New Questions About the Safety of Roundup Herbicide: What Happened to the Paper Supporting the "Safety Myth" of Glyphosate?

"The 'Backbone of Agriculture' Shaken by Retraction of Paper"──This was reported by an American newspaper, highlighting the renewed debate over the herbicide Roundup. The catalyst was the retraction of a review paper published in 2000, which had long been cited as evidence on the "safe" side, 25 years after its release. This retraction is not merely an academic event but has triggered a "chain reaction" involving regulation, litigation, food safety concerns, and trust in science. GV Wire

1) What Was Retracted──The 2000 Paper at the Core of "Safety Evaluation"

The issue at hand was a review paper that concluded that the health risks of Roundup and glyphosate to humans were not significant, and it had been referenced for a long time. In the United States, Roundup has been widely used from staple crops like soybeans, corn, and wheat to home gardens, and the article depicts Roundup as the "backbone of U.S. food production." GV Wire

The journal that retracted the paper is Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. Editor-in-Chief Martin van den Berg cited "serious ethical concerns" regarding the independence and accountability of the authors and the academic integrity of the research. Additionally, the fact that the conclusions relied primarily (or significantly) on unpublished corporate research and the insufficient disclosure of conflicts of interest were problematic, leading to a "loss of trust in the results and conclusions of this paper." GV Wire

The corporate side (Bayer's public relations) maintains that the company's involvement was appropriately indicated in the acknowledgments and that the authors managed and approved the manuscript. However, internal emails revealed in litigation suggest that corporate researchers were deeply involved in the "concept" and "writing and review" of the research, which became the core of the retraction decision. GV Wire

2) Why the Retraction Matters Now──The "Chain of Citations" and the Root of Regulation

The pain of this retraction lies in the fact that the 2000 paper was not a "single report" but functioned as an "entry point" for subsequent research, reports, and evaluation documents. A continuously cited review can serve as a map of prior research for researchers and an index for evaluations by regulatory authorities. The Washington Post reported that while the EPA stated "this retraction does not affect our decisions," it had referenced the paper in past evaluations and explained that the EPA reviews thousands of studies. The Washington Post

Moreover, the EPA's evaluation is not "final once issued." There is a history of a federal court requiring the EPA to reexamine the health and environmental impacts of glyphosate (Reuters), and the reevaluation process has been intertwined with politics and litigation. Reuters

The article emphasizes that there is a "safety reevaluation deadline" in 2026. With legal actions from environmental groups, food safety, and agricultural worker organizations as a backdrop, the pressure for reevaluation is increasing. GV Wire

3) How Health Risk Evaluations Are Divided

Regarding glyphosate, the IARC, a WHO-related agency, classified it as "probably carcinogenic" in 2015, while regulatory authorities in the U.S. and Europe have generally taken the stance of "not concluding it as carcinogenic," continuing a "twist" in evaluations. GV Wire

The article also touches on residues in food and detection in the human body. Trace amounts have been detected in bread, cereals, and snacks, and there are cases of detection in the urine of adults and children. On the other hand, with some companies ceasing pre-harvest spraying (used to wither crops for easier harvesting), there are signs of decreasing concentrations in food. In other words, "detection ≠ immediate danger," but the fact that it is a "substance that has permeated daily life" amplifies anxiety and debate. GV Wire

4) Reactions on Social Media──"It's About Time" vs. "Don't Overreact to a Single Paper" vs. "What Are the Alternatives?"

When the news spread on social media, reactions were largely divided into three. Here, based on "typical examples" of public posts on Reddit, LinkedIn, and gardening forums, the overall trends are organized (※This is a sample and does not represent the entire public opinion).

(A) Voices Welcoming the Retraction as a "Correction of the Scientific Record"
On LinkedIn, posts that definitively interpret the retraction as "finally officially retracted" and "not safe" stand out. One post lists the paper's heavy reliance on unpublished corporate research and lack of transparency, criticizing it as "regulatory capture." LinkedIn

On Reddit, comments expressing anger centered on corporate distrust, such as "companies lie" and "they should be held accountable," can be seen. Reddit

(B) Cautious Opinions Putting the Brakes on "Retraction = Confirmed Danger"
On the other hand, on Reddit, there are strong counterarguments with the sentiment that "while retraction is important, one should not leap to conclusions based solely on the retraction of a single paper" and "there is long-term data and other research." Reddit

This stance touches on a typical point in scientific communication──"Research misconduct (lack of transparency) is serious, but the toxicity evaluation of a substance should be conducted on a 'totality' basis."

(C) Realism from the Agricultural Field: "Then What Are the Alternatives?"
In gardening and fruit tree forums, more life-oriented discussions emerge. Distrust based on experiences is expressed, such as "even if it is said to be 'within safety standards' and 'according to usage and dosage,' it is not actually adhered to" and "it is sprayed 'everywhere,' such as roadsides, railways, and around farmland." Meanwhile, a compromise plan of "using it minimally" for limited purposes like stump treatment is also suggested. Growing Fruit

This reflects the essence that the debate over chemical pesticides is not only about "science" but also about "operation (who uses it and how)."

5) The Focus Going Forward──"Transparency" Questioned Before "Conclusions"

What this retraction has highlighted is that before the binary choice of "whether glyphosate is ultimately safe or dangerous," the scientific evidence that society relies on, who funded it, who wrote it, and how much was disclosed is the critical point. The fact that the reason for retraction was not "complete fabrication of data" but issues related to "designing trust in science," such as independence, conflicts of interest, and reliance on unpublished data, is symbolic. GV Wire

And in 2026, the EPA will face the deadline for reevaluation. The focus of the debate will likely shift to

• which research will be given more weight in the reevaluation (public data or corporate-submitted data)

• how to manage risks by use (pre-harvest spraying, household use, commercial use, etc.)

• who will bear the cost of alternative technologies (mechanical weeding, crop rotation, low-pesticide, regenerative agriculture, etc.)
  .

Retraction is not the goal. Rather, it is the starting line for re-discussing with "reliable evidence.".