Beyond Scientific Neutrality: The Case of the Retraction on Glyphosate Safety

February 23, 2026
Versión en Español

The recent retraction of the article “Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans”⁵ on the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the Roundup herbicide, has reopened a scientific, regulatory, and political debate that had remained polarized for decades. Based on the review of three journalistic sources^1,2,3 it can be argued that all of them converge on the same point: this is not merely a “technical” discussion about toxicology, but rather an emblematic case of how a highly cited text can influence global public decisions and, years later, be discredited due to integrity failures.

In the retraction notice⁴, Martin Van den Berg, co-editor-in-chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, raised concerns regarding the independence of the text: evidence that Monsanto employees “may have contributed” to the drafting without proper acknowledgment, possible financial compensation that was not disclosed, and an evidentiary basis relying “exclusively” on unpublished studies conducted by Monsanto².

Le Monde underscored the most explosive element: the suspicion of ghostwriting, a practice described as scientific fraud because it allows an article to appear independent when, in reality, it may have been prepared and drafted under specific interests, typically linked to undue interference by the regulated industry. The article was signed by Gary M. Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian C. Munro, but information disclosed in U.S. litigation, the so-called “Monsanto Papers”, suggested that the content had been prepared by third parties aligned with Monsanto’s interests and later “adopted” by academic authors. According to journalistic accounts, this strategy aimed to increase credibility before regulators and the scientific community¹.

The newspaper La Jornada, through the news agency AFP, emphasized the temporal and political impact: the retraction occurred 25 years after publication and eight years after internal documents came to light, raising questions about why action took so long. It also recalled that the Roundup herbicide has been the subject of numerous cancer lawsuits and that the episode could cast doubt on the integrity of part of the literature used to assess the safety of the chemical compound. The article adds a key precedent: as early as 2002, a group of researchers had reportedly denounced conflicts of interest and lack of editorial independence within the journal, explicitly mentioning Monsanto, turning the case into a story of early warnings and delayed correction³.

For its part, The Washington Post situates the case within the clash of institutional assessments: while the World Health Organization, through the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classified glyphosate in 2015 as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” European and U.S. authorities have not classified it as carcinogenic under their regulatory frameworks. In this context, the article highlights that the retracted study functioned as a foundational reference to support the claim that glyphosate posed no cancer risk to humans, and that its withdrawal has implications that challenge the credibility of scientific neutrality²,¹.

In this context, both Le Monde and The Washington Post note that the important work of Alexander Kaurov and Naomi Oreskes⁶, addressing how corporate authorship shaped the debate on herbicide safety, served as a trigger for the editor to acknowledge the issue and move forward with the retraction process. This occurred despite the problematic nature of the article having been known for years; it continued to be cited in the scientific literature and retained influence in public debate.

This retraction has been considered a landmark regarding the neutrality required of scientific work, as it questions the reliability of a text that may have contributed to shaping policies and perceptions for a quarter of a century. The case functions as a warning about conflicts of interest and the transparency of scientific evidence that influences regulatory decisions with significant public health consequences.

Ethical Dilemmas Regarding Academic Integrity

The retraction of the study by Williams et al.⁵ constitutes a paradigmatic case of the crisis of academic integrity that erodes the legitimacy of scientific processes when they become instruments of corporate influence. This event reveals systemic failures that compromise public health and environmental justice through the following critical axes:

1. Opacity and Conflicts of Interest. Scientific ethics requires full disclosure of any interest that may bias research. In this case, the lack of independence is evident: the participation of Monsanto employees in drafting the article and the receipt of financial compensation by the signatories were omitted. Furthermore, the evidentiary basis was limited to private studies conducted by the corporation itself, transforming a supposedly independent review into a marketing tool under academic appearance.

2. The Fraud of Ghostwriting. Ghostwriting represents a deliberate fraud aimed at capturing scientific literature and manufacturing credibility before regulatory bodies. By falsifying authorship, the traceability of intellectual responsibility is erased, allowing private interests to dictate content that is later “adopted” by prestigious academics to validate commercial products.

