A key study on the safety of glyphosate, the cancer-causing chemical used in the pesticide Roundup, has been retracted due to serious ethical concerns. The journal accuses the authors of having ties to glyphosate manufacturer Monsanto. Berlin (dpa) – A scientific journal has formally retracted a study from 2000 that has played a central role in the debate about the safety of the pesticide glyphosate due to questions about who authored the study. The journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology formally retracted the paper in early December. It had been a key argument for claims by the then manufacturer Monsanto that the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate had no carcinogenic effects. In a statement, Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, said: "No one from Monsanto was involved as an author, and the company's relationship to the paper was properly disclosed." The study was widely regarded as groundbreaking in the debate, according to the specialist publisher Elsevier, which publishes the journal. However, it is now unclear whether the conclusion drawn – that glyphosate and Roundup are not carcinogenic – is actually correct. Concerns were raised about who wrote the study, its validity in connection with a misrepresentation of the authors' contributions and the study sponsor, and potential conflicts of interest on the authors' part, writes editor-in-chief Martin van den Berg in a statement published by the journal. There are several reasons behind the retraction, including the assessment of carcinogenicity, he wrote. The study's conclusions regarding whether glyphosate causes cancer are based exclusively on Monsanto studies that showed no tumour-inducing potential, van den Berg writes. At the time of publication, there were other long-term studies on chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity whose data were not taken into account. Lack of independence of the authors A legal dispute in the United States brought to light correspondence from Monsanto which shows that the three authors named in the study were probably not solely responsible for the content. Instead, Monsanto employees may have contributed to the study without being properly named as co-authors. Misrepresentation of contributions is another factor. The contributions, which appear to have been written by Monsanto employees as co-authors, were not explicitly mentioned as such in the acknowledgements section. "This omission suggests that the authors may have misrepresented their unique roles and the collaborative nature of the work presented," the journal's statement read. Questions about financial compensation Further correspondence with Monsanto disclosed during the litigation suggests that the three officially named authors may have received financial compensation from Monsanto for their work on the study, which was not disclosed. Editor-in-chief van den Berg wrote that he reached out to the sole surviving author of the study, Professor Gary Williams, but "we did not receive any response." The study had a significant influence on regulatory decisions regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades, the journal's statement noted. "Given its status as a cornerstone in the assessment of glyphosate's safety, it is imperative that the integrity of this review article and its conclusions are not compromised." In light of these points, there is no longer any confidence in the results and conclusions, which makes the retraction necessary, van den Berg emphasizes. Why is this happening now? In 2017, internal emails from the chemical company Monsanto were published in a court case, revealing that company employees had been involved in the preparation of the influential study, according to an article in the journal Science on the retraction. Just a few months ago, a research duo reported in the journal Environmental Science & Policy how widely the study continues to be cited and how influential it remains. The article says that the study is among the top 0.1% of most-cited studies in glyphosate-related research. The revelations about Monsanto's covert involvement have done little to change this. What does the manufacturer say? The current owner of Monsanto, Bayer, rejected the criticism. The retracted study was purely a review article of properly submitted studies, explained company spokesman Philipp Blank in a statement in response to a query from dpa. "Glyphosate is the most extensively studied herbicide of the last 50 years." Leading regulatory authorities worldwide agree that glyphosate is safe when used properly, the company maintains. Current state of research According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO), glyphosate is considered a probable human carcinogen. Authorities such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) see no relevant cancer risk if the rules of use are followed. The apparent contradiction is not really one: the IARC assessed the cancer risk, for example the general possibility that glyphosate causes cancer. The authorities' assessment took everyday risk into account as a factor. The EFSA considers the cancer risk to be negligible at the levels typically consumed by humans, for example, through food. What is glyphosate used for? It is a so-called total herbicide that damages almost all green plants. Glyphosate has been used since the mid-1970s, primarily under the trade name Roundup, and is now contained in numerous plant pesticides from various manufacturers. Farmers spray it on fields before sowing, for example, to destroy unwanted competing plants. The European Union has recently extended the authorization for glyphosate until the end of 2033. In some member states, including Germany, its use in home and community gardens and on land intended for public use is prohibited or severely restricted. In the US, people who had used Roundup and developed cancer have been awarded large sums in damages on several occasions in recent years. The following information is not intended for publication dpa ram/kll xxde mew coh
(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)
