12
Dec
Scientific Deception by Monsanto/Bayer on Display with Retraction of Landmark Glyphosate Safety Study
(Beyond Pesticides, December 12, 2025) A study concluding that the weed killer glyphosate did not cause cancer was retracted last week after it was revealed in lawsuit documents that the authors did not disclose their relationship with Monsanto/Bayer. The editor-and-chief, Martin van den Berg, PhD of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, which published the article 25 years ago, wrote in the journal, “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.â€Â
The study, titled “Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans†and coauthored by three researchers in New York, The Netherlands, and Canada, was referred to as a “Landmark glyphosate safety study†in a recent article by U.S. Right to Know. Â
While this retraction not only sheds light on Monsanto’s influence through ghostwriting, it adds to the wide body of evidence regarding the regulatory deficiencies currently in place. The revelation is a reminder of related incidents in which Monsanto (Bayer) and other companies have wielded excessive influence at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), undermining the integrity of the science needed to inform the regulatory decisions that safeguard health and the environment. (See Daily News Corruption Problems Persist at EPA.)Â
EPA DeficienciesÂ
In addition to the initial registration process, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires that EPA conduct a registration review of all pesticide active ingredients every 15 years. As Beyond Pesticides has stated, EPA’s rationale for registration review—that ‘science is constantly evolving, and new scientific information can come to light at any time and change our understanding of potential effects from pesticides,’—should guide the agency in its decisions, especially when previous decisions have depended on limited actual data, data waiver request rationales, and purported absence of new data or adverse incidents reported. Â
While Beyond Pesticides advocates for allowance of substances compatible with organic standards that are protective of human health, biodiversity, and healthy ecosystems, it urges EPA to establish rigorous standards in its registration review of all materials. Currently, there is not only an absence of consideration for alternatives when reviewing pesticide active ingredients but also a lack of full consideration for endocrine disruption, endangered species, chemical sensitive populations, “inertâ€Â ingredients, aggregate and cumulative risks, and synergistic effects, just to name a few. (See more on regulatory deficiencies and EPA failures here and here.)Â
Scientists and advocates have long asked EPA to evaluate and regulate full formulations of pesticides, and their mixtures, instead of assessing active ingredients singularly. As the body of knowledge base evolves, so must the systems for assessments that are meant to inform decisions that have a wide impact on human and ecosystem health. The complex interactions among pesticide mixtures are not fully understood but represent a significant threat to human health. EPA fails to adequately regulate mixtures of chemicals to which organisms are exposed in the real world and risk assessments continue to be highly criticized as inadequately addressing the full range of adverse effects that put human health and the health of all organisms at risk. For more information, see Daily News Human Health Disregarded with Obsolete Regulations and Risk Management, Researchers Find.Â
Recent Glyphosate Study RetractionÂ
As noted in the U.S. Right to Know article by Stacy Malkan on December 3, 2025, “A scientific study that regulators around the world relied on for decades to justify continued approval of glyphosate was quietly retracted last Friday over serious ethical issues including secret authorship by Monsanto employees—raising questions about the pesticide-approval process in the U.S. and globally.†This study, published in 2000, asserted that the weed killer glyphosate does not pose health risks to humans. Despite a wide body of scientific evidence that contradicts this study’s findings, both EPA and industry pointed to these results as further proof that glyphosate should continue to be allowed on the market.Â
The study was revealed as being ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, with the data based only on unpublished studies from Monsanto, ignoring data from studies that more thoroughly evaluated chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity. The recent retraction “came years after internal corporate documents first revealed in 2017 that Monsanto employees were heavily involved in drafting the paper,†which is one of many examples in which researchers and journalists have exposed “the many ways Monsanto manipulated the scientific record, influenced regulatory agencies, interfered in the peer-review process and used deceptive tactics to shape how regulators and the public view glyphosate,â€Â Ms. Malkan writes.Â
Further coverage by Carey Gilliam in The New Lede calls attention to the issues behind the retracted study. As the article states: “The listed authors of the paper were three scientists who did not work for Monsanto—Gary Williams, [M.D. (professor emeritus at New York Medical College),] Robert Kroes, [PhD,] and Ian Munro, [PhD] and the paper was touted by the company as a defense against conflicting scientific evidence linking Roundup to cancer. The fact that it was authored by scientists from outside the company, from seemingly independent researchers, gave it added validity. But over the last decade, internal company documents that came to light in litigation brought by cancer victims have revealed that the paper actually was a product of three years of what one company official referred to as ‘hard work’ by several Monsanto scientists who helped craft the paper as part of a strategy Monsanto called ‘Freedom to Operate’ (FTO).â€Â
