Monsanto’s Roundup Study RETRACTED — Shocking Ethics Breach

A pile of discarded spray cans in a garbage bin

An influential article that called Monsanto’s Roundup safe for humans has been retracted 25 years later, raising serious questions about corporate influence in scientific research.

Story Highlights

The 2000 review article on Roundup’s safety is retracted due to ethical concerns.
Monsanto’s undisclosed funding and ghostwriting were revealed.
The retraction undermines a cornerstone reference for glyphosate’s safety.
Regulators and industry previously relied on this study for safety claims.

Retraction Sparks Scrutiny in Scientific Community

The influential 2000 review article declaring Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides safe for humans has been formally retracted as of late November 2025. The decision was made by the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology after uncovering evidence of undisclosed Monsanto funding and ghostwriting. This retraction has sparked renewed scrutiny over the scientific integrity of studies heavily influenced by corporate interests.

The original authors, Gary M. Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian C. Munro, had concluded there were no health risks associated with the herbicide, including cancer or reproductive toxicity. However, the paper’s reliance on Monsanto’s unpublished studies, while omitting independent research suggesting potential risks, was a critical factor in its withdrawal. This revelation has cast doubt on countless regulatory decisions that cited the paper as a key reference for glyphosate safety.

Corporate Influence and Ethical Breaches

Monsanto’s strategic push to create authoritative publications defending Roundup’s safety was revealed through litigation, uncovering a deliberate effort to differentiate its product from generic competitors. Internal communications indicated that the company viewed the Williams paper as “the” reference on Roundup safety, central to its global defense strategy.

In addition to ghostwriting, the retraction underscored serious ethical concerns, including misrepresented authorship and conflicts of interest. Despite Bayer, Monsanto’s parent company, maintaining that the regulatory consensus still supports glyphosate’s safety, the retraction challenges the credibility of studies underpinning such claims.

Impact on Regulatory and Legal Landscapes

The retraction’s implications extend beyond academia, potentially affecting ongoing litigation and regulatory reviews. In the U.S., where cancer patients have sued Monsanto, the retraction may bolster arguments of corporate misconduct. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while claiming it did not rely on this specific article, faces pressure to ensure that its upcoming glyphosate risk assessment is free from compromised studies.

Regulatory bodies worldwide may need to reassess the weight of industry-funded reviews and enhance transparency around pivotal safety evaluations. The case underscores the necessity for journals to strengthen disclosure requirements and for industries to maintain transparency about funding and authorship.