Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Share By
Retraction of the Landmark Glyphosate Safety Publication by Williams, Kroes and Munro (2000) Should Be Reversed Publisher



Borgert C J ; Abdollahi M ; Ansell J M ; Aschner M ; Bates C P A ; Berry S C ; Bolon B ; Boogaard P J ; Budinksy R A ; Burgoon L D ; Burin G ; Bus J S ; Clewell H ; Cohen S M Show All Authors
Authors
  1. Borgert C J
  2. Abdollahi M
  3. Ansell J M
  4. Aschner M
  5. Bates C P A
  6. Berry S C
  7. Bolon B
  8. Boogaard P J
  9. Budinksy R A
  10. Burgoon L D
  11. Burin G
  12. Bus J S
  13. Clewell H
  14. Cohen S M
  15. Colnot T
  16. Darby P S
  17. Dekant W
  18. Desesso J
  19. Dietrich D R
  20. Djukic M
  21. Docea A O
  22. Domingo J L
  23. Eaton D L
  24. Engelhardt J A
  25. Fairbrother A
  26. Felsot A
  27. Fenner Crisp P A
  28. Gentry R
  29. Good Man J I
  30. Gori G B
  31. Greim H
  32. Heslop Harrison J S
  33. Hengstler J G
  34. Jaeschke H
  35. Kaminski N E
  36. Kacew S
  37. Kim J
  38. Kiorpes A L
  39. Klaassen C
  40. Klaunig J E
  41. Loccisano A
  42. Macdonald J S
  43. Mally A
  44. Marquardt H W J
  45. Sue Marty M
  46. Matthews J C
  47. Mcclellan R O
  48. Meeks R G
  49. Millner G C
  50. Pariza M W
  51. Paustenbach D
  52. Pelkonen O
  53. Sarvadi D
  54. Savolainen K
  55. Simon T W
  56. Smith C J
  57. Solomon K R
  58. Tarka S L M JR
  59. Tsatsakis A M
  60. Tsuji J
  61. Vermeulen N P E
  62. Wallace K B
  63. Wernke M
  64. Williams J P
  65. Witorsch R J
  66. Yama Zaki H

Source: EXCLI Journal Published:2026


Abstract

The decision by the co-Editor-in-Chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Prof. Martin van den Berg, to retract the 2000 review article by Williams, Kroes, and Munro has elicited widespread criticism within the scientific community. Issued in late 2025, the retraction decision cites procedural concerns including potential ghostwriting, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and omission of certain unpublished studies, invoking Committee on Publication Eth-ics guidelines despite lacking evidence of fraud or scientific flaws. This editorial argues that the retraction decision involves editorial overreach and misapplication of the guidelines. The alleged omissions stemmed from proprietary data access limitations that were disclosed in the original paper. Subsequent reviews by several independent expert panels and regulatory author-ities with access to all glyphosate data, including the studies cited by the retracting editor, reached similar conclusions. Claims of ghostwriting were previously investigated and found lacking, including a declaration by EFSA as to the clarity of the conflict disclosures. The re-traction’s timing, reliance on litigation documents, and apparent biases that were not disclosed in the retraction notice raise questions of ideological interference. Absent substantive rebuttals based on scientific merit rather than speculative claims of inappropriate authorship and data access, this retraction decision sets a dangerous precedent for retroactive censorship, potentially chilling beneficial industry-academic collaborations and eroding trust in the integrity of scien-tific publishing. With the strongest conviction, we assert that retracting a paper without scien-tific flaws isn’t protection—it is censorship. We therefore call for the immediate reversal of this flawed and unjustified retraction to preserve trust in peer-reviewed literature. © 2026, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors. All rights reserved.