The integrity of scientific reviews underpinning New Zealand's decision to permit the continued use of glyphosate-based herbicides, including the ubiquitous Roundup, is facing serious questions, with implications for Australian regulatory practices.
A report by The Conversation AU has drawn attention to a troubling pattern of industry influence, revealing that a key review supporting Roundup's safety has been retracted, while others are now under investigation for their alleged ties to German agrochemical giant Monsanto, now owned by Bayer.
Retracted Research and Mounting Doubts
At the heart of the controversy is the discovery that an expert report cited by New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in its 2021 re-assessment of glyphosate's safety has since been withdrawn. This retraction casts a long shadow over the scientific basis of the EPA's decision, which ultimately determined that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, posed no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
The document in question was part of a series of reviews conducted by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), and its retraction has ignited concerns among public health advocates and environmental groups across the Tasman. They argue that if the foundational science is compromised, then the regulatory conclusions drawn from it must also be re-evaluated. The episode echoes long-standing criticisms regarding the thoroughness and independence of chemical assessments globally.
The Shadow of Monsanto's Influence
The Conversation AU investigation suggests a deeper, more systemic issue: the extent to which Monsanto, facing a barrage of lawsuits and adverse findings globally, may have shaped the scientific narrative surrounding glyphosate. The retracted report is not an isolated incident; several other reviews relied upon by the New Zealand EPA are now under scrutiny for potentially being influenced or even ghostwritten by Monsanto personnel.
This concern is not new. Critics have long accused Monsanto of engaging in practices designed to downplay the risks of its products and influence regulatory decisions. Such allegations have previously surfaced in US court documents and academic literature, detailing instances where company employees allegedly drafted scientific papers subsequently published under the names of independent academics. If true, these revelations would represent a significant breach of scientific ethics and public trust, potentially putting commercial interests ahead of public health.
Implications for Australian Regulators
While this scandal directly impacts New Zealand's regulatory framework, it sends a ripple effect across the Tasman to Australia. Australian regulatory bodies, such as the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), often consider international scientific assessments and regulatory decisions when evaluating chemicals for domestic use. The integrity of these international reference points is therefore paramount.
The APVMA is currently undertaking its own re-consideration of glyphosate, with a decision expected later this year. The revelations from New Zealand will undoubtedly add pressure on the APVMA to ensure its review is robust, transparent, and entirely free from industry influence. Australian environmental and public health groups are likely to intensify calls for the APVMA to proactively scrutinise the provenance of all scientific data it considers, paying particular attention to potential conflicts of interest or undisclosed industry involvement.
The Path Forward: Restoring Trust
The unfolding situation demands a swift and decisive response from New Zealand's EPA and, by extension, warrants careful consideration from Australian authorities. Re-evaluating past decisions based on compromised science is crucial for maintaining public confidence in regulatory bodies. Moving forward, there is a clear imperative for regulators to implement more stringent protocols for assessing the independence and validity of scientific studies, particularly those funded by the industry whose products are under review.
This may involve increasing government-funded independent research, demanding greater transparency in research sponsorship, and implementing robust mechanisms to detect and prevent ghostwriting or undue corporate influence in scientific literature. Ultimately, the health of the public and the environment must take precedence over commercial interests, and the foundations of scientific honesty must be rigorously upheld.
