Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Study Reworked: Retraction Raises Red Flags Over Company Influence
A 25-year-old study by three independent researchers has been formally retracted from a major scientific journal due to "serious ethical concerns" over its validity and the alleged influence of Monsanto, the manufacturer of the herbicide Roundup. The study, titled Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, was published in 2000 and played a pivotal role in defending the safety of glyphosate.
The retraction has sent shockwaves through the scientific community, with many experts calling it a long-overdue correction. The study's conclusions, which had been cited by regulators around the world as evidence of the herbicide's safety, have now been deemed "misleading" and "biased." According to an internal email released in court documents, Monsanto's executives were heavily involved in the research process, with some even suggesting ghostwriting another paper.
The retraction raises questions about the integrity of scientific peer review and the influence of industry players on research outcomes. Critics argue that the study's authors, Gary Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian Munro, may have been co-opted by Monsanto to produce a favorable outcome, which was then presented as independent research.
Monsanto's own documents revealed extensive involvement in shaping the research, including an email from a company executive praising the work of team members as part of a strategy called "Freedom to Operate" (FTO). The company also suggested ghostwriting another paper, using outside scientists to edit and sign their names to the work that Monsanto employees would do.
The retraction has implications for ongoing lawsuits over Roundup's safety. In 2015, a Monsanto scientist suggested paying outside experts to ghostwrite research papers, which is now seen as a practice that undermines the integrity of scientific research.
While Bayer, the company that acquired Monsanto in 2018, maintains that its own studies have shown glyphosate to be safe, some experts argue that this retraction highlights the need for greater scrutiny of industry influence on research outcomes. "This garbage ghostwritten study finally got the fate it deserved," said Brent Wisner, a lawyer involved in several Roundup litigation cases.
A 25-year-old study by three independent researchers has been formally retracted from a major scientific journal due to "serious ethical concerns" over its validity and the alleged influence of Monsanto, the manufacturer of the herbicide Roundup. The study, titled Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, was published in 2000 and played a pivotal role in defending the safety of glyphosate.
The retraction has sent shockwaves through the scientific community, with many experts calling it a long-overdue correction. The study's conclusions, which had been cited by regulators around the world as evidence of the herbicide's safety, have now been deemed "misleading" and "biased." According to an internal email released in court documents, Monsanto's executives were heavily involved in the research process, with some even suggesting ghostwriting another paper.
The retraction raises questions about the integrity of scientific peer review and the influence of industry players on research outcomes. Critics argue that the study's authors, Gary Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian Munro, may have been co-opted by Monsanto to produce a favorable outcome, which was then presented as independent research.
Monsanto's own documents revealed extensive involvement in shaping the research, including an email from a company executive praising the work of team members as part of a strategy called "Freedom to Operate" (FTO). The company also suggested ghostwriting another paper, using outside scientists to edit and sign their names to the work that Monsanto employees would do.
The retraction has implications for ongoing lawsuits over Roundup's safety. In 2015, a Monsanto scientist suggested paying outside experts to ghostwrite research papers, which is now seen as a practice that undermines the integrity of scientific research.
While Bayer, the company that acquired Monsanto in 2018, maintains that its own studies have shown glyphosate to be safe, some experts argue that this retraction highlights the need for greater scrutiny of industry influence on research outcomes. "This garbage ghostwritten study finally got the fate it deserved," said Brent Wisner, a lawyer involved in several Roundup litigation cases.
Monsanto's been pulling strings behind the scenes like they own the scientific community 
this retraction is a huge deal and i'm not surprised tbh all these years we've been hearing about how glyphosate is safe but it's clear now that was just a bunch of money changing hands 
those emails from the execs praising the team members are straight fire 
no wonder they were able to get away with this for so long 
It's all about lining their pockets with cash from their toxic products. And now this retraction just confirms my suspicions - a bunch of corporate execs sneaking around, ghostwriting papers and manipulating the research process to get what they want. It's not like we didn't know it was coming anyway... 
. This whole ghostwriting thing is just wild... I mean, who gets paid to write someone else's research papers? Not exactly the most transparent stuff, if you ask me 
.
. The fact that we even have to question the integrity of scientific research is a major problem in itself. We need more transparency and accountability, you know? Otherwise, who's gonna hold these corporations accountable for their actions? 
like literally what's the point of having 10 lanes if they're all gonna be stuck because people are taking forever to scan their own groceries?! 
anyway, back to this roundup stuff... isn't it wild that a 25 year old study can change everything? i mean, what even is "Freedom to Operate" 
. The fact that industry execs were heavily involved in the research process is just red flag after red flag 
. I mean, what else are they hiding? 
. This whole thing stinks of a major conflict of interest 
. We need more scrutiny, not less 
!
The fact that Monsanto was heavily involved in the research process is just laughable... like, who do you need ghostwriting another paper for? 