 140 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q Do you know what an animal study is? Are you 3 aware that NIOSH conducted animal studies concerning the 11:28:30 4 incidents of bronchiolitis obliterans at the Jasper, 5 Missouri popcorn plant? 6 MR. MACE: Objection. 7 BY MR. CRICK: 8 Q Are you aware of that? 9 A I'm sure there are many details of NIOSH's work. 10 Q Are you aware that Ann Hubbs conducted two 11 animal studies regarding the incidence of lung disease at 12 the plant? 13 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection. 14 MR. MACE: Objection. 15 BY MR. CRICK: 16 Q Are you aware that in her animal studies she 17 found that an exposure to diacetyl causes problems? 18 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection. 19 MR. MACE: Objection. 20 BY MR. CRICK: 21 Q You're not aware of that? 11:29:00 22 A I could have told that you diacetyl causes skin 23 problems. Previously we had that discussion. 24 Q Are you aware as a result of Ann Hubbs' animal 25 studies, NIOSH concluded that exposure to fumes for 141 1 butter flavoring causes bronchiolitis obliterans? 2 MR. MACE: Objection, misstatement, 3 mischaracterization. 4 THE WITNESS: That is not a conclusion that I'm 5 aware of. 6 BY MR. CRICK: 7 Q You left the plant in 2001, and in that entire 8 five years that you were there, there was no animal study 11:29:30 9 performed on any chemical? 10 MR. MACE: Objection, asked and answered. 11 THE WITNESS: I'm sure Nancy Higley could answer 12 that question more effectively than I. 13 BY MR. CRICK: 14 Q No one told you about one? 15 A I wasn't a toxicologist, sir. 16 Q No one told you about one either? 17 MR. MACE: Objection, calls for hearsay. 18 BY MR. CRICK: 19 Q You were the manager, director of environmental 20 health and safety for the Cincinatti plant in charge of 21 the health and safety of your employees at that plant. 22 Did anybody tell you that the company had 23 sponsored an animal study to determine whether any 11:30:00 24 chemicals your employees were using could cause lung 25 disease? 142 1 MR. MACE: Objection. 2 THE WITNESS: I was the manager of environmental 3 health and safety, not the director. And I wasn't in 4 charge of the employees' health and safety, that was the 5 function of the organization. 6 BY MR. CRICK: 7 Q You were involved in environmental health and 8 safety for Tastemaker. 9 Did anybody tell you that there had been a study 10 to see whether or not the animals exposed to chemicals 11 that were used at your plant caused lung disease? 12 MR. MACE: Objection. 13 Read it back for me, please. 11:30:30 14 (Record read) 15 MR. MACE: Objection, asked and answered. 16 Objection to the form. 17 THE WITNESS: I was not aware of any animal 18 studies that had been performed. I was also not aware 19 that there was information outside of the literature, 11:31:00 20 additional information that was required. These 21 substances are included on lists such as the generally 22 regarded as safe list. 23 BY MR. CRICK: 24 Q What does that mean, "generally regarded as 25 safe"? 143 1 A That is a list that has been promulgated by the 2 government to allow certain materials to continue to be 3 used as food products. 4 Q So when you hear "generally recognized as safe," 11:31:30 5 does that tell you serious health hazard? 6 MR. CRICK: Objection. 7 THE WITNESS: It tells me that they're on a list 8 that's been established by the government so they can be 9 used as flavor ingredients. 10 BY MR. CRICK: 11 Q When you say "established by the government," do 12 you know exactly how a chemical gets on the generally 13 recognized as safe list? Does the government sponsor 14 tests or does the industry do that? 15 A That was not an area of my work at Tastemaker or 16 Givaudan. 17 Q Mr. Mace asked you some questions about the 18 general populations of Ohio. 19 Is it your thought that Dr. Lockey thought that 11:32:00 20 the bronchiolitis obliterans at the Tastemaker plant was 21 caused by the general conditions in Ohio? 22 MR. MACE: Objection. 23 THE WITNESS: I never said that. 24 BY MR. CRICK: 25 Q You know that people at your plant were 144 1 diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans as a result of 2 their exposure to chemicals at the plant? 