Scientific Integrity Compromised: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Study Retracted Over Ethical Concerns
A sweeping scientific paper published 25 years ago by the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has been formally retracted due to "serious ethical concerns" regarding its authors' independence, accountability, and the academic integrity of the carcinogenicity studies it presented.
The study in question, titled Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient Glyphosate, for Humans, concluded that Monsanto's glyphosate-based weed killers posed no health risks to humans – no cancer risks, no reproductive risks, no adverse effects on development of endocrine systems in people or animals. The paper was a key defense for Monsanto's claim that its herbicides don't cause cancer.
Regulators around the world have cited this study as evidence of the safety of glyphosate herbicides, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their assessments. However, internal company documents recently revealed that Monsanto exerted significant influence over the paper. Emails showed how company officials praised and celebrated the work of several Monsanto scientists involved in the research, and one executive even suggested paying outside scientists to "ghost-write" another scientific paper.
The retraction comes after a decade-long expose of Monsanto's efforts to manipulate scientific evidence to support its business interests. The company's involvement in shaping the study was allegedly concealed from the public, with key personnel at Monsanto providing "scientific support" without being disclosed.
Critics argue that this case highlights how companies can undermine the peer-review process through ghostwriting, cherrypicking unpublished studies, and biased interpretations. The retraction of this study is a long time coming, says one lawyer involved in Roundup litigation, who describes it as "the quintessential example" of how corporations like Monsanto exploit scientific integrity for their benefit.
The EPA has stated that the agency was not reliant on this specific article in developing its regulatory conclusions on glyphosate and will rely on an updated human health risk assessment to be released next year. The retraction is a significant blow to Monsanto's reputation, but it also underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability in scientific research.
Bayer AG, which bought Monsanto in 2018, has also defended its former subsidiary's work on glyphosate, stating that the vast majority of published studies have no company involvement. However, critics argue that this is a hollow assertion, given the extent of the company's influence over the retracted study.
A sweeping scientific paper published 25 years ago by the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has been formally retracted due to "serious ethical concerns" regarding its authors' independence, accountability, and the academic integrity of the carcinogenicity studies it presented.
The study in question, titled Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient Glyphosate, for Humans, concluded that Monsanto's glyphosate-based weed killers posed no health risks to humans – no cancer risks, no reproductive risks, no adverse effects on development of endocrine systems in people or animals. The paper was a key defense for Monsanto's claim that its herbicides don't cause cancer.
Regulators around the world have cited this study as evidence of the safety of glyphosate herbicides, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their assessments. However, internal company documents recently revealed that Monsanto exerted significant influence over the paper. Emails showed how company officials praised and celebrated the work of several Monsanto scientists involved in the research, and one executive even suggested paying outside scientists to "ghost-write" another scientific paper.
The retraction comes after a decade-long expose of Monsanto's efforts to manipulate scientific evidence to support its business interests. The company's involvement in shaping the study was allegedly concealed from the public, with key personnel at Monsanto providing "scientific support" without being disclosed.
Critics argue that this case highlights how companies can undermine the peer-review process through ghostwriting, cherrypicking unpublished studies, and biased interpretations. The retraction of this study is a long time coming, says one lawyer involved in Roundup litigation, who describes it as "the quintessential example" of how corporations like Monsanto exploit scientific integrity for their benefit.
The EPA has stated that the agency was not reliant on this specific article in developing its regulatory conclusions on glyphosate and will rely on an updated human health risk assessment to be released next year. The retraction is a significant blow to Monsanto's reputation, but it also underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability in scientific research.
Bayer AG, which bought Monsanto in 2018, has also defended its former subsidiary's work on glyphosate, stating that the vast majority of published studies have no company involvement. However, critics argue that this is a hollow assertion, given the extent of the company's influence over the retracted study.
I mean, can you believe it? Like, 25 years ago and now they're retracting the whole thing because of some shady stuff going on with Monsanto and their Roundup herbicide. It's wild to think that this was ever considered a reliable source of info... like, who knew that corporate interests could so heavily influence scientific research? 
And now the EPA is saying they weren't relying on it anyway... I guess you can never really trust what companies are saying, right? 
But seriously, this whole thing just highlights how important transparency and accountability are in science. Can we get back to trusting our scientists without all these corporate influences? 
.
.
.
just saw this news about Monsanto's Roundup herbicide study getting retracted due to serious ethical concerns... like, who knew big corporations were influencing scientific research this much? 
It's crazy how they managed to shape the study without disclosing their involvement and even paying outside scientists to ghost-write another paper. That's some shady stuff right there! 
But seriously, it just goes to show that corporate interests can really compromise scientific integrity. I think we need more transparency and accountability in research so we know what we're getting. Fingers crossed for greater scrutiny on this one 
Newsflash: YOU CAN'T BUY SCIENCE, MONSANTO! 
The way Monsanto exerted influence over the paper is crazy! They were basically paying scientists to ghostwrite another paper and hiding it from the public 
. It's like, if your company is involved in something that's been widely discredited, maybe try being more transparent about it? 
Anyway, this whole retraction thing just highlights how important it is for companies and governments to be held accountable for their actions 
.