Science journal retracts study on safety of Monsanto's Roundup: 'Serious ethical concerns'

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 The agency said that retraction is a long time coming, highlighting concerns about ghostwriting, cherrypicking unpublished studies, and biased interpretations.

I'm so shocked to hear that the study linking Roundup to cancer has been retracted . 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?

It's all so frustrating because people have already been using this study to prove Roundup is safe and now it's basically gone up in smoke . 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 .

I'm just hoping this gets some serious attention and people start paying more attention to these kinds of shady dealings in science . We need to make sure our research is actually independent and unbiased, you know?

the whole thing just smells like a big mess 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'm still trying to wrap my head around this one... it's like, what does it say about the system when you've got big corps pulling the strings and then just pulling them back out when they're not convenient anymore? 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 guess this is just another reminder that science isn't always black and white, but more like shades of gray that can be manipulated to fit whoever's interests are at play...

I'm shocked that the journal just pulled this paper, it's like they're trying to silence the truth . I mean, come on, we all know how big pharma influences scientific research these days . It's like a revolving door between corporate interests and academia - what's the point of even having "independent" research if you're just gonna get co-opted by Big Money?

And now the EPA is trying to distance itself from this mess, saying they've never relied on this paper for regulatory decisions... but we all know that's not true . They just don't want to rock the boat and admit that maybe, just maybe, there's some truth to these cancer causation claims .

It's like the whole system is rigged against us - regulators are beholden to big agrochemicals, scientists are beholden to corporate interests, and the public gets left in the dust . We need real transparency and accountability here, not just token acknowledgments and PR spin .

I'm not surprised to see another study being pulled from the database . It's like the pendulum swings between pro-chemicals and anti-chemicals every few years. I mean, who decides what's "serious ethical concerns" anyway? If Monsanto is influencing research, that's a big deal, but do we really need to retraction the whole thing just because of it? The EPA seems more concerned about their own integrity than the actual science here. They're trying to play both sides by saying they've never relied on this study and then conducting an updated assessment anyway... it smells like smoke and mirrors

I don't think it's fair to knock the authors of this study just 'cause Monsanto had some influence over the research . I mean, we've all worked on projects where our company's interests might've played a role in shaping the outcome, right? It's not like they came up with the results out of thin air or anything . And yeah, the acknowledgments section did say Bayer was involved, but that doesn't necessarily mean their input skewed the entire study . I think we need to separate the science from the company politics .

I think it's no surprise to anyone that this study got retracted, considering how many times glyphosate has been shown to be linked to cancer in recent years . 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 .

I mean, who needs "serious ethical concerns" when you've got email records showing that Monsanto was heavily involved in shaping the study from the very beginning ? 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.

And let's not forget that this retraction comes at a time when the Trump administration is trying to limit liability for Roundup users . 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 a mess, but at least now we know the truth . It's time for real transparency and accountability in academia and industry .

ugh this is so messed up 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 . And now the EPA is saying they've never used this study in making regulatory decisions which is good news, but at the same time it just goes to show how easily science can be twisted to fit a corporate agenda . Can we please just have some real transparency and accountability in our scientific community?

The latest twist with Roundup herbicide makes me think... how much do we really trust the research we consume? 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. And now this retraction... it's a stark reminder of how biased our knowledge can be. We need more transparency and accountability in science, especially when it comes to topics like this. I'm not convinced that Bayer's explanation is enough. The fact remains: we can't afford to ignore potential health risks just because they're tied to big corporations.

I gotta say, this whole thing is kinda sketchy... Like, you can't just retract a study 'cause the company's got some cash in their pockets, right? But at the same time, it's not like these scientists were completely clear about who was funding them or what. It's all super gray area.

I'm also kinda annoyed that Bayer's trying to spin this as if they're all pure and innocent... Like, come on, you're trying to limit lawsuits because you know your product is questionable at best. And the EPA's just like "oh well, we knew it was a long time coming". It's frustrating when science gets all muddied up with corporate interests.

I guess what I'm saying is that this whole thing needs more scrutiny... Like, let's dig deeper and see who actually stood to gain from this research.

