Court documents revealed Monsanto employees ghostwrote scientific papers on glyphosate safety then recruited academics to sign as authors, while internally discussing cancer risks they publicly denied.
“Glyphosate is safe when used as directed, supported by over 40 years of independent scientific research”
From “crazy” to confirmed
The Claim Is Made
This is the moment they called it crazy.
When Monsanto scientists drafted research papers supporting the safety of glyphosate—the active ingredient in Roundup—the company wasn't just contributing data. Internal emails revealed they were writing the entire papers, then finding academics willing to attach their names as authors.
For decades, Monsanto publicly maintained that glyphosate posed no cancer risk. The company pointed to peer-reviewed studies and scientific consensus to defend its flagship herbicide against mounting lawsuits from people claiming the product caused their lymphoma and other cancers. Regulators in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere cited these independent-looking publications when approving the herbicide for continued use.
Public health advocates and trial lawyers questioned this narrative. They argued Monsanto had financial incentive to suppress unfavorable research and promote favorable findings. When they made these accusations, Monsanto and its defenders dismissed them as conspiracy theories—the kind of unfounded claims made by anti-science activists trying to ban a useful agricultural tool.
But court documents filed during product liability litigation told a different story. Emails and internal memos showed that employees had authored the scientific papers themselves, then recruited external academics to serve as the named authors. In some cases, the company drafted the papers so thoroughly that minimal changes were made after academics agreed to sign on.
Get the 5 biggest receipts every week, straight to your inbox — plus an exclusive PDF: The Top 10 Conspiracy Theories Proven True in 2025-2026. No spam. No agenda. Just the papers they couldn't hide.
You just read "Monsanto ghostwrote studies claiming glyphosate herbicide wa…". We send ones like this every week.
No one's said anything yet. Be the first to drop your take.
One particularly revealing email showed Monsanto discussing how to manage the publication process: the company would write the science, find the academic authors, and shepherd the paper through peer review. This arrangement made studies look like independent academic work when they were substantially Monsanto products.
The documents also revealed something more damaging. While publicly stating glyphosate was safe, Monsanto's internal communications showed scientists discussing potential cancer links. These discussions never made it into the ghostwritten papers. The company appeared to have two positions on the same question: one for the public and regulators, another for internal deliberation.
This wasn't a single instance of misconduct. The pattern repeated across multiple publications. Monsanto had systematized the process of controlling the scientific narrative while maintaining the appearance of independent verification.
The evidence came from discovery in civil litigation, where plaintiffs' lawyers obtained company documents Monsanto preferred to keep private. Thousands of pages of emails, memos, and internal reports eventually became public through court proceedings, contradicting the company's previous statements about its relationship with scientific research.
What makes this case significant extends beyond Monsanto or glyphosate. It illustrates how corporations with billions in revenue and regulatory approval at stake can shape scientific perception. When a company authors the studies defending its products, then positions them as neutral academic work, it undermines the entire peer-review system that society depends on to evaluate safety.
The ghostwritten studies issue raises fundamental questions about scientific integrity. Peer review assumes that named authors take responsibility for their work's accuracy. When researchers lend their names to papers they didn't write, that accountability becomes fictional.
For regulators who relied on these studies, the implications are serious. Decisions affecting millions of people's exposure to a chemical were partly informed by corporate-authored work presented as independent science. This doesn't automatically mean those decisions were wrong, but it means they were made without full transparency about their source.
The case demonstrates why tracking claims of corporate malfeasance matters. When skeptics are dismissed and later proven right, it suggests we should approach official reassurances with more scrutiny than we typically do.
Beat the odds
This had a 1.1% chance of leaking — someone talked anyway.
Conspirators
~300Network
Secret kept
9.2 years
Time to 95% exposure
500+ years
