A scientific journal retracted a 2000 study frequently cited to defend the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup. The study, which appeared in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, concluded that glyphosate posed no health risk, despite ongoing concerns about its potential link to cancer.
The decision to retract the article comes after the journal conducted a review prompted by the emergence of internal emails which indicated that employees of Monsanto, the original manufacturer of Roundup, may have played a direct role in writing the paper. Editors said these contributions were not disclosed, sparking concerns about possible conflicts of interest and the integrity of the research.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
“Concerns were raised regarding the authorship of this paper, validity of the research findings in the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor and potential conflicts of interest of the authors,” said editor-in-chief Martin van den Berg in a statement. The journal also noted that the emails, revealed during litigation, showed Monsanto scientists were involved in drafting the study, but their names were absent from the list of authors.
The retraction notice cited evidence uncovered in court proceedings brought by plaintiffs alleging harm from glyphosate exposure. Attorneys representing those individuals produced internal Monsanto emails that praised the work of several company scientists whose contributions to the study went uncredited. Critics have argued that this kind of undisclosed involvement by industry personnel can undermine the peer-review process and the credibility of published research.
The original article was influential. In 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency cited it in its evaluation of glyphosate’s safety. The chemical’s widespread use in agriculture and landscaping has made the debate over its potential risks a high-profile public health issue.
Monsanto reacts to retraction
Monsanto’s parent company, Bayer, responded to the retraction in a statement to The Guardian, insisting that Monsanto’s involvement was properly acknowledged in the paper. The company noted that the acknowledgments section included a reference to “key personnel at Monsanto who provided scientific support.” However, critics questioned whether the level of disclosure was sufficient and transparent.
Attorneys pleased with the decision
Brent Wisner, a lead attorney representing plaintiffs in the Roundup litigation, welcomed the journal’s decision, telling The Guardian it had been “a long time coming.” He described the retracted study as “the quintessential example of how companies like Monsanto could fundamentally undermine the peer-review process through ghostwriting, cherry-picking unpublished studies and biased interpretations.”
The retraction reignited debate about the influence of corporate sponsorship in scientific research and the importance of transparency in authorship. While glyphosate remains approved for use in many countries, calls have grown for stricter disclosure requirements and more rigorous independent testing of chemicals that are widely deployed in the environment.