I just can't help but think about how far we've come since this all started... or should I say how far we still have to go? This retractions of that study is a big deal, no doubt about it. It's like, what else are we gonna do when there's proof that some company with vested interests in the outcome can just swoop in and influence the science?

And don't even get me started on those "token of appreciation" polo shirts... sounds like they were more like bribery to me . I mean, who wouldn't want a fancy new shirt if you're gonna help corporate spin a story that says their product is safe as can be?

It's good to see the EPA taking steps to do it right this time around though... gotta keep pushing for those "gold standard science" approaches . Can't let our guard down just 'cause some major paper got pulled from a journal, ya know?

I don’t usually comment but I have to say this Monsanto thing is super weird . Like what even is the deal with corporate influence in science? If their reps are basically co-authoring papers, how can we trust that they're doing it for real science and not just to sell more Roundup ? And I get that everyone wants a piece of the action, but shouldn't scientists be trying to figure out stuff for the greater good, you know?

I mean, if EPA's already saying they don't trust this study because of all these shady dealings, and Bayer's just shrugging it off like "oh yeah we acknowledged our involvement in the acknowledgments section"... that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence . It feels like there's a lot more to the story than what's being shared publicly. Can't help but wonder if some people are getting paid to look the other way or something .

omg i just saw the funniest vid of a cat trying to "help" its owner with cooking 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? did you know that some scientists have started a petition to reform the whole peer review system because of these types of issues?

idk how many times i've seen this stuff come up... glyphosate's been in the news for ages but now we're hearing it was basically rigged from the start . like what even is a "token of appreciation" when you're basically paid to lie? and these documents are just wild, showing how closely corporate interests were intertwined with the whole study process... i mean, it's no wonder they couldn't get away with it. the epa's right though, this study has been debunked for years but still somehow gets cited in regulatory decisions .

Wow, what's going on with all these retractions? I mean, I always knew there was some sketchy stuff going down in the world of big pharma . It's crazy that Monsanto had so much influence over this study and that they were basically giving out polo shirts as a reward for doing their bidding . And now the EPA is all like "we're finally getting around to updating our science" . This whole thing just goes to show how big money can warp the truth and what's good for business is what gets pushed forward .

This retraction of the study linking Roundup to cancer is like a canary in the coal mine for corporate influence on academia... it's just another example of how big money can skew the narrative . I mean, who needs independent research when you've got a company that's willing to throw cash at your doorstep? It's like they were saying "Hey, we'll write this paper and call it science if you give us our polo shirts". And now we're left with an EPA that's basically saying "we knew this was coming" . This whole situation stinks of a cover-up and I'm not buying the "acknowledgments section" excuse ... time for more transparency, folks!

I'm literally shocked by this news . It's like, the whole reason we knew Roundup was safe was because of this study, right? And now it's being taken away from us due to some company's influence on the researchers . I mean, can you imagine if someone paid your professor to write a paper for them? Or if they just used that as an excuse to get out of doing actual research?

And what really gets me is how this is happening at a time when the Trump administration is trying to limit all these lawsuits about Roundup causing cancer. It's like, don't we deserve to know what's in our food and what's safe for us to use? I guess not?

I'm all for transparency and honesty in science, but this is just ridiculous. The EPA should be able to do its own research without some company trying to ghostwrite it or pull papers out of the database . Can't we just have some real science here for once?

Ugh, what's going on with the media these days? A major study gets pulled from a prestigious journal because of some shady dealings between Monsanto and the researchers who wrote it 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 . And now we're stuck with a whole lot of uncertainty about glyphosate's safety because of it I mean, can't we trust the scientists and the data anymore?

I'm totally shook by this news ... I mean, who knew Monsanto was playing so big of a role in the scientific study process? It's just not right that their own interests were influencing the outcome of the research. And now, the paper gets retracted because of "serious ethical concerns"? It's like they were trying to whitewash their own product's safety record.

I'm glad the EPA is saying that this retraction comes as no surprise and that it highlights some deeper issues with ghostwriting and biased studies. We need more transparency in science, you know? 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!