●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
180336631
story
Posted
by
BeauHD
mber 09, 2025 @08:00AM
from the long-time-coming dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Guardian: The journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has formally retracted a sweeping scientific paper published in 2000 that became a key defense for Monsanto's claim that Roundup herbicide and its active ingredient glyphosate don't cause cancer. Martin van den Berg, the journal's editor in chief, said in a note accompanying the retraction that he had taken the step because of "serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors of this article and the academic integrity of the carcinogenicity studies 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 -- no cancer risks, no reproductive risks, no adverse effects on development of endocrine systems in people or animals. 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 (PDF). [...]
In explaining the decision to retract the 25-year-old research paper, Van den Berg wrote: "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." He noted that the paper's conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate were solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto, ignoring other outside, published research. "The retraction of this study is a long time coming," said Brent Wisner, one of the lead lawyers in the Roundup litigation and a key player in getting the internal documents revealed to the public. Wisner said the study was the "quintessential example of how companies like Monsanto could fundamentally undermine the peer-review process through ghostwriting, cherrypicking unpublished studies, and biased interpretations."
"This garbage ghostwritten study finally got the fate it deserved,â Wisner added. "Hopefully, journals will now be more vigilant in protecting the impartiality of science on which so many people depend."
You may like to read:
Evidence That Humans Now Speak In a Chatbot-Influenced Dialect Is Getting Stronger
India's Aviation Crisis Is All About Too Big to Tame
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
●rrent threshold.
●ent threshold.
●nt threshold.
● threshold.
●threshold.
bysinij ( 911942 ) writes:
Scientific journals, especially in the age of AI, need to rethink reluctance of publishing duplication/confirmation studies. Currently, it is almost impossible to publish such work, but it is much needed.
twitter
facebook
byRobinH ( 124750 ) writes:
There's an interesting new idea where you can get some journals to pre-approve publication of your study by first submitting your plan... so you outline exactly how you are going to perform the experiment and analyze it. Then the journal pre-approves it, you perform the experiment/study, and they'll guarantee to publish your results (if you follow your plan) no matter the outcome. The idea is to fix the problem where journals only want to publish surprising results because they're more exciting, but the problem is that surprising results are also more likely to be wrong, and also to get cited.
The scientific community generally knows they have a serious problem, and they want to fix it, but in my opinion they're moving pretty slow. I don't know if they understand how much trust they're losing every time a story like this comes out. Ultimately it's good that these studies are being retracted, but the slow and painful way it's happening is just crushing trust in science as an institution. I'd like to see the scientific community take a stronger and faster approach to solving these problems.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bysinij ( 911942 ) writes:
Now, it has been some years since I left (and never looked back) research, I have not seen ANY evidence that there is any effort to address study replication problem. Just a lot of hand wringing.
byISoldat53 ( 977164 ) writes:
Maybe there needs to be a study about this problem.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byhyades1 ( 1149581 ) writes:
Monsanto board members and their families should be forced to live with levels of exposure to glyphosphate farmers and others who have used it for years face. Maybe they'll be just fine. Not everybody who has been exposed to glyphosphate got cancer, right?
bygtall ( 79522 ) writes:
"and their families" Stop it. Innocent persons do not deserve this.
bythegarbz ( 1787294 ) writes:
People who reap the benefits of the spoils of crime aren't "innocent".
byAnonymous Coward writes:
In that case, we're all guilty and deserve to die!
●nt threshold.
byOrangeTide ( 124937 ) writes:
Innocent people never deserve what happens to them, that's pretty much the definition of innocent. But many people still turn a blind eye to the things done to the innocent, often in the name of profit and in part to a warped concept of freedom.
Running a business shouldn't grant people absolute freedom and immunity from consequences. But that's precisely how a corporate board operates today.
byhyades1 ( 1149581 ) writes:
So our families deserve the risk, but families of the people who create and market carcinogens don't?
Forgive me if I consider people who benefit from poisoning my children to be less than innocent.
byArchieBunker ( 132337 ) writes:
This is always good for a chuckle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
byhyades1 ( 1149581 ) writes:
ROFL!!! I hadn't seen that. Thank you from the bottom of my heart!
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Roundup contains glyphosate however Roundup also contains other stuff that is even more toxic that glyphosate:
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
But in the new study, scientists found that Roundupâ(TM)s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cellsâ"even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.
One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself â" a finding the researchers call âoeastonishing.â
So even if there are tons of studies showing that glyphosate is safe they don't prove that Roundup is safe.
byrta ( 559125 ) writes:
The retraction note is all innuendo. It doesn't cure any actual wrongdoing, nor the actual basis of it's suspicions.
just that "questions have been raised".
The guardian article purports to quote smoking gun emails the closest that seems shady is from 2015 , 15 years later, where some Monsanto dude suggests ghostwriting a paper.
About the original paper it looks like normal corporate communication about a good event. There's no indication of saying anyone cheated or convinced scientists of untrue things or anything like that.
This overall seems more some sort of political purity declaration than about knowledge it even about scientific standards.
twitter
facebook
bysinij ( 911942 ) writes:
This retraction makes it easier to litigate, because expert witnesses no longer can cite this paper and have ironclad defense.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byZak3056 ( 69287 ) writes:
This retraction makes it easier to litigate, because expert witnesses no longer can cite this paper and have ironclad defense.
If true, that sounds like pretty dangerous ground for an alleged scientific journal to be treading upon. "Who cares if the paper is accurate or not, we're retracting to make it easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to sue" doesn't sound very scientific.
Parent
twitter
facebook
●ent threshold.
bylocofungus ( 179280 ) writes:
Seriously, that's how America works? Somehow that doesn't surprise me.
In most of the rest of the world it doesn't work that way.
