Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Study Retracted Over Ethical Concerns
A landmark scientific study on the safety of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide has been formally retracted by the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, citing "serious ethical concerns" over the independence and accountability of its authors. The 2000 study, titled Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans, had become a key defense for Monsanto's claim that glyphosate-based weed killers do not cause cancer.
The retraction comes after internal company documents revealed Monsanto's influence on the paper. Emails obtained from the company showed how officials celebrated the publication of the study and praised the work of several Monsanto employees as part of a strategy called "Freedom to Operate" (FTO). One email described the publication of the study as "due to the perseverance, hard work and dedication of the following group of folks," listing seven Monsanto employees.
The journal's editor in chief, Martin van den Berg, stated that concerns were raised regarding authorship, validity of research findings, misrepresentation of contributions by authors and sponsors, and potential conflicts of interest. The paper's conclusions on glyphosate's carcinogenicity were based solely on unpublished studies from Monsanto, ignoring other outside, published research.
The retraction has significant implications for regulatory agencies around the world that have cited the study as evidence of the safety of glyphosate herbicides. Bayer AG, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, stated that the vast majority of published studies on glyphosate had no involvement with the company and that the consensus among regulatory bodies is that glyphosate can be used safely.
However, experts argue that the retraction is long overdue and highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in scientific research. "The Williams, Kroes, and Munro study was the quintessential example of how companies like Monsanto could fundamentally undermine the peer-review process through ghostwriting, cherrypicking unpublished studies, and biased interpretations," said Brent Wisner, a lead lawyer in the Roundup litigation.
The retraction also raises questions about the Trump administration's bid to curtail thousands of lawsuits claiming Roundup causes cancer. The solicitor general filed a brief with the US Supreme Court arguing that federal law preempts state-law claims, but plaintiffs have argued they developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other forms of cancer due to using Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides sold by the company.
As the EPA continues its updated human health risk assessment for glyphosate, which is expected to be released in 2026, experts hope that this retraction will serve as a wake-up call for journals and regulatory agencies to protect the impartiality of science.
A landmark scientific study on the safety of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide has been formally retracted by the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, citing "serious ethical concerns" over the independence and accountability of its authors. The 2000 study, titled Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans, had become a key defense for Monsanto's claim that glyphosate-based weed killers do not cause cancer.
The retraction comes after internal company documents revealed Monsanto's influence on the paper. Emails obtained from the company showed how officials celebrated the publication of the study and praised the work of several Monsanto employees as part of a strategy called "Freedom to Operate" (FTO). One email described the publication of the study as "due to the perseverance, hard work and dedication of the following group of folks," listing seven Monsanto employees.
The journal's editor in chief, Martin van den Berg, stated that concerns were raised regarding authorship, validity of research findings, misrepresentation of contributions by authors and sponsors, and potential conflicts of interest. The paper's conclusions on glyphosate's carcinogenicity were based solely on unpublished studies from Monsanto, ignoring other outside, published research.
The retraction has significant implications for regulatory agencies around the world that have cited the study as evidence of the safety of glyphosate herbicides. Bayer AG, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, stated that the vast majority of published studies on glyphosate had no involvement with the company and that the consensus among regulatory bodies is that glyphosate can be used safely.
However, experts argue that the retraction is long overdue and highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in scientific research. "The Williams, Kroes, and Munro study was the quintessential example of how companies like Monsanto could fundamentally undermine the peer-review process through ghostwriting, cherrypicking unpublished studies, and biased interpretations," said Brent Wisner, a lead lawyer in the Roundup litigation.
The retraction also raises questions about the Trump administration's bid to curtail thousands of lawsuits claiming Roundup causes cancer. The solicitor general filed a brief with the US Supreme Court arguing that federal law preempts state-law claims, but plaintiffs have argued they developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other forms of cancer due to using Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides sold by the company.
As the EPA continues its updated human health risk assessment for glyphosate, which is expected to be released in 2026, experts hope that this retraction will serve as a wake-up call for journals and regulatory agencies to protect the impartiality of science.
! A study gets retracted over "serious ethical concerns" because it had way too much company involvement, like they're literally writing the paper themselves? It's all about having a "Freedom to Operate" (FTO) strategy - how Orwellian can you get? 
And now we're supposed to believe that Bayer AG is just soooo independent and unbiased in their glyphosate claims? Give me a break! 
The real kicker here is that scientists like Brent Wisner are saying this retraction is way overdue and it's all about transparency and accountability. We need more of that, not less! 
this retraction is like something out of a movie where the villain tries to manipulate the system 
but it's not gonna fly! Monsanto's attempt to ghostwrite their way into scientific credibility has been exposed, and now they're facing the music 
. The fact that emails showed they were celebrating the publication of the study and praising their own employees' work is just too much 
. It's like they thought they could outsmart everyone with their "Freedom to Operate" strategy 
. But the truth always comes out, and now it's time for them to take responsibility for their actions 
.
. If journals can't be trusted, who can? It's like the old saying goes, "you get what you pay for" 
. And in this case, it seems like Monsanto was willing to pay top dollar for a paper that would serve their interests 
. But we're not buying it 
.
. Monsanto's got some 'splainin' to do, and we're just getting started 
Monsanto's been playing dirty from the start, it seems. all those internal emails celebrating their "success" in ghostwriting a paper that was meant to be some kind of defense for glyphosate? 
we need more transparency and accountability in science, like, now.
it's about time journals are holdin them accountable for ghostwriterin studies and misrepresentin results 
this retraction is like a slap in the face to all the ppl who've been using glyphosate without knowin the risks 
like it was bound to happen... I mean, come on, Monsanto knew their "Freedom to Operate" strategy would raise some eyebrows 
. Regulators are gonna be all over this and it'll take years for new research to come out... meanwhile, people are still getting sick from using Roundup 
. The EPA needs to step up their game and do a real risk assessment, not just rely on some dodgy study that's been debunked 
.
. I made a diagram to show how this whole thing works out:
? I don't know, man... my mind is all over the place on this one 
.
This study retraction is like a big red flag 
. It's like they're ghostwriting their own reputation 
. The whole system needs a serious shake-up to ensure science isn't just used to make money 
... but I'm like, why didn't anyone ask more questions back then? Like, when was the last time someone checked if a study was legit or not? It's all about the Benjamins, folks 
.
. it's also crazy how monsanto was basically celebrating their own study like it was theirs 
. anywho, hopefully the EPA will get it right on that human health risk assessment next year