3 MR. MACE: Objection. 4 THE WITNESS: That conclusion was never stated 5 by me. 6 BY MR. CRICK: 7 Q That conclusion was stated by doctors -- 11:32:30 8 MR. MACE: Objection. 9 BY MR. CRICK: 10 Q -- you understand that? 11 MR. MACE: Objection. 12 THE WITNESS: I don't recall that conclusion 13 specifically being stated. 14 BY MR. CRICK: 15 Q You never saw anyone say that bronchiolitis 16 obliterans was caused by the work environment? 17 MR. MACE: Could be or was, Counsel? 18 MR. CRICK: Was. 19 MR. MACE: Objection. 20 THE WITNESS: I never saw. I recall seeing 21 information stating that there could be contributing 22 factors in the workplace. 23 BY MR. CRICK: 24 Q Mr. Mace asked you some questions about General 11:33:00 25 Mills. And you had criticisms about the plant conditions 145 1 at General Mills apparently. 2 A That's correct. 3 Q Were you aware that Tastemaker had poor 4 ventilation before bronchiolitis obliterans was 5 discovered at the plant? 6 A I wasn't at the facility prior to my arrival 11:33:30 7 there, so -- 8 Q Were you aware? 9 A -- I can't speak to those conditions. 10 Q Were you aware that John Hochstrasser, who was 11 there at the time, thought that the ventilation at the 12 plant was poor and needed to be completely replaced? 13 A I was not aware of that conclusion by him, no. 14 Q That it was antiquated, the ventilation at your 15 plant? 16 A I was not aware of that specific conclusion by 17 him, no. 18 Q Knowing that the ventilation at his plant was 19 poor before people at the plant got lung disease, 11:34:00 20 Tastemaker never developed a policy for telling its 21 customers how to improve their ventilation working around 22 Givaudan Flavors, did they? 23 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes. Objection to the 24 form. Objection, foundation. 25 You can answer. 146 1 THE WITNESS: I would say that the extent of 2 support that Tastemaker/Givaudan went to during my time 3 there showed a very high commitment to supporting the 11:34:30 4 health and safety concerns of Givaudan/Tastemaker 5 customers. 6 BY MR. CRICK: 7 Q What does it mean "adequate ventilation"? What 8 does that mean to you? 9 A It's a very subjective term. 10 Q You were asked some questions about Robin 11 Gaskins. I'm going to show you Exhibit Number 18 11:35:00 12 concerning her exposure to chemicals at work. 13 By this date of your memo, she had already been 11:35:30 14 diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans; isn't that 15 right? 16 A I don't know what her date of diagnosis was. 17 Q What's the date of that memo? 18 A This memo is dated September 20, 1996. 19 Q Let me show you Exhibit 22. 20 (Exhibit 22 marked) 21 BY MR. CRICK: 22 Q It's a February 14th, 1996 letter from 11:36:00 23 Dr. Baughman concerning Robin Gaskins. 24 Dr. Baughman said in the second paragraph, 11:36:30 25 quote, "Given the fact that the patient's symptoms 147 1 occurred while at work, she has a fixed obstructive 2 defect and that this appears to be a problem that has 3 occurred in other workers at the Tastemaker plant that 4 Ms. Gaskins is employed at. I feel there is reasonable 5 medical probability that Ms. Gaskins has bronchiolitis 6 obliterans as a result of her exposure to chemical 7 vapors. She was exposed to these vapors while working as 11:37:00 8 a compounder at Tastemaker." 9 Did I read that right? 10 MR. MACE: Objection, form, foundation, hearsay, 11 move to strike, rule of completeness. And the first 12 paragraph says "appears to have bronchiolitis 13 obliterans." 14 BY MR. CRICK: 15 Q Did I read that right? 16 A Yes, you did. 17 Q What you were doing in this Exhibit 18 was 18 trying to find a place where she could still work at and 19 not be exposed to any chemicals? 20 A Are we concluding that Robbie Gaskins is the 11:37:30 21 same person as Robin Gaskins? 22 Q It is. Unless there's more Robin Gaskins that 23 have lung disease that worked at the plant. 24 MR. MACE: Move to strike. 25 /// 148 1 BY MR. CRICK: 2 Q Do you know if that's the case? 3 A No, I'm only familiar with Robin Gaskins. 4 Q There were numerous chemicals that were at the 5 plant that required respirators. Isn't that right? 6 A Yes, that's correct. 