Ghostwriters, polo shirts, and the decline of a significant pesticide study

A highly cited study that once claimed the herbicide Roundup posed no major health risks has been quietly retracted, ending a 25-year controversy that highlighted how corporate interests can skew scientific research and affect regulatory decisions. Originally published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology in 2000, the study ranked among the top 0.1% of all research on glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, produced by Monsanto and central to multi-billion-dollar cancer lawsuits.

In a retraction notice last week, editor-in-chief Martin van den Berg outlined numerous serious issues, including the omission of available carcinogenicity studies, undisclosed input from Monsanto employees, and questions regarding financial incentives.

Elsevier, the journals publisher, stated it maintains "the highest standards of rigor and ethics," and began reviewing the paper once concerns were raised months ago. However, criticisms of the study trace back to 2002, when letters highlighted conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, and potential editorial bias involving Monsanto.

The case gained public attention in 2017 after internal corporate documents revealed that Monsanto scientists had participated in "ghostwriting" the paper. Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes, co-author of a recent paper exposing the 2000 studys misconduct, expressed relief at the retraction but emphasized the need for stronger mechanisms to identify and remove fraudulent research.

Lynn Goldman, a pediatrician and epidemiologist who co-signed the 2002 letter, noted that the retraction aligns with the issues raised nearly two decades ago. Two of the studys three original authors have passed away, while first author Gary Williams of New York Medical College did not respond to requests for comment. Monsanto continues to assert the safety of Roundup and claims its involvement in the paper was appropriately acknowledged.

Internal emails, however, suggest more informal influence, including a note where a Monsanto scientist proposed giving Roundup-branded polo shirts to the team involved as a "thank you."

Introduced in the 1970s as a seemingly safer alternative to DDT, glyphosate became widely used, particularly after Monsanto developed glyphosate-resistant seeds. The 2000 study significantly shaped public and regulatory perception, being cited by bodies including the Canadian Forest Service, the International Court of Justice, the US Congress, and the European Parliamentary Research Service.

Glyphosates potential risks became more pronounced in 2015, when the World Health Organizations International Agency for Research on Cancer labeled it as "probably carcinogenic to humans." This prompted regulatory restrictions in several countries, including France. Bayer, Monsantos parent company, announced a phase-out of Roundup for residential use in the United States in 2023 amid ongoing lawsuits.

Experts like Nathan Donley of the Center for Biological Diversity believe the retraction may not influence the US Environmental Protection Agency under the current administration, but it could impact ongoing litigation concerning glyphosates renewal. European regulators might also take notice. Stanfords John Ioannidis warns that ghostwritten studies with undisclosed conflicts of interest are likely widespread but difficult to detect outside of intensive legal investigations.

Author: Jackson Miller