Journal Retracts Unethical Glyphosate Safety Study 25 Years Later
Dr. Joseph Mercola - Take Control of Your Health
Briana Mercola
4.6 • 1.6K Ratings
🗓️ 9 February 2026
⏱️ 7 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
- A highly influential 2000 glyphosate safety study long cited by regulators worldwide was retracted after evidence showed it was ghostwritten by Monsanto scientists and misrepresented as independent research
- Internal company emails revealed Monsanto planned, wrote, and celebrated the paper as a strategic tool to defend Roundup and Roundup Ready crops during a crucial period of expiring patents
- Despite ghostwriting being exposed in a 2017 litigation, the study continued shaping research, regulation, and public perception for years, accumulating more than 1,300 citations before a long-delayed retraction
- The journal admitted the study relied on unpublished Monsanto data while ignoring existing toxicity research, showing how selective evidence can quietly shape policy for years
- The glyphosate case reflects widespread unethical research across health and medicine, showing why you need to question consensus, examine incentives, and protect your health rather than trust the system blindly
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | Are you sure the science you rely on wasn't quietly written by the very companies it protects? |
| 0:05.0 | And if it was, how would you know? |
| 0:07.0 | Welcome to Dr. Mercola's cellular wisdom. |
| 0:10.0 | Stay informed with quick, easy to listen summaries of our latest articles, perfect for when you're on the go. |
| 0:15.0 | No reading required. Subscribe for free at Mercola.com for the latest health insights. |
| 0:20.0 | Hello and welcome to Dr. Mercola's cellular wisdom. I'm Ethan Subscribe for free at mercola.com for the latest health insights. |
| 0:23.9 | Hello and welcome to Dr. Mercola's cellular wisdom. |
| 0:30.1 | I'm Ethan Foster, and today we're examining the retraction of a highly cited glyphosate safety paper and what it teaches you about evaluating research, regulation, and your everyday exposure. |
| 0:36.0 | I'm Alara Sky. This episode looks at why a 2000 review that reassured regulators about glyphosate |
| 0:42.4 | was pulled 25 years later, how internal company emails revealed ghostwriting, and how that |
| 0:48.7 | single article influenced policy, research, and public opinion long after the deception surfaced. |
| 0:55.0 | The paper appeared in regulatory toxicology and pharmacology in April 2000, |
| 1:00.0 | credited to three outside scientists and widely used to claim glyphosate pose no human health risk, |
| 1:06.0 | no cancer, reproductive, developmental, or endocrine harm. |
| 1:11.5 | For years, agencies cited it as proof that glyphosate-based herbicides were safe when used as directed. |
| 1:17.7 | Internal emails changed the story. |
| 1:20.4 | Company scientists planned and wrote the manuscript while outside authors edited and signed off. |
| 1:26.9 | One message even proposed repeating the ghost-write approach for future publications. |
| 1:33.2 | After publication, company officials praised employees for years of data collection, writing, |
| 1:39.3 | and relationship building with the named authors. |
| 1:43.3 | The timing mattered. In the late 1990s, |
| 1:46.5 | Roundup Ready seeds were rolling out, and the patent on glyphosate was expiring. A seemingly |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Briana Mercola, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of Briana Mercola and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.