A key study linking Monsanto's Roundup herbicide to cancer has been formally retracted by a prestigious scientific journal due to "serious ethical concerns" about its validity and authorship. The Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal removed the 2000 paper, titled "Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient Glyphosate for Humans," from its database after an investigation raised questions about the independence of its authors.
The original study concluded that glyphosate-based weed killers posed no health risks to humans, which has been cited by regulators around the world as evidence of their safety. However, internal company documents obtained through litigation have revealed that Monsanto significantly influenced the paper's development and presentation. These documents show how company officials celebrated the publication of the paper and praised employees involved in its creation.
In one email, a Monsanto official described the toll on multiple employees who worked on developing "independent" research papers, highlighting the influence of corporate interests on academic integrity. The same document also revealed that Roundup logo polo shirts could be given to researchers as a "token of appreciation for a job well done."
The retractions come after decades of conflict over glyphosate's safety and comes at a time when the Trump administration is urging the US Supreme Court to limit thousands of lawsuits claiming Roundup causes cancer. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, released a statement saying that its involvement was adequately noted in the acknowledgments section of the paper.
The EPA has stated that it "has never relied on this specific article" in developing regulatory conclusions on glyphosate and is currently conducting an updated human health risk assessment using "gold standard science." The agency said that retraction is a long time coming, highlighting concerns about ghostwriting, cherrypicking unpublished studies, and biased interpretations.
The original study concluded that glyphosate-based weed killers posed no health risks to humans, which has been cited by regulators around the world as evidence of their safety. However, internal company documents obtained through litigation have revealed that Monsanto significantly influenced the paper's development and presentation. These documents show how company officials celebrated the publication of the paper and praised employees involved in its creation.
In one email, a Monsanto official described the toll on multiple employees who worked on developing "independent" research papers, highlighting the influence of corporate interests on academic integrity. The same document also revealed that Roundup logo polo shirts could be given to researchers as a "token of appreciation for a job well done."
The retractions come after decades of conflict over glyphosate's safety and comes at a time when the Trump administration is urging the US Supreme Court to limit thousands of lawsuits claiming Roundup causes cancer. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, released a statement saying that its involvement was adequately noted in the acknowledgments section of the paper.
The EPA has stated that it "has never relied on this specific article" in developing regulatory conclusions on glyphosate and is currently conducting an updated human health risk assessment using "gold standard science." The agency said that retraction is a long time coming, highlighting concerns about ghostwriting, cherrypicking unpublished studies, and biased interpretations.
. It's like, what were they thinking? 
The fact that Monsanto had such a huge influence on the research is just wild 
. I mean, who wants corporate interests messing with academic integrity, right? 
. And to make matters worse, the EPA is still saying they didn't rely on it anyway... but I guess that doesn't change the fact that the whole thing has a huge stink to it 
.
. We need to make sure our research is actually independent and unbiased, you know? 
i mean come on, how can u trust the results of a study if the company behind it was basically writing the paper itself? it's like they say in academia - "publish or perish" has turned into "do what we tell you to do or else". and now we're left with this huge cloud of uncertainty hanging over glyphosate's safety 
can't the EPA just be honest about saying "we don't know"? is that too much to ask?
I mean, we're supposed to trust these so-called "experts" who claim glyphosate is safe, but if corporate interests are influencing the research and even celebrating the results, does that really make sense? 
And what's up with the acknowledgments section? Just a token of appreciation like a round of golf or a fancy polo shirt isn't gonna cut it when you're talking about something as serious as cancer... 
. I mean, come on, we all know how big pharma influences scientific research these days 
. They just don't want to rock the boat and admit that maybe, just maybe, there's some truth to these cancer causation claims 
.
.
If Monsanto is influencing research, that's a big deal, but do we really need to retraction the whole thing just because of it? 
. It's a classic case of corporate influence on academia, where big money can buy influence and manipulate the scientific narrative to suit their interests 
? And now we're supposed to just take Bayer's word for it that they didn't exert undue influence? 
Come on, folks! We know how these things work.
. It's like they're trying to rewrite history and cover their own tracks. The EPA is right to be doing its own risk assessment using "gold standard science" – we need unbiased, independent research that doesn't get bought off by corporate interests 
.
. It's time for real transparency and accountability in academia and industry 
.
like scientists are supposed to be independent and unbiased but it looks like Monsanto had major influence over this study. I mean i get that companies wanna protect their interests but it's not right when it compromises the integrity of research 
. Can we please just have some real transparency and accountability in our scientific community? 
Those internal Monsanto docs reveal some pretty shady stuff, like using logo polo shirts as a reward for researchers. It's wild to think about the 'independent' studies that were actually crafted by corporate interests. 
it was like the cat was trying to "assist" by standing on the counter and batting at utensils... anyway back to this Roundup thing... i'm not surprised that there were some shady dealings going on... it's crazy how corporate interests can get all up in academic integrity, right? 
. And now the EPA is all like "we're finally getting around to updating our science" 
Like, come on, if you're gonna do some dirty tricks to get your name out there, don't pretend like you did nothing wrong 
I also love how the documents showed that Roundup logo polo shirts were being handed out like a "token of appreciation" - talk about a blatant attempt to curry favor!