Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Study Retracted Over "Serious Ethical Concerns"
A major scientific journal has retracted a 25-year-old study on the safety of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, citing "serious ethical concerns" over the paper's authorship and potential conflicts of interest.
The study, published in 2000 by Gary Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian Munro, was once cited as evidence of the safety of glyphosate-based weed killers. The research found no link between Roundup and cancer. However, internal company documents revealed that Monsanto had a significant influence on the paper's authors and that the study was ghostwritten by employees of the company.
The retraction comes after years of litigation over the health effects of Roundup, with plaintiffs alleging that exposure to the herbicide caused them to develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other cancers. Bayer AG, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has argued that the safety of glyphosate has been extensively studied and is not carcinogenic.
Regulatory agencies worldwide have cited the retracted study as evidence of the safety of glyphosate herbicides. However, the retraction highlights concerns over the integrity of scientific research and the influence of corporate interests on academic publishing.
The decision to retract the study was made by Martin van den Berg, the editor-in-chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. He stated that "serious ethical concerns" had been raised regarding the independence and accountability of the paper's authors and the academic integrity of the carcinogenicity studies presented.
Bayer has defended its involvement in the research, stating that it was adequately noted in the acknowledgments section of the paper. However, critics argue that this does not address the underlying issues of ghostwriting and conflict of interest.
The retraction is a major blow to Bayer's efforts to downplay the health risks associated with Roundup. It also highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in scientific research and publishing.
A major scientific journal has retracted a 25-year-old study on the safety of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, citing "serious ethical concerns" over the paper's authorship and potential conflicts of interest.
The study, published in 2000 by Gary Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian Munro, was once cited as evidence of the safety of glyphosate-based weed killers. The research found no link between Roundup and cancer. However, internal company documents revealed that Monsanto had a significant influence on the paper's authors and that the study was ghostwritten by employees of the company.
The retraction comes after years of litigation over the health effects of Roundup, with plaintiffs alleging that exposure to the herbicide caused them to develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other cancers. Bayer AG, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has argued that the safety of glyphosate has been extensively studied and is not carcinogenic.
Regulatory agencies worldwide have cited the retracted study as evidence of the safety of glyphosate herbicides. However, the retraction highlights concerns over the integrity of scientific research and the influence of corporate interests on academic publishing.
The decision to retract the study was made by Martin van den Berg, the editor-in-chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. He stated that "serious ethical concerns" had been raised regarding the independence and accountability of the paper's authors and the academic integrity of the carcinogenicity studies presented.
Bayer has defended its involvement in the research, stating that it was adequately noted in the acknowledgments section of the paper. However, critics argue that this does not address the underlying issues of ghostwriting and conflict of interest.
The retraction is a major blow to Bayer's efforts to downplay the health risks associated with Roundup. It also highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in scientific research and publishing.
I mean, who knew that Monsanto had so much control over a study from like 25 years ago? 
And now that it's come out that the paper was basically ghostwritten by their employees, it's just not fair to people who have been diagnosed with cancer and are suing them. 
The fact that Bayer is trying to downplay this and say "oh we acknowledged our involvement in the study" doesn't really cut it 
. I think this whole thing is a big deal and it shows how important it is to have some real transparency and accountability in scientific research. 
regulatory agencies need to be more careful, btw. Bayer's gonna pay for this...can't trust the corporate influence in academia 
like, duh! can't we trust science when it's just a bunch of faceless scientists making money off our backs? 
and btw, 25 years old? that's ancient in scientific terms, so what took them so long to figure out the deal? 
also, I'm still waiting for some real answers on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma... like, how many cases are we talking about here? 
. We need to start questioning everything we're told about what's safe for us. The more I think about it, the more I'm like "wait, what are we even doing here?" 
? Anyway, it's not like this is the first time someone's found out that Monsanto was behind some shady stuff. But hey, at least they're retracting the study now. About 25 years too late, if you ask me 
.
Meanwhile, the authors of the original study are probably over here thinking "told ya so". 
. But seriously, this retraction is a major wake-up call for the scientific community. We need to start putting corporate interests aside and focusing on actual science 
.
.
Now let's hope that this sets a precedent for transparency and honesty in scientific publishing 
. It makes me wonder what else might be wrong with the research we do in school...
.