Science Journal Retracts Study on Roundup Safety as 'Serious Ethical Concerns' Emerge
In a stunning move, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has formally retracted a landmark study on the safety of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, citing "serious ethical concerns" regarding the paper's authors and the academic integrity of the research. The 2000 paper, titled Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient Glyphosate for Humans, was a key defense for Monsanto's claim that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.
The study concluded that glyphosate-based weed killers posed no health risks to humans, including no cancer risks, no reproductive risks, and no adverse effects on development. The paper was widely cited by regulators around the world, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as evidence of the safety of glyphosate herbicides.
However, internal company documents obtained in litigation brought by plaintiffs suffering from cancer revealed Monsanto's significant influence on the paper. Emails showed that company officials praised the work of scientists who authored the study and celebrated its publication, indicating a clear conflict of interest. One email described the publication as "the" reference on Roundup and glyphosate safety, highlighting the paper's importance for Monsanto's business plans.
The retraction raises serious questions about the integrity of scientific research and the role of industry influence in shaping academic outcomes. Critics argue that the study was ghostwritten by Monsanto scientists, with outside experts signing off on their work. The journal's editor-in-chief, Martin van den Berg, stated that "serious ethical concerns" were raised regarding the independence and accountability of the authors and the academic integrity of the research.
The retraction has sparked renewed debate about the safety of glyphosate herbicides, which have been linked to cancer in numerous studies. Regulators may need to reevaluate their assessments of glyphosate's safety, particularly in light of this new information.
Industry leaders at Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, have defended the study, stating that it was adequately noted in the acknowledgments section and that the vast majority of published studies on glyphosate had no Monsanto involvement. However, experts argue that these claims are insufficient to address the concerns raised by the retraction.
As the debate over glyphosate's safety continues, one thing is clear: the integrity of scientific research must be protected from industry influence and bias. The retraction of this study serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in academic research.
In a stunning move, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has formally retracted a landmark study on the safety of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, citing "serious ethical concerns" regarding the paper's authors and the academic integrity of the research. The 2000 paper, titled Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient Glyphosate for Humans, was a key defense for Monsanto's claim that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.
The study concluded that glyphosate-based weed killers posed no health risks to humans, including no cancer risks, no reproductive risks, and no adverse effects on development. The paper was widely cited by regulators around the world, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as evidence of the safety of glyphosate herbicides.
However, internal company documents obtained in litigation brought by plaintiffs suffering from cancer revealed Monsanto's significant influence on the paper. Emails showed that company officials praised the work of scientists who authored the study and celebrated its publication, indicating a clear conflict of interest. One email described the publication as "the" reference on Roundup and glyphosate safety, highlighting the paper's importance for Monsanto's business plans.
The retraction raises serious questions about the integrity of scientific research and the role of industry influence in shaping academic outcomes. Critics argue that the study was ghostwritten by Monsanto scientists, with outside experts signing off on their work. The journal's editor-in-chief, Martin van den Berg, stated that "serious ethical concerns" were raised regarding the independence and accountability of the authors and the academic integrity of the research.
The retraction has sparked renewed debate about the safety of glyphosate herbicides, which have been linked to cancer in numerous studies. Regulators may need to reevaluate their assessments of glyphosate's safety, particularly in light of this new information.
Industry leaders at Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, have defended the study, stating that it was adequately noted in the acknowledgments section and that the vast majority of published studies on glyphosate had no Monsanto involvement. However, experts argue that these claims are insufficient to address the concerns raised by the retraction.
As the debate over glyphosate's safety continues, one thing is clear: the integrity of scientific research must be protected from industry influence and bias. The retraction of this study serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in academic research.
what even is going on with Monsanto and their scientists? it's like they basically wrote this study themselves and then had other ppl sign off on it just to make it legit 
i mean, who needs ethics when you're making that kinda cash 
reg readers are gonna need a major dose of skepticism right now 
the gov and enviro agencies have got some 'splainin' to do 
. glyphosate's still got people worried about it causing cancer or whatever, so now that study's gotta be reevaluated... what if all these other studies on glyphosate are just as bad? we need more transparency in research, you feel me? shouldn't scientists be able to share their findings without industry folks breathing down their necks 
. this whole thing just feels so shady 
. I remember when I was younger, we were taught to trust the research and data presented to us. But now it seems like you need a PhD in investigative journalism just to uncover some basic facts 
. The fact that a major journal is retracting a study due to "serious ethical concerns" should be a wake-up call for all of us.
.
. We need to demand more from our scientists, our journals, and our governments. We can't just sit back and let big business dictate what we believe or don't believe. The future of science depends on it 
.
they're always retracting studies like it's nobodies business... seriously though, this glyphosate stuff is super sketchy. i mean, how many times do you have to see the same outcome before people listen? all those cancer cases and still nobody wants to acknowledge the link? smh 
shouldn't we be looking at more recent studies for real answers? 
I mean, glyphosate has been around for ages, so why should it still be considered safe if there's even a hint of cancer risk? 
think the retraction is a good start but we need to see some real changes in how research is conducted... transparency and accountability all the way! 
. His courage to acknowledge the "serious ethical concerns" is a reminder that we all have a responsibility to question and challenge the status quo.
. The whole thing smells like a big ol' conflict of interest 
. Regulators need to take another hard look at glyphosate's safety, no doubt about it 
. Can't trust the research if industry is just gonna swoop in and shape it to their advantage 
.
it's been super sketchy from the start, you know? like, how could Monsanto just have complete control over the research and then claim it was unbiased? 
I'm all about being informed and taking care of ourselves, but when we're not told the truth about what's in our food and environment, that's just a whole different story