Carey Gilliam is the is the editor-in-chief of The New Lede, as well as the author of “Whitewash—The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science†that documents Monsanto’s corporate corruption of agriculture. Gillam also spoke at Beyond Pesticides’ National Pesticide Forum in 2018 in which she referred to glyphosate as the poster child for what was wrong with the pesticide registration system, emphasizing that EPA should not only do a better job of risk mitigation but more broadly challenging the dependency on the chemical at all.Â
Adverse Effects of GlyphosateÂ
As Beyond Pesticides and other organizations have been documenting for decades, there is a long history of independent, peer-reviewed scientific literature, that has not been influenced by industry, in which deleterious effects from glyphosate are noted. Just this year, studies have connected glyphosate to human health threats including DNA and cellular damage, female reproductive dysfunction, kidney injury and cancer, blood cancer, and endocrine disruption, among others. Â
Additional studies highlight the threats to biodiversity from glyphosate, particularly with synergistic effects, in pesticide mixtures, and to pollinators, that threaten entire ecosystems. Scientific literature also shows that glyphosate products (e.g., Roundupâ„¢) are more toxic than glyphosate alone and result in a number of chronic, developmental, and endocrine-disrupting impacts. The “inert†ingredients in Roundupâ„¢ formulations kill human cells at very low concentrations, and some glyphosate-based herbicide products are genotoxic.Â
The ubiquitous nature of glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms is a result of the widespread application of this toxic chemical in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Both glyphosate and its main metabolite (breakdown product), aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), are detected in water, soil, and food, which then represent multiple pathways for exposure to nontarget organisms, including humans. Over 750 herbicides contain glyphosate as the active ingredient, and it also plays a large role in the production of genetically modified (GM) crops, with approximately 80% of GM crops bred specifically for glyphosate tolerance. See the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management for additional information on glyphosate and other pesticide active ingredients.Â
A Holistic Solution is Urgently NeededÂ
The current issue of the industry-ghostwritten study runs parallel to the deficiencies in pesticide regulatory processes. EPA relies on chemical manufacturers to generate the underlying laboratory animal data that is used for pesticide registration and has been historically criticized for an inadequate audit process to ensure compliance with standard laboratory practices. (See previous Action of the Week on upholding scientific integrity in the pesticide regulatory process and “Ashamed to Put My Name to Itâ€: Monsanto, Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, and the Use of Fraudulent Science, 1969–1985â€Â for the history on scientific manipulation by the chemical industry, published in the American Journal of Public Health.)Â
As shared in previous Daily News, Beyond Pesticides and fellow changemakers—including organic and regenerative organic farmers and advocates—have long argued that the failure of EPA to consider the viability, productivity, and profitability of organic practices and product alternatives to conventional pesticides means the agency’s registration and reregistration of toxic pesticides have not been subject to a complete assessment. In this context and given the availability of less and nontoxic alternatives, EPA has failed in its responsibility to ensure that pesticides registered for use under FIFRA will not cause unreasonable adverse effects.Â
These inadequacies in the regulation of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers support the urgent need for the widespread adoption of safer alternatives. The holistic approach of organic agriculture and land management protects all organisms, including humans, and the environment through the elimination of harmful toxicants and the focus on building soil health. This also mitigates the current crises of biodiversity, public health, and climate change, among other benefits. In focusing on building soil health, that in turn creates a healthy system, with only allowable materials through the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the pesticide treadmill can be broken, and all workers, consumers, and wildlife can truly be protected.Â
Be part of the organic solution by becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides today. You can also participate as a Parks Advocate to transition your community towards organic land management, grow your own organic food, or support local organic farmers. Stay up to date on the latest science and policy with the Daily News Blog and sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates to be delivered straight to your inbox to remain informed.Â
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides. Â
Sources:Â
Gillam, C. (2025) Citing “serious ethical concerns,†journal retracts key Monsanto Roundup safety study, The New Lede. Available at: https://www.thenewlede.org/2025/12/citing-serious-ethical-concerns-journal-retracts-key-monsanto-roundup-safety-study/. Â
Malkan, S. (2025) Landmark glyphosate safety study retracted for Monsanto ghostwriting, other ethics problems, U.S. Right to Know. Available at: https://usrtk.org/pesticides/landmark-glyphosate-safety-study-retracted-for-monsanto-ghostwriting/. Â
Williams, G., Kroes, R. and Munro, I. (2000) RETRACTED: Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715. Â
