The Hidden Truth Behind Roundup's Safety Claims

A recent development has shaken the foundation of a widely accepted study that declared Roundup safe for human use. The journal that published the study has officially withdrawn it after discovering that Monsanto, the company behind Roundup, secretly wrote the paper and paid scientists to put their names on it. This deception has been going on for years, influencing global health policies and public opinion. The study, which was published in the year 2000, claimed that Roundup and its main ingredient, glyphosate, posed no health risks to humans. It was authored by three scientists who were not employed by Monsanto, giving the impression of independence. However, internal documents from Monsanto, revealed during lawsuits, show that the company was heavily involved in the creation of the study. Monsanto scientists spent three years gathering data, writing, and reviewing the paper, and even paid outside scientists to edit and sign their names. This revelation raises serious questions about the integrity of scientific research that shapes public health policies. The study was used for over two decades to dismiss concerns about the safety of Roundup. The journal's editor-in-chief stated that the retraction was due to serious ethical concerns about the independence and accountability of the authors. The study's conclusions were based solely on unpublished Monsanto studies, while ignoring other published research. The consequences of this manipulated science are significant. Since 2017, multiple American juries have awarded billions in damages to plaintiffs who claimed that Roundup exposure caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The retracted study was a key reference in the European expert report that led to the herbicide's reauthorization in 2017. Critics are questioning why it took so long for the study to be retracted, eight years after the ghostwriting evidence first emerged in court. Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, has responded by stating that Monsanto's involvement was adequately noted and pointed to a consensus among global regulators. However, this episode highlights a vulnerability in the system where a single, well-placed article of questionable origin can have a significant impact. This retraction serves as a reminder that the battle for scientific truth is often fought against powerful interests who seek to control the narrative. It is a belated vindication for those who have been affected by the supposed safety of glyphosate, proving that even the most entrenched corporate myths can be exposed and debunked.