7 Q Are you aware of any letter that was sent to any 11:38:00 8 customer of any product made by Tastemaker or Givaudan 9 advising that customer of the findings of bronchiolitis 10 obliterans at the Cincinatti plant? 11 A No, I'm not aware of any letter. 12 Q I don't have any other questions. 11:38:30 13 14 FURTHER EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. MACE: 16 Q A few more for you, sir. 17 You were shown this Paragraph 3, the second page 18 of Exhibit 20, "Industrial Hygienists should report and 19 communicate information which is necessary to protect the 20 health and safety of workers and the community." 21 Did you feel that you fully complied with that 22 with respect to these Tastemaker issues? 23 A Yes, we did. 11:39:00 24 Q Did you feel there was any additional 25 communication required to protect health and safety of 149 1 workers outside of the Tastemaker plant? 2 A No, no. And again, it wouldn't have been 3 necessary. 4 Q With respect to animal studies, did Dr. Lockey 5 or any of these many outside experts that you referred to 6 ever recommend that any animal testing be done? 7 A Not to my knowledge. 11:39:30 8 Q With respect to no letter being sent to any 9 customers, did Dr. Lockey or any of these outside experts 10 ever recommend that any letter be sent to any customer? 11 A Not that I can recall. 12 Q Nothing further at this time. 13 MR. CRICK: Just two questions. 14 (Exhibit 23 marked) 15 16 FURTHER EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. CRICK: 18 Q 23 is a February 22, 1996 letter from Susan 19 Pinney to Janice Dees. 20 Can you read the last sentence on the second 11:40:00 21 page? 22 MR. MACE: Objection, calls for hearsay. Object 23 to the form, foundation. 24 THE WITNESS: The last sentence on Page 2 is, 25 "However, our understanding is that, at this time, 150 1 Tastemaker does not wish us to proceed with any 2 statistical assessment of the association between any 11:40:30 3 exposures, job titles and/or work areas and pulmonary 4 function or respiratory symptom status." 5 (Exhibit 24 marked) 6 BY MR. CRICK: 7 Q Let me show you Exhibit 24. This is a September 8 9, 1993 memo called "Occupational Exposure Investigation, 9 Liquids Department, Cincinatti, Ohio." 10 This was before you got to the plant? 11 A That's correct. 12 Q If you'll look at the second page, there's a 11:41:00 13 section called "Control." And at the bottom of that 14 first paragraph it says, "Issues for consideration in 15 exhausting into the ambient air include: Number 2, 16 Creating a public health problem from an occupational 17 health problem. The large volume of air that would be 11:41:30 18 exhausted into the ambient air should dilute chemical 19 vapors so that any public health threat would be 20 eliminated or minimized. Additionally, air 21 pollution/odor control devices would eliminate most of 22 the chemical emissions. The public health risk 23 assessment would have to be conducted for the emission 24 sources." 25 Do you know if that research project was ever 151 1 performed? 2 MR. MACE: Objection, form, foundation, hearsay. 3 Move to strike. 4 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any research 11:42:00 5 project that came out of this. 6 BY MR. CRICK: 7 Q Do you know if anyone ever made any inquiry to 8 see if there were cases of bronchiolitis obliterans in 9 the vicinity of the Tastemaker plant? 10 MR. MACE: Objection. 11 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not. 12 BY MR. CRICK: 13 Q Did anyone apprise any neighbors of the 14 Tastemaker plant of the findings of bronchiolitis 15 obliterans at the plant? 16 MR. MACE: Objection. 17 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge. 18 MR. CRICK: I don't have any other questions. 19 20 FURTHER EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. MACE: 22 Q Mr. Ingraham, with respect to that plant 23 exposures outside of the plant, how would they compare 24 with exposures inside the plant? 11:42:30 25 A Well, again, it's the issue of dilution and risk 152 1 mitigation; that if exposures were to occur outside of 2 the plant, they would have been so significantly diluted 3 that they would essentially be incomparable to exposure 4 risk inside the plant. 5 Q Did you ever conclude that there was any risks 6 of any neighbors to the Tastemaker plant? 7 A By risk -- 11:43:00 8 Q Risk of lung injuries? Lung disease? 9 A No, no, not at all. 10 Q To the best of your knowledge, did anyone at 11 Tastemaker or Givaudan ever conclude there was any risk 12 of lung injury or lung disease to neighbors of the 13 Tastemaker plant? 14 A Not to my knowledge, no. 15 Q Are you aware of any of these outside medical 16 experts, whether it's McKay or Lockey or Pinney or any of 17 the outside medical experts ever suggested there was any 18 risk to any neighbors of the Tastemaker plant? 19 A Not to my knowledge, no. 20 Q Counsel had you read some language off of the 11:43:30 21 second page of Exhibit 23, "At this time Tastemaker does 22 not wish to proceed with statistical assessment." 23 Now, the date of that letter was what? 24 A Date of that letter is February 22nd, 1996. 25 Q If you could turn to Exhibit 15. 15 was the 153 11:44:00 1 exhibit we had talked about where you had some 2 assignments with respect to the uniform job titles, work 3 center mapping, things that you said was involved with 4 Susan Pinney. 5 Was the date of those things that you were doing 6 before or after the letter that counsel read to you? 7 A It would have been after. 8 Q Okay. So in fact, were efforts made to try to 9 look at the epidemiology and these job functions, job 10 titles, work centers? 11:44:30 11 A Well, absolutely. And in fact, I would add 12 that, to qualify this statement that I read from the 13 second page, the likely reason behind that, given what I 14 came to later learn and understand from working with 15 these folks, is that they didn't have adequate 16 documentation or data to conduct that statistical 17 analysis, and that more data was needed. And in fact, 18 was in the process of being obtained. 19 Q The way it worked with these job assignments, 11:45:00 20 did people just stay in one area the whole time they were 21 at the plant? 22 A It was not unusual at all for employees to move 23 from one area of the facility to another, depending upon 24 where they might be needed. 25 Q Were there physical barriers between each of the 154 1 areas of the plant that isolated all of the exposures to 2 just one area? 3 A General operations had their areas in which they 4 were conducted. But unless the operations were in a 5 separate building, then no, there were not defined or 11:45:30 6 definitive barriers usually between these areas. 7 Q Did employees from time to time, while they were 8 in one job function assigned to one area, move to 9 different areas of the plant? 10 A Yes, certainly. 11 Q Nothing further at this time. 12 MR. CRICK: Okay, we're done. 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes today's 11:46:00 14 deposition of Glenn Keith Ingraham. 15 The master videotape will be maintained by 16 Paulson Reporting Service. 17 We're off the video record at 11:46 a.m. 18 (Deposition concluded at 11:46 a.m.) 19 * * * 20 21 22 23 24 25 155 1 DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY 2 3 I, Glenn Ingraham, do hereby certify under penalty 4 of perjury that I have read the foregoing transcript of 5 my deposition taken March 31, 2006; that I have made such 6 corrections as appear noted herein, in ink, initialed by 7 me; that my testimony as contained herein, as corrected, 8 is true and correct. 9 10 DATED this__________day of__________________, 20___ 11 at_____________________________, California. 12 13 14 15 16 ____________________________ Glenn Ingraham 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 156 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION 2 3 I, Cheryl M. Boley, a Certified Shorthand 4 Reporter, in and for the State of California, do hereby 5 certify: 6 7 That the foregoing witness was by me duly 8 sworn; that the deposition was then taken before me at 9 the time and place herein set forth; that the testimony 10 and proceedings were reported stenographically by me and 11 later transcribed into typewriting under my direction; 12 that the foregoing is a true record of the testimony and 13 proceedings taken at that time. 14 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name 16 this______day of________________________, 20___. 17 18 19 20 21 _____________________________ Cheryl M. Boley, CSR No. 9512 22 23 24 25 157