Key study that had “exonerated” glyphosate withdrawn

For more than twenty-five years it has been one of the most cited studies to support the safety of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide. “Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans” was published in 2000 in the scientific journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. Today that paper no longer exists, at least from a scientific point of view: it has been officially withdrawn from the journal that published it. It is a belated but weighty decision that reopens questions that have never quite been put to rest about the relationship between scientific research, industry, and public regulation.

The study dated back to 2000 and concluded that the use of glyphosate posed no significant risk to human health. Those conclusions have been echoed for years in regulatory dossiers, risk assessments and official documents, helping to build the idea of the substance’s substantial harmlessness when used as directed.

Little transparency

Over time, however, increasingly problematic elements have emerged. Independent analyses and documents made public in court proceedings have raised deep doubts about the study’s actual independence. And now, as a note published by the journal’s publisher notes, it has emerged that some studies showing evidence against the herbicide had not been cited. And that the industry producing the herbicide, Monsanto (now Bayer), had failed to state that some of the contributions had been written or reworked internally within the company. Added to this is the issue of conflicts of interest: compensation, consulting and professional relationships that were not adequately disclosed at the time of publication. This is not a marginal problem, because the credibility of a risk assessment study depends largely on the transparency of those who produce it and those who fund it.

In light of this evidence, the scientific journal has decided to formally withdraw the article, recognising that it no longer meets the required standards of reliability. The retraction does not amount to a new toxicological assessment of glyphosate, nor does it automatically establish that the substance is dangerous. But it does mark a milestone: that work can no longer be used as a scientific basis for public decisions.

Research or economic interest

The story has significance beyond the individual herbicide. It shows how fragile the line between research and economic interest can be, and how long a problematic study can influence policies and collective perceptions if not challenged in time. In the case of glyphosate, one of the most controversial issues of recent decades, this has helped to polarise the debate and weaken trust in scientific evaluation processes.

Today’s withdrawal of the study forces a reconsideration of at least some of the basis on which past authorisations and reassurances were based. It is not a final ruling, but it is a clear signal: without transparency and independence, science loses strength. And when science falters, it is the credibility of the institutions that rely on that science that pays the price.