Even more insidious, and possibly a partial explanation regarding how Monsanto almost got away with this deception, is that the authors may have received financial compensation from Monsanto for their work on this article, which has surfaced during litigation. Those authors of the now-retracted article, published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology in 2000, are a pathologist at New York Medical College, a toxicologist in the Netherlands, and a toxicologist in Canada. The journal’s editor in chief noted that he had retracted the article 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 Guardian reported that a Monsanto scientist suggested in 2015 that he and colleagues “ghost-write” another scientific paper. Monsanto could pay outside scientists to “edit & sign their names” to the work that he and others would do. “Recall that is how we handled [the now retracted article] in 2000,” he wrote in an email.
Although the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” other regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have maintained that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans when used according to label directions. This divergence in scientific assessment begs the question: to what extent were regulatory agencies influenced by this ghostwritten “garbage”, as one plaintiff’s attorney calls it? “This confirms what plaintiffs have alleged for years,” said a lead counsel in several Roundup cases, and reported by The Guardian. “Monsanto didn’t just influence the science — they engineered it.” However, an EPA spokesperson said that the agency was aware of the retraction but “has never relied on this specific article in developing any of its regulatory conclusions on glyphosate”.
Why the retraction took eight years
When the ghostwritten article was first exposed through internal documents, that still wasn’t enough to remove it. Enago.com explains that journal editors and publishers must be cautious as retraction consequences could undermine trust, damage reputations, and potentially trigger legal fallout. Even after misconduct is revealed, journals wait for solid evidence or external pressure (from lawyers, watchdogs or subsequent independent research) before issuing a retraction. And ghostwritten papers are even harder to dismantle: the deception is subtle, the “real” authors are anonymous, and the original authors may not confess to wrongdoing.
Eight years later, thanks mainly to litigation, the accumulated ethical weight has become undeniable.
Why Retraction Matters – Legally
Removing the glyphosate safety article undermines Monsanto/Bayer’s main defenses: that regulatory approvals and “independent scientific consensus” supported glyphosate’s safety. Now it is retracted, defendants have lost its compliance and due diligence argument.
READ MORE MONSANTO ROUNDUP LEGAL NEWS
Plaintiffs’ arguments that Monsanto knowingly influenced the scientific record to their advantage will have more credibility. It will strengthen their claims in court of Monsanto’s negligence, intentional concealment and misrepresentation. It’s almost a given that their lawyers will use the ghostwritten paper as evidence that Monsanto “engineered” the science, misled regulators, and misinformed consumers about cancer risks. One attorney overseeing hundreds of glyphosate cases told Science Adviser that the paper’s retraction could remove one hurdle for plaintiffs. Monsanto “can’t rely on it anymore…This is yet more evidence that we were right all along,” she said.
Another attorney noted that the retraction could also prompt courts and juries to reassess prior judgments and ongoing cases. But it’s going to be a battle. Reuters on December 2nd reported that President Trump’s administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court to curtail thousands of lawsuits claiming its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, and the U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief at court saying Bayer was correct: the federal law governing pesticides preempts lawsuits that make claims over the products under state law.
Source link
