Glyphosate and Science Debate 12/05 10:24

   Science Journal's Withdrawal of Glyphosate Safety Evaluation Causes Uproar

   A Dutch publishing company has issued a retraction for a frequently cited 
study on the safety of glyphosate. The 25-year-old study has been used by 
regulators such as EPA in assessing the safety of the herbicide.

Jerry Hagstrom
DTN Political Correspondent

   WASHINGTON (DTN) -- The decision of Elsevier, a Dutch academic publishing 
company, to retract a safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide 
Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans, is causing a 
worldwide furor.

   Elsevier issued a retraction on a glyphosate study initially published in 
the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmology in April 2000. The 25-year-old 
study has been used by regulators such as the Environmental Protection Agency 
in assessments to approve use of the herbicide.

   In explaining the retraction, the publisher stated, "Concerns were raised 
regarding the authorship of this paper, validity of the research findings in 
the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the 
study sponsor and potential conflicts of interest of the authors. I, the 
handling (co)Editor-in-Chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, reached 
out to the sole surviving author Gary M. Williams and sought explanation for 
the various concerns which have been listed in detail below. We did not receive 
any response from Prof. Williams."

   Writer Carey Gilliam noted in an analysis in The New Lede, "Regulators 
around the world have cited the paper as evidence of the safety of glyphosate 
herbicides, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in this 
assessment."

   The Center for Biological Diversity said, "The study, which found that 
glyphosate poses no cancer or other health risks to people, was retracted 
because it relied exclusively on unpublished Monsanto studies. The study failed 
to review any research that was not conducted by Monsanto, the maker of 
glyphosate, now owned by Bayer. The journal also found that the paper may have 
been ghostwritten by Monsanto employees and that financial compensation from 
Monsanto was not disclosed."

   "The pesticide industry's decades of efforts to hijack the science and 
manipulate it to boost its profits is finally being exposed," said Nathan 
Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological 
Diversity.

   "The EPA must take immediate action to reassess its finding that glyphosate 
is not a carcinogen. That means rather than relying on Monsanto's confidential 
research of its own product, the agency needs to follow the gold standard of 
independent science established by the World Health Organization in its finding 
that glyphosate probably causes cancer."

   On Monday, in a filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, Solicitor General John 
Sauer, appointed by the Trump administration in April, told the court it should 
take up an appeal from Bayer that the company hopes could help it quash ongoing 
lawsuits inherited when it bought Monsanto in 2018, The New Lede said in 
another article.

   As DTN reported, the Solicitor General on Monday argued that when the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency created specific labeling requirements when it 
determined glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" consistently 
since 1991, it approved Roundup labels without cancer warnings and prohibited 
Bayer from adding warnings without agency approval.

   But EPA is in the midst of its registration review process for glyphosate, 
which happens every 15 years, AgFunder News said in an analysis.

   Bayer told AgFunder News: "Glyphosate is the most extensively studied 
herbicide over the past 50 years. Thousands of studies have been conducted on 
the safety of glyphosate products. The vast majority of published studies on 
glyphosate had no Monsanto involvement."

   "Regarding this specific Williams et al paper, we believe Monsanto's 
involvement was appropriately cited in the acknowledgments, which clearly 
states: 'We thank the toxicologists and other scientists at Monsanto who made 
significant contributions to the development of exposure assessments and 
through many other discussions,' and further identifies several 'key personnel 
at Monsanto who provided scientific support.'"

   Health Canada said Thursday that its decision to approve glyphosate will not 
be affected by this development, The Canadian Press reported.

   Health Canada said in a written statement that "the retraction of this 
review does not affect our previous review conclusions" because the department 
also independently evaluated the primary data sources used in the 2000 review 
paper, The Canadian Press added.

   DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton contributed to this report.

   See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715.

   The New Lede: 
https://www.thenewlede.org/2025/12/citing-serious-ethical-concerns-journal-retra
cts-key-monsanto-roundup-safety-study/.

   Also see, "US Solicitor General Backs Bayer's Supreme Court Bid to End 
Roundup Lawsuits," 
https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2025/12/02/us-solicitor-g
eneral-backs-bayers.

   Jerry Hagstrom can be reached at jhagstrom@nationaljournal.com

   Follow him on social platform X @hagstromreport

    




(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.