Glyphosate: the truth behind Monsanto’s “independent” science

A major scientific paper that for decades helped defend Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup has been formally retracted for serious ethical concerns, as reported by The Guardian, The New York Times and other major news outlets.

The journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology withdrew the 2000 study “Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans” after its editor-in-chief stated that the decision was taken 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”, according to The Guardian.

The paper had concluded that glyphosate-based products posed no cancer, reproductive or endocrine risks and was widely cited by regulators around the world. However, documents disclosed during US litigation brought by cancer victims revealed Monsanto’s direct involvement in shaping the supposedly “independent” research. Internal emails show that Monsanto scientists helped draft, review and steer the publication, a strategy commonly described as ghostwriting, and that the company intended to use the study as “the” global reference to defend Roundup and glyphosate on the market. This news comes in the context of persistent public concern in Europe. As the Stop Glyphosate Coalition recalls, this chemical threatens human health and the integrity of biodiversity, soil, and water systems.

More than one million Europeans called for a ban on glyphosate in 2017, asking EU institutions to protect health and the environment. NGOs from across the EU joined forces within the Stop Glyphosate Coalition to challenge the influence of Bayer and other chemical companies and to demand real change in pesticide policy, putting citizens, farmers, pollinators, and ecosystems before corporate interests.

As we read on the Stop Glyphosate Coalition web pages, a poll conducted in six EU countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Poland, Romania and Spain) showed that 62% of respondents support a complete ban of glyphosate, while only 14% favour its prolonged use. Nevertheless, setting aside citizens’ requests and the lack of support from several Member States, the European Commission decided to renew the glyphosate market licence for another 10 years, despite data gaps and unresolved issues in the risk assessment conducted by EFSA. Within this context, the impact on pollinators represents one of the most critical environmental concerns. Bees can be exposed to this chemical either by direct contact or by ingestion via food and contaminated water. Several scientific findings have exposed that glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) are toxic to bees in many ways.

BeeLife has always stood alongside beekeepers, civil society and environmental organisations in the fight against glyphosate. 

The retraction revealed by The Guardian once again shows that the glyphosate debate is far from settled. More than ever, BeeLife will continue working for a glyphosate-free future for people, bees and nature.

Sources:  The Guardian, investigation on the retraction of the Monsanto-linked glyphosate study.  Stop Glyphosate Coalition, position and polling data on glyphosate renewal in the EU.