Monsanto’s SECRET Hand in Glyphosate SAFETY Study EXPOSED

A torn piece of brown paper revealing the word SECRET underneath

The retraction of a long-cited study on glyphosate safety reveals the hidden influence of corporate ghostwriting and raises concerns about industry-funded science.

Story Highlights

A pivotal paper claiming glyphosate safety was retracted after 25 years due to ghostwriting and undisclosed conflicts.
Monsanto’s influence over the paper’s authorship has renewed scrutiny of corporate-backed research.
Regulators and cancer litigants question the validity of glyphosate safety claims based on compromised science.
The retraction may lead to reforms in scientific publishing and increased skepticism about industry science.

Retraction Exposes Industry Influence

In December 2025, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology retracted a 2000 paper that had long been a cornerstone of Monsanto’s defense of glyphosate’s safety. This decision came after revelations of ghostwriting and undisclosed corporate funding. Monsanto’s internal emails revealed the company’s significant role in drafting the paper, which was presented as independent research. The paper’s retraction has raised concerns about the integrity of industry-funded scientific studies, particularly those that influence public health regulations.

The retraction has significant implications for ongoing litigation and regulatory debates. The paper, authored by Gary Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian Munro, was heavily promoted by Monsanto as definitive evidence of glyphosate’s safety. It concluded that glyphosate posed no cancer risk or adverse health effects, a conclusion now undermined by the revelation of Monsanto’s involvement. This raises questions about the reliability of other industry-funded studies and the extent to which corporate interests shape scientific narratives.

Regulatory and Legal Ramifications

Regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have historically relied on studies like the retracted paper to assess glyphosate’s safety. However, the EPA has stated it did not rely on this specific article for its current risk assessments. The retraction adds pressure on regulators to scrutinize the influence of corporate-funded research on public health policy. Legal experts suggest that the retraction bolsters plaintiffs’ arguments in lawsuits against Monsanto by exposing the compromised basis of glyphosate safety claims.

This development may also impact future scientific publishing practices. Calls for stricter rules on conflict-of-interest disclosures and ghostwriting prevention could shape the future of how scientific research is conducted and reported. The retraction serves as a warning about the potential consequences of allowing corporate interests to dictate scientific discourse, particularly in areas with significant public health implications.

Broader Impact on Science and Society

The retraction has broader implications for public trust in scientific research, particularly studies funded by corporations with vested interests. It highlights the need for transparency and accountability in scientific publishing, especially for studies informing regulatory decisions. The case may accelerate reforms aimed at reducing corporate influence in scientific research and increasing scrutiny of industry-funded studies.

The retraction also validates long-standing concerns from environmental and public health advocates about the influence of corporate interests on science. It underscores the importance of independent and transparent research to ensure public confidence in scientific claims, especially those with widespread health and environmental impacts.