Firstly things are typically not allowed to be sold unless they can be shown to be reasonably safe - which this study was invaluable for.
But when suing you need actual damages to claim for and you have to show direct harm. There isn't such a thing as punitive damages. The model is to try to prevent bad things from being sold up front rather than assume firms won't do it because of
byOrangeTide ( 124937 ) writes:
The EPA and IARC relied on different kinds of research to reach their conclusions. The EPA (U.S.) states that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans. But, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified the chemical as "probably carcinogenic to humans."
Also, not all glyphosate products are the same. And in the US at least we only list the so-called "active" ingredients, but the unlisted ingredients can potentially be toxic, carcinogenic, or teratogenic. Generally chemicals
byrilian4 ( 591569 ) writes:
There's already been at least one major class action case against Monsanto over cancer being linked to roundup. My dad died from that specific cancer and he and my mom received $10,000 as a first part of a settlement from the suit before he died.
bySnotMelon ( 9070565 ) writes:
It probably makes no difference wrt litigation. What matters primarily in any court case is the relevant information/laws at the time of the offense. Defense lawyers would argue the paper was published science at the time. Note that Bayer AG share price is up 5% today, so the "market" doesn't think it's going to negatively affect any court case.
●ent threshold.
byCyberax ( 705495 ) writes:
The retraction note is all innuendo. It doesn't cure any actual wrongdoing, nor the actual basis of it's suspicions.
just that "questions have been raised".
Meanwhile, studies that were quoted by grifters in the first true post-truth trial of Monsanto causing cancer were all ghostwritten by greenie hippies.
It's also not like it's the _only_ study of glyphosate safety. There have been 13 reliable mouse studies since 1984 ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a... [nih.gov] ), that found no effect on mice in any reasonable concentration. But now the anti-glyphosate grifters are going to glomp onto this study and pretend that nothing else exists.
●ent threshold.
byPleaseThink ( 8207110 ) writes:
normal corporate communication about a good event
In other words it doesn't belong in a scientific journal. The paper cited unpublished research that isn't available to the public. That means it's claims can't be verified which means it's a bullshit paper.
"I'm the best person to have ever lived and everything I say is true. I'm citing 25 studies which shows that I'm right and that anyone who says I'm wrong is wrong themselves. I'm giving you the citations, but I won't let you read their papers." That's what they did. Complete bullshit. That type of
●rrent threshold.
bylocofungus ( 179280 ) writes:
Let me guess, competitors can now produce and market it. So now they need to stop it being sold so they can sell the next great thing at huge markup.
twitter
facebook
byZak3056 ( 69287 ) writes:
Let me guess, competitors can now produce and market it. So now they need to stop it being sold so they can sell the next great thing at huge markup.
Yes, I'm sure than Monsanto is champing at the bit to be the next Owens-Corning and sued into oblivion, which is why they're working hard to make sure that Roundup has to be removed from the market for safety reasons.
Do you people even hear yourselves sometimes? How do you say shit like this with a straight face?
bytoxonix ( 1793960 ) writes:
Bayer/Monsanto is constantly being sued. Litigation is part of their budget.
byZak3056 ( 69287 ) writes:
Bayer/Monsanto is constantly being sued. Litigation is part of their budget.
Sure. But the suggestion here is that they were specifically inviting it, ostensibly because it would harm competitors.
They are not going to support the idea that "glyphosate causes cancer" for some short-term market advantage.
bylocofungus ( 179280 ) writes:
There was absolutely no such suggestion of even thought.
Do you people even hear yourselves sometimes? How do you say shit like this with a straight face?
Outside of the US, nobody is going to get a licence to sell a generic herbicide without showing that it's safe to use. This study was an important part of that regulatory process.
The presumption is that the product needs to be shown to be safe to use to get a licence, while getting a licence revoked requires showing that the product is harmful. It's not at
bypeterww ( 6558522 ) writes:
There is a very important, and possibly intentional, confusion happening in this quote: "Monsanto's claim that Roundup herbicide and its active ingredient glyphosate don't cause cancer"
Notice that it's Roundup *and its active ingredient glyphosate". But what else is in Roundup other than its active ingredient? This is the critical point: it's all the other additive shit that goes into Roundup that is the most damaging to people.
Glyphosate, by itself, has not been found to be carcinogenic to humans. It's bee
byCyberax ( 705495 ) writes:
Notice that it's Roundup *and its active ingredient glyphosate". But what else is in Roundup other than its active ingredient?
Surfactants. And you can buy pure glyphosate, actually. It's just not very convenient because it's an oily liquid that doesn't mix well with water.
byRogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) writes:
It was retracted due to "ethical concerns". That doesn't mean that the research methodology, data, or conclusions were wrong. If it had been retracted for those reasons, that would be far more important.
bylyosha ( 97461 ) writes:
Monsanto should start a rumor that roundup causes autism. California will start serving roundup sandwiches in public schools.
●current threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
●
356 commentsIn a Last-Minute Decision, White House Decides Not To Terminate NASA Employees
●
317 commentsCDC Changes Webpage To Say Vaccines May Cause Autism, Revising Prior Language
●
306 commentsUS Formally Withdraws From WHO
●
303 commentsElon Musk Urges Deorbiting the International Space Station 'As Soon as Possible'
●
302 commentsAmerica's NIH Scientists Have a Cancer Breakthrough. Layoffs are Delaying It.
India's Aviation Crisis Is All About Too Big to Tame
Evidence That Humans Now Speak In a Chatbot-Influenced Dialect Is Getting Stronger
Slashdot Top Deals
Slashdot
●
●
ofloaded
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
India's Aviation Crisis Is All About Too Big to Tame
28comments
Evidence That Humans Now Speak In a Chatbot-Influenced Dialect Is Getting Stronger
85comments
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...