Influential study on glyphosate safety retracted 25 years after publication

Retraction grounds and influence of the paper

• The retracted glyphosate “safety” paper is described as heavily ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, with academic authors allegedly just signing.
• Retraction Watch is cited: the formal reasons include undisclosed ties to Monsanto and reliance on unpublished Monsanto studies while ignoring contrary work, not proven data fabrication.
• A recent analysis claims this paper was cited far more than nearly all other glyphosate studies, giving it outsized influence on regulators and public perception for decades.
• Some ask why it wasn’t retracted soon after the “Monsanto Papers” came out years ago; answers point to institutional inertia and reluctance to admit error.

Health risks and mechanisms: contested views

• Proposed mechanisms include genotoxicity and oxidative stress in human cells, possible accumulation in bone with slow release to bone marrow, and disruption of gut bacteria (via the shikimate pathway), potentially acting like an antibiotic.
• Others argue that if occupationally exposed cohorts at far higher doses don’t show clear, reproducible cancer signals, it’s hard to justify panic over dietary trace exposure.
• Several note the literature around glyphosate is politicized and subject to both corporate defense and anti-GMO activism, making signals hard to interpret.
• Some commenters speculate more broadly about links to “leaky gut,” autoimmune disease, metabolic syndrome, and insect declines; others label such chains of inference as weak or unclear.

Household vs industrial use

• A long subthread debates home use: one person choosing glyphosate over strong vinegar for weeds near a dog sparks arguments about risk, alternatives, and social responsibility.
• Alternatives discussed: mowing, hand-pulling, boiling water, torches, selective herbicides, salt, and simply tolerating “weeds.” Opinions range from “never use glyphosate” to “it’s safe at domestic levels.”
• Several stress that the main public-health concern is not yards but large-scale agricultural use, especially pre-harvest desiccation of wheat, oats, lentils, and other crops.

Corporate accountability and systemic issues

• Many call for harsh penalties for scientific fraud leading to public harm: corporate dissolution, shareholder wipeout, and prison for executives and collaborating scientists.
• Others note corporations can evade fines via bankruptcy or siloed subsidiaries, and that regulatory capture and political donations blunt meaningful consequences.
• There’s broader frustration that similar patterns (ghostwriting, attack on critics) have occurred with tobacco, leaded gasoline, fossil fuels, and other chemicals.
• Some suggest AI and stylometric tools could help uncover undisclosed industry authorship in scientific literature.