A major scientific journal has been forced to retract its 2000 study on the safety of Roundup herbicide, a widely used chemical linked to cancer. The paper, published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, was cited by regulators worldwide as evidence that glyphosate-based weed killers posed no health risks to humans.
However, an investigation into the paper's origins has revealed serious ethical concerns over its authorship, methodology, and potential conflicts of interest. The study's conclusions were based solely on unpublished data from Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup, ignoring other outside research.
The retraction is a result of an email exchange between Monsanto officials and their internal researchers, which was uncovered in litigation brought by cancer patients suing the company. The emails showed that the paper's authors had been ghostwritten by Monsanto scientists, and that the company had played a significant role in shaping the study's findings.
In one email, Lisa Drake, then a Monsanto government affairs official, wrote that the paper was "the" reference on Roundup safety, and that it would be used to defend the product against lawsuits. The company executive Hugh Grant praised the research team, saying they had done "very good work."
The retraction is a significant blow to the credibility of scientific journals and regulators who have relied on the study's findings. Brent Wisner, one of the lead lawyers in the Roundup litigation, said that the paper was an example of how companies can undermine the peer-review process through ghostwriting and biased interpretations.
The EPA has stated that it is not relying on the retracted article to develop its regulatory conclusions on glyphosate, but rather on a comprehensive review of over 6,000 studies. However, the agency's updated human health risk assessment for glyphosate is currently due for release in 2026, which will rely on some of the same unpublished data from Monsanto.
The retraction has sparked outrage among cancer patients and their advocates, who have long argued that the company's influence over scientific research has contributed to the delayed recognition of Roundup's potential health risks. The case highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in scientific research and regulation.
However, an investigation into the paper's origins has revealed serious ethical concerns over its authorship, methodology, and potential conflicts of interest. The study's conclusions were based solely on unpublished data from Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup, ignoring other outside research.
The retraction is a result of an email exchange between Monsanto officials and their internal researchers, which was uncovered in litigation brought by cancer patients suing the company. The emails showed that the paper's authors had been ghostwritten by Monsanto scientists, and that the company had played a significant role in shaping the study's findings.
In one email, Lisa Drake, then a Monsanto government affairs official, wrote that the paper was "the" reference on Roundup safety, and that it would be used to defend the product against lawsuits. The company executive Hugh Grant praised the research team, saying they had done "very good work."
The retraction is a significant blow to the credibility of scientific journals and regulators who have relied on the study's findings. Brent Wisner, one of the lead lawyers in the Roundup litigation, said that the paper was an example of how companies can undermine the peer-review process through ghostwriting and biased interpretations.
The EPA has stated that it is not relying on the retracted article to develop its regulatory conclusions on glyphosate, but rather on a comprehensive review of over 6,000 studies. However, the agency's updated human health risk assessment for glyphosate is currently due for release in 2026, which will rely on some of the same unpublished data from Monsanto.
The retraction has sparked outrage among cancer patients and their advocates, who have long argued that the company's influence over scientific research has contributed to the delayed recognition of Roundup's potential health risks. The case highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in scientific research and regulation.
scientists literally wrote a study based on company data lol what was they thinking? it sounds like monsanto just scripted the whole thing 
and then expected everyone to swallow it hook line and sinker 
guess that's why there are so many ppl with cancer from using round up 
now we gotta trust these studies even less 
i mean i get that companies need some kinda input but this is just ridiculous 
at least the epa says theyre not relying on it now 
hope they can make a better study next time 
... i don't get why companies can just ghostwrite papers and expect everything to be okay 
... the fact that they were trying to defend Roundup against lawsuits is like, totally sketchy 
... what's next, will we have companies just making up their own facts and presenting them as science? 
it's not okay, we need to hold people in power accountable for this stuff 
I mean, who wants to read about all the unpublished data they provided? 
The fact that EPA is still planning to use some of that same data in 2026 just makes me wanna scream... shouldn't we be prioritizing transparency and accountability over corporate interests? 
. If a major study like that gets retracted just because it was ghostwritten by the company, what's next? Are all those other studies based on unpublished data too? 
It's not fair to the cancer patients who are already suffering from their illnesses. The EPA is trying to do the right thing, but if they're still relying on some of that same dodgy data, it's just a cover-up 
. It's like they said, "Hey, we're too busy to fact-check, let's just trust what Monsanto says" 
. Well, now it seems like we're paying the price for that kind of laziness.
. We need to make sure our scientists are doing their jobs without any corporate influence 
.
! First off, let me just say that this retraction is huge, right? Like, a major blow to the whole science community. But what's even crazier is that it comes out of nowhere, like someone stumbled upon an email exchange that exposed the truth.
. I mean, come on, a study gets retracted because it was ghostwritten by Monsanto? That's just embarrassing. And now the EPA is still going to use some of that same unpublished data to make its regulatory conclusions? Give me a break. This whole thing is like a big joke, and people are getting hurt because of it 
. It's just not right that a company like Monsanto can influence the outcome of an entire study like this.
. And to think those conclusions were cited by regulators worldwide... it's a nightmare scenario for public health 
. Can you imagine if this had happened with any other topic? The lack of transparency is mind-boggling, and it's high time we demand better from our scientific journals & regulatory bodies 
.
. And what's really laughable is that they're still trying to play dumb about the whole thing - "oh, we just wanted to help the researchers"... yeah right 
.
. Regulatory toxicology is like, how can you not check the sources? 
Still, kudos to the cancer patients for fighting for their rights 
Transparency > profit 
like, who does that?
We need better systems in place for detecting bias and corruption, stat!
. if companies are gonna have a say in what gets published, then they gotta be held accountable for their actions too 
.
... but i hope it leads to some real changes in how we approach science and regulation in this country 
. I mean, how can you trust the science if big companies are influencing the research from behind the scenes? It makes me wonder what other studies have been compromised like this. The EPA saying they're not relying on the retracted study for their conclusions, but still using some of that same unpublished data... it's just a shame 
? i mean, this study on Roundup herbicide is a huge deal, but now we're finding out that Monsanto basically wrote the paper themselves 
But seriously, it highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in scientific research. I mean, if patients are fighting for their lives over a chemical company's product, we need to know the truth! 
It's like they're trying to rewrite history! The fact that the authors were ghostwritten by Monsanto scientists and that their data wasn't even made public raises so many red flags. How can we trust the research if it was basically dictated by the company? 