by Stephane Foucart at Le Monde
A 2000 study that concluded the well-known herbicide glyphosate was safe, widely cited since then, has just been officially disavowed by the journal that published it. The scientists are suspected of having signed a text actually prepared by Monsanto.
A quarter-century after its publication, one of the most influential research articles on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate has been retracted for “several critical issues that are considered to undermine the academic integrity of this article and its conclusions.” In a retraction notice dated Friday, November 28, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology announced that the study, published in April 2000 and concluding the herbicide was safe, has been removed from its archives. The disavowal comes 25 years after publication and eight years after thousands of internal Monsanto documents were made public during US court proceedings (the “Monsanto Papers”), revealing that the actual authors of the article were not the listed scientists – Gary M. Williams (New York Medical College), Robert Kroes (Ritox, Utrecht University, Netherlands), and Ian C. Munro (Intertek Cantox, Canada) – but rather Monsanto employees.
Known as “ghostwriting,” this practice is considered a form of scientific fraud. It involves companies paying researchers to sign their names to research articles they did not write. The motivation is clear: When a study supports the safety of a pesticide or drug, it appears far more credible if not authored by scientists employed by the company marketing the product.
Read more Subscribers only Glyphosate: French court clears Bayer-Monsanto of responsibility in birth defects case
In cautious terms, Martin van den Berg, co-editor-in-chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, noted that “employees of Monsanto may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co-authors. This lack of transparency raises serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors of this article and the academic integrity of the carcinogenicity studies presented.” Other failings are cited, notably the failure to disclose the authors’ compensation by Monsanto. “The potential financial compensation raises significant ethical concerns and calls into question the apparent academic objectivity of the authors in this publication,” van den Berg added.