Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Study Retracted Due to 'Serious Ethical Concerns'
In a move that has been long overdue, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has formally retracted a landmark study on the safety of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, citing "serious ethical concerns." The study, published in 2000, was touted by the company as evidence that its glyphosate-based weed killers posed no health risks to humans. However, internal documents obtained through litigation revealed a far more sinister plot.
It emerged that Monsanto had exerted significant influence over the research paper, which was authored by scientists from outside the company but ultimately benefited from the giant's financial muscle. The study's findings were based on unpublished research provided by Monsanto, and its conclusions were heavily influenced by the company's interests.
The retraction of the study comes after a decade of revelations about Monsanto's tactics in downplaying the risks associated with glyphosate. The company's strategy, dubbed "Freedom to Operate" (FTO), involved paying outside scientists to ghostwrite research papers or provide biased interpretations of existing studies. This practice undermined the integrity of the peer-review process and allowed Monsanto to shape public opinion on its products.
The retraction is a significant blow to the credibility of the scientific community and raises questions about the role of industry influence in shaping research outcomes. It also highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in the conduct of scientific studies.
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has defended its involvement in the study, claiming that it was adequately disclosed in the acknowledgments section. However, this assertion rings hollow given the scale of the company's influence over the research paper.
The retraction of this study is a long-overdue acknowledgment of the need for greater rigor and transparency in scientific research. As one lawyer involved in the Roundup litigation noted, "This garbage ghostwritten study finally got the fate it deserved." The decision to retract this study marks an important step towards protecting the impartiality of science and ensuring that research outcomes are driven by evidence rather than industry interests.
In a move that has been long overdue, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has formally retracted a landmark study on the safety of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, citing "serious ethical concerns." The study, published in 2000, was touted by the company as evidence that its glyphosate-based weed killers posed no health risks to humans. However, internal documents obtained through litigation revealed a far more sinister plot.
It emerged that Monsanto had exerted significant influence over the research paper, which was authored by scientists from outside the company but ultimately benefited from the giant's financial muscle. The study's findings were based on unpublished research provided by Monsanto, and its conclusions were heavily influenced by the company's interests.
The retraction of the study comes after a decade of revelations about Monsanto's tactics in downplaying the risks associated with glyphosate. The company's strategy, dubbed "Freedom to Operate" (FTO), involved paying outside scientists to ghostwrite research papers or provide biased interpretations of existing studies. This practice undermined the integrity of the peer-review process and allowed Monsanto to shape public opinion on its products.
The retraction is a significant blow to the credibility of the scientific community and raises questions about the role of industry influence in shaping research outcomes. It also highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in the conduct of scientific studies.
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has defended its involvement in the study, claiming that it was adequately disclosed in the acknowledgments section. However, this assertion rings hollow given the scale of the company's influence over the research paper.
The retraction of this study is a long-overdue acknowledgment of the need for greater rigor and transparency in scientific research. As one lawyer involved in the Roundup litigation noted, "This garbage ghostwritten study finally got the fate it deserved." The decision to retract this study marks an important step towards protecting the impartiality of science and ensuring that research outcomes are driven by evidence rather than industry interests.
I'm not surprised that a study on Roundup herbicide is getting retracted, but what's even more shocking is that it took so long for the truth to come out. I mean, who needs ethics when you can just pay people to say what you want them to say? 
And let's be real, Bayer's 'acknowledgments' section is basically just a joke - it's like they're trying to spin this as some kind of PR stunt instead of taking actual responsibility for their actions. 
The fact that this study was able to get so far without anyone questioning its integrity is a huge red flag for the scientific community as a whole. We need more transparency and accountability in research, and we need it now! 
. The fact that they paid outside scientists to ghostwrite research papers? That's straight-up sketchy 
. Can't believe Bayer tried to spin this as no big deal, too... the acknowledgement thing was basically just window dressing 
. Glad to see the journal finally came around and acknowledged some real issues here 
. And what's the real motive behind Bayer defending their involvement in this study? Are they just trying to maintain a good PR image or is there something more sinister at play? 
. But let's be real, what about all the other ghostwritten studies out there? Are we just going to sweep them under the rug too? 
Monsanto's been known for their shady tactics, and it's not cool that they basically paid off scientists to make the study look good. It's like, super obvious now that they were trying to whitewash the risks of glyphosate. This whole thing is just so... messed up 
. Anyway, I'm glad we're finally getting some accountability and transparency in the scientific community 
. It's long overdue! 
Finally, some sense has prevailed in the world of science 
.
.
️. this retraction is like a big ol' slap in the face to all those people who were misled by Roundup's so-called "safety" claims 
. now we can finally start talking about the real risks of glyphosate and how it's affecting our health 
. thanks for holding Monsanto accountable, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology! 
Bayer's all like "it was disclosed" but come on 
that's just a nice way of saying they're trying to cover their own tracks 
. It's time for these companies to stop playing the scientist card and let real research happen 
I feel so angry for all the people who were affected by Monsanto's actions... Glyphosate has been linked to so many health problems, and yet they kept denying it for years 
. I'm glad that finally something is being done about it 
. We need more transparency and accountability in science so that we can trust the research and make informed decisions about our health and environment 
.
It's about time someone called out Monsanto for its shady dealings 
. The fact that they used ghostwriters to shape the study is just ridiculous 
.
. I'm so glad that someone is finally holding Monsanto accountable for its actions 
. Now, let's hope this sparks some real change in the way research is conducted 
! #JusticeForScience #AccountabilityMatters #GhostwrittenStudiesAreTheWorst
] 
]
]
]
]
. Maybe now they can focus on making some actual progress instead of just trying to silence people who question their research 