The app for independent voices
Retraction
A lot to unpack in this retraction and in how it’s being framed. I’m already familiar with much of the courtroom testimony and the regulatory history surrounding glyphosate.
Williams GM, Kroes R, Munro IC. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000 Apr;31(2 Pt 1):117-65. doi: 10.1006/rtph.1999.1371. PMID: 10854122. doi.org/10.1006/rtph.19…
There should also be noted (with expressions of concern, this highlighted in depositions as well)
Williams GM, Berry C, Burns M, de Camargo JLV, Greim H. Glyphosate rodent carcinogenicity bioassay expert panel review. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2016 Sep;46(sup1):44-55. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2016.1214679. Erratum in: Crit Rev Toxicol. 2018 Nov;48(10):914. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2018.1522784. PMID: 27677669. doi.org/10.1080/1040844…
Williams GM, Aardema M, Acquavella J, Berry SC, Brusick D, Burns MM, de Camargo JLV, Garabrant D, Greim HA, Kier LD, Kirkland DJ, Marsh G, Solomon KR, Sorahan T, Roberts A, Weed DL. A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2016 Sep;46(sup1):3-20. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2016.1214677. Erratum in: Crit Rev Toxicol. 2018 Nov;48(10):907-908. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2018.1522175. PMID: 27677666. doi.org/10.1080/1040844…
The DOI for retraction notice: doi.org/10.1006/rtph.19…
This article has been retracted at the request of handling (co)Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Martin van den Berg, Ph.D. … This decision has been made after careful consideration of the COPE guidelines and thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the authorship and content of this article and in light of no response having been provided to address the findings. The retraction is based on several critical issues that are considered to undermine the academic integrity of this article and its conclusions:
Carcinogenicity and Genotoxicity Assessments
Lack of Authorial Independence
Misrepresentation of Contributions
Questions of Financial Compensation
Ambiguity in Research Findings
Weight-of-Evidence Approach
Historical Context and Influence
Conclusion
Elsevier Policy
COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines (updated AugSep-2025)
Undark Mag
Environmental Science & Policy
Alexander A. Kaurov, Naomi Oreskes - The afterlife of a ghost-written paper: How corporate authorship shaped two decades of glyphosate safety discourse, Environmental Science & Policy (Vol 171, 2025, 104160, ISSN 1462-9011) doi.org/10.1016/j.envsc….
Similarities to 2016 Expression of Concern
Medical School Investigation
science.org - Update: After quick review, medical school says no evidence Monsanto ghostwrote professor's paper science.org/content/art…
Here is how the paper acknowledged participtation:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the assistance of individuals who participated in the preparation of this document. First, we are grateful to those who gathered and made available the large amount of information used to write the manuscript for this document. Second, we thank the toxicologists and other scientists at Monsanto who made significant contributions to the development of exposure assessments and through many other discussions. The authors were given complete access to toxicological information contained in the great number of laboratory studies and archival material at Monsanto in St. Louis, Missouri, and elsewhere. Key personnel at Monsanto who provided scientific support were William F. Heydens, Donna R. Farmer, Marian S. Bleeke, Stephen J. Wratten, and Katherine H. Carr. We also acknowledge the participation and assistance of Douglass W. Bryant and Cantox Health Sciences International for scientific and logistical support in the preparation of the final manuscript.
ICMJE Criteria (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors)
ICMJE’s Four Criteria for Authorship. AKA, Vancouver Guidelines, are the gold standard across biomedical and many interdisciplinary fields. icmje.org/recommendatio…An author must meet all four:
Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
Final approval of the version to be published.
Accountability for all aspects of the work, ensuring questions related to accuracy or integrity are properly investigated and resolved.
If a contributor does not meet all four, they should be acknowledged, not listed as an author.
Closing Response
Again, seems a lot to unpack and questions to be resolved and asked of the editor-in-chief: Gary M. Williams a long-time professor of pathology / toxicology at New York Medical College (NYMC), associated with many publications in toxicology, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity with over 500 publications. Perhaps best to wait and see additional responses to the editor. I didn’t see this rising to ‘retraction’ and Monsanto scientists should have just published independently. There are additional ironies in the retraction notice.
Did this review have any impact on any regulatory actions or the most recent ECHA or EFSA re-approval of glyphosate? Not likely (pun intended), more than 2400 publications, and 180,000 pages were reviewed by over 90 scientists in the EU. efsa.europa.eu/sites/de… Still, open to discussion. Will of course edit and enhance with time.
<edited 10:09am PST. adding link to ICMJE’s Four Criteria for Authorship>
