Retraction of the landmark glyphosate safety publication by Williams, Kroes and Munro (2000) should be reversed.

Identifier:  imarina:9597308

Handle: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11797/imarina9597308

Authors:  Borgert CJ; Abdollahi M; Ansell JM; Aschner M; Bates CA; Berry SC; Bolon B; Boogaard PJ; Budinksy RA; Burgoon LD; Burin G; Bus JS; Clewell H; Cohen SM; Colnot T; Darby PS; Dekant W; DeSesso J; Dietrich DR; Djukic M; Docea AO; Domingo JL; Eaton DL; Engelhardt JA; Fairbrother A; Felsot A; Fenner-Crisp PA; Gentry R; Goodman JI; Gori GB; Greim H; Heslop-Harrison JS; Hengstler JG; Jaeschke H; Kaminski NE; Kacew S; Kim J; Kiorpes AL; Klaassen C; Klaunig JE; Loccisano A; MacDonald JS; Mally A; Marquardt HWJ; Marty MS; Matthews JC; McClellan RO; Meeks RG; Millner GC; Pariza MW; Paustenbach D; Pelkonen O; Sarvadi D; Savolainen K; Simon TW; Smith CJ; Solomon KR; Tarka SM; Tsatsakis AM; Tsuji J; Vermeulen NPE; Wallace KB; Wernke M; Williams JP; Witorsch RJ; Yamazaki H

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cites procedural concerns including potential ghostwriting, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and omission of certain unpublished studies, invoking Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines despite lacking evidence of fraud or scientific flaws.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 authorities 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 retraction'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 scientific publishing. With the strongest conviction, we assert that retracting a paper without scientific 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.