Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Study Retracted Due to "Serious Ethical Concerns"
A scientific journal has formally retracted a 25-year-old study on the safety of Monsanto's popular herbicide Roundup, citing "serious ethical concerns" regarding the paper's authors and the company's influence over the research.
The study, published in 2000 by Gary Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian Munro, concluded that glyphosate-based weed killers posed no health risks to humans. The findings were widely cited by regulators around the world, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as evidence of the safety of glyphosate herbicides.
However, internal company documents obtained in litigation brought by plaintiffs suffering from cancer have revealed Monsanto's significant influence over the study. Emails show that company officials praised the research paper and celebrated its publication, with one executive suggesting that ghostwriting another paper was a way to handle future research.
The retraction of the study is seen as a major victory for critics of the industry giant, who have long argued that Monsanto has used its financial muscle to manipulate scientific research. "This garbage ghostwritten study finally got the fate it deserved," said Brent Wisner, one of the lead lawyers in the Roundup litigation.
Journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology editor-in-chief Martin van den Berg stated that he took the step due to concerns about authorship, research findings, and potential conflicts of interest. The paper's conclusions were solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto, ignoring other outside, published research.
Bayer AG, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has defended the study, stating that its involvement was adequately noted in the acknowledgments section of the paper. However, critics argue that this does not address the broader issues of conflict of interest and manipulation of scientific research.
The retraction of the study is a significant blow to the credibility of Monsanto's claims about the safety of Roundup herbicides. The EPA has stated that it will continue to review glyphosate based on "gold standard science," but the agency will rely on studies other than the now-retracted paper.
As the Trump administration urged the US Supreme Court to curtail thousands of lawsuits claiming Roundup causes cancer, critics argue that this case highlights the ongoing struggle for scientific integrity and accountability in the face of corporate influence.
A scientific journal has formally retracted a 25-year-old study on the safety of Monsanto's popular herbicide Roundup, citing "serious ethical concerns" regarding the paper's authors and the company's influence over the research.
The study, published in 2000 by Gary Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian Munro, concluded that glyphosate-based weed killers posed no health risks to humans. The findings were widely cited by regulators around the world, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as evidence of the safety of glyphosate herbicides.
However, internal company documents obtained in litigation brought by plaintiffs suffering from cancer have revealed Monsanto's significant influence over the study. Emails show that company officials praised the research paper and celebrated its publication, with one executive suggesting that ghostwriting another paper was a way to handle future research.
The retraction of the study is seen as a major victory for critics of the industry giant, who have long argued that Monsanto has used its financial muscle to manipulate scientific research. "This garbage ghostwritten study finally got the fate it deserved," said Brent Wisner, one of the lead lawyers in the Roundup litigation.
Journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology editor-in-chief Martin van den Berg stated that he took the step due to concerns about authorship, research findings, and potential conflicts of interest. The paper's conclusions were solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto, ignoring other outside, published research.
Bayer AG, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has defended the study, stating that its involvement was adequately noted in the acknowledgments section of the paper. However, critics argue that this does not address the broader issues of conflict of interest and manipulation of scientific research.
The retraction of the study is a significant blow to the credibility of Monsanto's claims about the safety of Roundup herbicides. The EPA has stated that it will continue to review glyphosate based on "gold standard science," but the agency will rely on studies other than the now-retracted paper.
As the Trump administration urged the US Supreme Court to curtail thousands of lawsuits claiming Roundup causes cancer, critics argue that this case highlights the ongoing struggle for scientific integrity and accountability in the face of corporate influence.
! they got away w/ ghostwriting a study that said glyphosate was safe 2 humans but now its all out in the open & they gotta retraction it cuz of serious ethical concerns 
. its like, dont u guys get tired of ppl just making up facts 4 the sake of profit? 
. i mean i know the epa's still gonna do their thing w/ gold standard science but cmon can't we trust the science if monsanto's got a finger in the pie? 
. its not just about glyphosate tho, its about the principle of science being manipulated 4 corporate gain. we need 2 be more careful w/ how we consume info & question those who got a vested interest in the outcome 
! i'm so sick of big corps like monsanto trying to manipulate research to suit their agenda 
. it's not even about the study itself, but about the fact that they had control over the whole thing and tried to keep it under wraps 
. i mean, who gets to decide what research is 'gold standard' anyway? shouldn't it be based on actual science, not just what's convenient for the company 
. Bayer trying to brush it off with a few acknowledgments is just laughable 
. can you believe they thought they could get away with ghostwriting a whole study and still have people cite it as 'gold standard' 
. this is why we need more transparency and accountability in our scientific community 
. And the EPA is still using that old study as evidence? It's like they're not even trying to get the facts straight anymore 
. The fact that this study got retracted and everyone's finally acknowledging the problem is a good start, but we need to make sure this doesn't happen again 
. What's the deal with corporations having so much power over our scientific research? It's like they're buying their own results or something 
.
! i mean, Monsanto's been getting away with stuff like this for years, but now the truth is finally coming out 
. it doesn't matter if you acknowledge it, the fact remains that there were serious conflicts of interest at play here 
#ConflictOfInterest #ScientificIntegrity
#ScienceMatters #HoldTheCorporationsAccountable
. How can we trust what science says when companies are basically writing the rules? 
. And now, it's finally being held accountable for their actions...about time 
.
. It's not just about Roundup herbicides, it's about setting a precedent for corporate influence over science in general. So let's celebrate the fact that some people are actually standing up for integrity and honesty... even if it's the hard way 
.