3. Failures in Editorial Oversight (Gatekeeping). The 25-year delay in retraction, and eight years after the revelations of the “Monsanto Papers”, demonstrates a critical failure in the responsibility of scientific journals. By ignoring complaints regarding conflicts of interest dating back to 2002, the process allowed influence over public health decisions, resulting in cumulative and avoidable exposure to toxic substances for agricultural workers and consumers.

4. Erosion of Trust and Environmental Justice. The harm is twofold: health safety is compromised, and public trust in science is undermined. From an environmental justice perspective, this deception disproportionately affects vulnerable rural communities that lack the power to litigate or mitigate their exposure. A morally compromised scientific record invalidates the normative authority of policies based upon it.

The fundamental lesson of this case is that mere disclosure of conflicts is insufficient; stricter integrity standards are required. A robust institutional response should include:

• Regulatory cleansing: Remove the normative weight of any retracted article and reevaluate official reports that cite it. 

• Independence and transparency: Require authorship audits and guarantee full access to primary data, separating regulatory evidence from industry-sponsored literature. 

• Precautionary principle: Implement interim protective measures and health monitoring in exposed populations while transparent reevaluations are conducted. 

• Scientific integrity is an indispensable condition for public health. Science must operate as a service to the common good, not as an appendage of corporate power seeking to influence the economy, society, and public policy; correcting the ethical course is a moral obligation that must prevail over the economic stability of any industry. 



Toward an Ethical Architecture of Global Environmental Governance

Within the framework of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the First Plenary Session of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP P1)⁷ was recently held, representing an important reference point in the construction of global environmental governance. This panel was established with the mission of closing the gap between scientific knowledge and political decision-making, completing the scientific triad alongside the IPCC⁸ and IPBES⁹.

The relevance of ISP-CWP P1 is not merely technical; it emerges in a moment of crisis of public trust and acts as a necessary catalyst to assess whether the guidelines adopted are sufficient to shield science from corporate capture, exemplified by the recent retraction of the glyphosate article^4,5 which revealed opacity and conflicts of interest that compromised health safety for decades.

The mandate of the ISP-CWP⁷ seeks to bring clarity, coherence, and authority to the pollution prevention agenda, grounded in effective multilateralism. Institutionally, the panel positions itself as an impartial mediator, an “honest broker”, that must filter evidence so governments can rely on trustworthy sources amid misinformation.

ISP-CWP P1 represents a fundamental contribution to strengthening the ethical oversight of scientific publications insofar as it institutionalizes systemic distrust toward studies with undisclosed conflicts of interest. If the panel succeeds in operationalizing its transparency policies, situations such as the Roundup case would be detected early through interdisciplinary review mechanisms. Therefore, it is essential that ISP-CWP scientific evaluation guidelines regulate the traceability of scientific authorship to eradicate ghostwriting, ensure public access to primary data used in risk assessments, and establish a robust trust fund guaranteeing that research does not depend on funding from regulated sectors.

The glyphosate case reminds us that when science fails ethically, policy fails protectively. The ISP-CWP is part of the multilateral response to ensure that the evidence protecting our health is not written by those who benefit from the risk.

References:

1. AFP. (2025, diciembre 3). Influential study on glyphosate safety retracted 25 years after publication. Le Monde
2. Ajasa, A. (2025, diciembre 5). This study found this weed-killing chemical doesn’t cause cancer. It was just retracted. The Washington Post
3. AFP. (2025, diciembre 8). Retiran estudio sobre glifosato que niega riesgo cancerígeno. La Jornada 
4. Van den Berg, M. (2025, noviembre 28). Retraction notice to “Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans” (Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 31(2), 117–165, 2000). Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2025.105XXX 
5. Williams, G. M., Kroes, R., & Munro, I. C. (2000). Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 31(2), 117–165. https://doi.org/10.1006/rtph.1999.1371  
6. Kaurov, A., & Oreskes, N. (2025). The afterlife of a ghost-written paper: How corporate authorship shaped two decades of glyphosate safety discourse. Environmental Science & Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104160  
7. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente. (2026, 4 de febrero). Proyecto de informe del primer período de sesiones del Plenario del Grupo Intergubernamental Científico-Normativo sobre los Productos Químicos, los Desechos y la Contaminación (UNEP/ISP-CWP.1/L.1). Naciones Unidas 
8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). https://www.ipcc.ch/  
9. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). https://www.ipbes.net/