Landmark Glyphosate Study Retracted, Prompting Fresh EPA Review

Flaws in a 25‑year‑old paper revive concerns over Roundup’s safety

Scientists and regulators are re‑examining the safety of glyphosate—the active ingredient in the widely used herbicide Roundup—after a seminal study published 25 years ago was formally retracted. The paper, which had long been cited as evidence that glyphosate posed little risk to humans and the environment, has been found to contain critical methodological errors and undisclosed conflicts of interest.

The retraction was issued by the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry following an independent audit that highlighted:

• Inadequate control of exposure levels in laboratory experiments.
• Statistical analyses that overstated the significance of the results.
• Failure to disclose financial ties between several authors and the agro‑chemical industry.

These revelations have sparked a wave of criticism from public‑health advocates, who argue that the study’s conclusions may have delayed stricter regulation of glyphosate. “The integrity of the scientific record is essential when public safety is at stake,” said Dr. Lena Morales, a toxicology professor at the University of California, Davis.

In response, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will reassess the existing glyphosate risk assessment within the next six months. EPA spokesperson Mark Daniels emphasized that the agency’s review will be “transparent, science‑driven, and free from any external influence.”

The agro‑chemical industry, meanwhile, maintains that the majority of peer‑reviewed research still supports glyphosate’s safety when used according to label directions. A spokesperson for Bayer, the company that markets Roundup, said, “We remain confident in the extensive body of evidence showing that glyphosate, when applied responsibly, does not pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.”

Environmental groups, however, are urging legislators to impose tighter restrictions. “This retraction is a wake‑up call,” said Maya Patel of the nonprofit Clean Earth Alliance. “Policymakers must act now to protect farmers, consumers, and ecosystems from a chemical whose safety has been repeatedly questioned.”

As the EPA prepares its new evaluation, stakeholders from academia, industry, and advocacy groups are closely watching the process, hoping that a more rigorous assessment will restore confidence—or lead to decisive regulatory action—regarding one of the world’s most controversial herbicides.