Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Pesticides and agrochemicals · Global · 2000–2025

Glyphosate safety review retracted over undisclosed Monsanto ghostwriting

Short record: the main facts, with sources. A full case file has not been prepared.

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 3 none on record · 3 insufficient · 1 not measured See the gaps

A 2000 review that found the herbicide glyphosate safe was retracted in November 2025 because the authorship of Monsanto employees was not disclosed. US Right to Know, a campaign group, says the review relied only on unpublished Monsanto studies.

What?
A 2000 glyphosate safety review by Williams, Kroes and Munro was retracted in November 2025 over undisclosed Monsanto authorship. US Right to Know
Where?
Global scientific literature on glyphosate US Right to Know
When?
Review published in 2000; retracted in November 2025. US Right to Know
Who?
Gained
  • Monsanto — Its unpublished studies formed the basis of a review that found glyphosate safe, per US Right to Know US Right to Know
Lost
None on record
Harmed
None on record
Why?
The stated reason for the retraction was the undisclosed authorship of Monsanto employees. US Right to Know
How?
Monsanto employees' authorship was not disclosed on the published review, per US Right to Know. US Right to Know
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

US Right to Know reported on 3 December 2025 that the 2000 review by Williams, Kroes and Munro was retracted in November 2025 for undisclosed authorship by Monsanto employees.

US Right to Know said the review relied only on unpublished Monsanto studies and was among the most-cited 0.1 percent of papers on glyphosate.

According to the sources reviewed, up to 50 percent of some sections of a January 2019 German BfR glyphosate report had been taken from the licence application file.

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

    Insurers

    No insurer decision on record.

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

    Record

    • Insufficient Reported but not verified: an internal Monsanto email from about 2015 that describes the review as handled in the same way; the email's author is not named here.
    • Insufficient Reported but not verified: an EPA official's 2015 remark about a separate glyphosate review, as relayed through a Monsanto email; an inspector general review is reported to have been opened.
    • Insufficient Bayer says the contribution was acknowledged in the paper's thanks section; this is a company statement and is not verified.
    • None on record Monsanto Co. v. Durnell is cited only through a link; its court, date and outcome are not stated in the sources reviewed.
    • None on record The sources reviewed do not say which regulatory decisions relied on the review.
    • None on record A Retraction Watch report from December 2025 is cited without a link in the sources reviewed.

    Did the harm stop?

    Not stated in the sources reviewed.

    Who paid?

    Not stated in the sources reviewed.

    Sources

    Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts— Press and investigations✓ Communities and civil society— Researchers

    Communities and civil society

    Connected cases

    Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.

    Institutions

    EPA
    The US Environmental Protection Agency.