and just like that roundup is a dangerous fraud. Yet this movie ran as safe from 1965 unti today or a full sixty years. The truth is that thosands died from exposure. mostly farmers of course.
I am hardly amused and do wonder if we have a properly safe protocol for its use. We also need one for DDT other than outright banning.
most pesticides are bdangerous because they are applied best as aerosols which is way to easy to breathe. We do have the air can systems that need to be improved into open masks along with shedding overalls that allows clothed showers.
Glyphosate “Safety” Study Ghostwritten by Monsanto Retracted After 25 Years of Deception
https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/glyphosate-safety-study-ghostwritten-by-monsanto-retracted-after-25-years-of-deception/
In a long-overdue move, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has formally retracted the landmark 2000 glyphosate “safety” review by Williams, Kroes, and Munro — a paper Monsanto and global regulators have relied on for decades to assert that Roundup poses no carcinogenic risk to humans.
Crucially, the Editor-in-Chief confirms that Monsanto employees likely secretly wrote substantial portions of the paper, despite never being listed as authors or acknowledged — a revelation uncovered through U.S. litigation.
The retraction states that the article’s integrity has collapsed entirely, citing undisclosed corporate authorship, omitted carcinogenicity data, financial conflicts of interest, and a complete failure by the surviving author to respond to the journal’s investigation.
THE RETRACTION
1. Based almost entirely on Monsanto’s unpublished studies
The review’s “no cancer risk” conclusion relied solely on Monsanto-generated data. Even worse, the authors ignored multiple long-term mouse and rat carcinogenicity studies that already existed at the time — including multi-year toxicity studies showing tumor signals. None were incorporated.
2. Evidence of ghostwriting by Monsanto
Litigation records revealed that Monsanto employees secretly co-wrote portions of the paper, despite never being listed as authors or acknowledged. This alone violates the most basic principles of scientific integrity.
3. Undisclosed financial ties
The authors appear to have received direct compensation from Monsanto for producing the paper — again undisclosed, again violating journal standards.
4. Misrepresentation of authorship and contributions
By hiding Monsanto’s role, the paper created the illusion of independent scientific evaluation — even as corporate employees shaped the conclusions.
5. Regulatory capture revealed
This paper heavily influenced global risk assessments — including U.S. EPA, WHO/FAO, and Health Canada evaluations — setting the tone for “glyphosate is safe” messaging for more than two decades.
While I am strongly opposed to politically motivated retractions and scientific censorship, this retraction was unquestionably warranted. The integrity failures were not ideological — they were structural, factual, and undeniable.
And the independent evidence that has emerged since 2000 only underscores how dangerous that original “all clear” truly was.
A recent controlled animal study demonstrated that glyphosate and Roundup can induce rare, aggressive, and fatal cancers across multiple organs — even at doses considered “safe” by U.S. and EU regulatory thresholds. These findings directly contradict the original review’s core conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment