Monsanto's Glyphosate Herbicides: Study Found to Have "Serious Ethical Concerns"
A landmark study published 25 years ago by Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal has been formally retracted due to "serious ethical concerns" regarding its independence, accountability, and the academic integrity of the research presented. The paper, 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.
The study was authored by Gary Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian Munro, three scientists who were not employed by Monsanto. The paper was cited as evidence of the safety of glyphosate herbicides by regulators worldwide, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the US. However, internal company documents revealed that Monsanto had significant influence over the study, with emails showing how the company's "Freedom to Operate" strategy was closely tied to the research paper.
One email from Lisa Drake, a Monsanto government affairs official at the time, praised the work of seven employees who contributed to the paper, stating that it was "regarded as 'the' reference on Roundup and glyphosate safety." Another email suggested that ghostwritten papers could be used to support Monsanto's business plans, including using company logo polo shirts as a token of appreciation for researchers.
The retraction is a significant development in the ongoing debate over the safety of glyphosate herbicides. Critics have long argued that the study was flawed due to its reliance on unpublished research from Monsanto and potential conflicts of interest among the authors. The EPA has stated that it has "extensively studied glyphosate, reviewing more than 6,000 studies across all disciplines," but the agency is currently conducting a new human health risk assessment for the chemical.
Brent Wisner, one of the lead lawyers in the Roundup litigation, said the retraction was long overdue and highlighted the need for greater transparency and accountability in scientific research. "This study finally got the fate it deserved," he said. The retraction is seen as a major blow to Bayer's efforts to defend its glyphosate herbicides against thousands of lawsuits claiming they cause cancer.
A landmark study published 25 years ago by Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal has been formally retracted due to "serious ethical concerns" regarding its independence, accountability, and the academic integrity of the research presented. The paper, 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.
The study was authored by Gary Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian Munro, three scientists who were not employed by Monsanto. The paper was cited as evidence of the safety of glyphosate herbicides by regulators worldwide, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the US. However, internal company documents revealed that Monsanto had significant influence over the study, with emails showing how the company's "Freedom to Operate" strategy was closely tied to the research paper.
One email from Lisa Drake, a Monsanto government affairs official at the time, praised the work of seven employees who contributed to the paper, stating that it was "regarded as 'the' reference on Roundup and glyphosate safety." Another email suggested that ghostwritten papers could be used to support Monsanto's business plans, including using company logo polo shirts as a token of appreciation for researchers.
The retraction is a significant development in the ongoing debate over the safety of glyphosate herbicides. Critics have long argued that the study was flawed due to its reliance on unpublished research from Monsanto and potential conflicts of interest among the authors. The EPA has stated that it has "extensively studied glyphosate, reviewing more than 6,000 studies across all disciplines," but the agency is currently conducting a new human health risk assessment for the chemical.
Brent Wisner, one of the lead lawyers in the Roundup litigation, said the retraction was long overdue and highlighted the need for greater transparency and accountability in scientific research. "This study finally got the fate it deserved," he said. The retraction is seen as a major blow to Bayer's efforts to defend its glyphosate herbicides against thousands of lawsuits claiming they cause cancer.
glyphosate herbicides have been a hot topic for years and this study just shows how corrupt things can get when big corps are involved. like, who even gets paid to do studies and then has no say in the outcome? 
it's crazy that one company had such control over research papers and regulators basically fell for it. EPA needs to step up their game on transparency and accountability 
. I mean, it sounds like Monsanto had a pretty big hand in how the research went down. The idea that their own company documents showed the authors were basically doing their bidding is just not okay 
. And now that we know, it's no wonder people have been questioning the safety of glyphosate herbicides for so long 
.
. It just goes to show how important transparency and accountability are in scientific research 
. And now that Bayer is facing thousands of lawsuits over glyphosate, it's good to see some momentum building towards the truth 
.
. It's a great reminder that we need to be more vigilant when it comes to the research we're relying on for big decisions 
.
25 yrs ago this paper was like total gospel for glyphosate safety but now it's like we're finding out that monsanto had a major hand in the whole thing 
. I'm not surprised that the EPA finally realized this though, all those years of ignoring the risks was just asking for trouble 
.
It's all just part of the cycle of controversy, right? The EPA has reviewed so many studies on glyphosate already, what more can they do? 
6,000+ studies is a lot! Maybe we should just give Bayer a break and let them figure out their own business plans. 
It's not like it was some deliberate attempt to deceive the public or anything... 