Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 46(S1): ‘An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate’
With the cooperation of the authors, we, the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of the journal, have published corrigenda for each of the following articles:
Williams GM, Aardema M, Acquavella J, Berry C, Brusick D, Burns MM, de Camargo JLV, Garabrant D, Greim HA, Kier LD, et al. 2016. A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol. 46(S1):3–20.
Solomon KR. 2016. Glyphosate in the general population and in applicators: a critical review of studies on exposures. Crit Rev Toxicol. 46(S1):21–27.
Acquavella J, Garabrant D, Marsh G, Solomon KR, Sorahan T, Weed DL. 2016. Glyphosate epidemiology expert panel review: a weight of evidence systematic review of the relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or multiple myeloma. Crit Rev Toxicol. 46(S1):28–43.
Williams GM, Berry C, Burns MM, de Camargo JLV, Greim HA. 2016. Glyphosate rodent carcinogenicity bioassay expert panel review. Crit Rev Toxicol. 46(S1):44–55.
Brusick D, Aardema M, Kier LD, Kirkland DJ, Williams G. 2016. Genotoxicity Expert Panel review: weight of evidence evaluation of the genotoxicity of glyphosate, glyphosate-based formulations, and aminomethylphosphonic acid. Crit Rev Toxicol. 46(S1):56–74.
After investigation into the completeness of the original declarations of interest provided by the authors, it was found that these did not fully represent the involvement of Monsanto or its employees or contractors in the authorship of the articles.
These corrigenda provide additional disclosure as to contributions to the articles, in some places in contradiction to the statements originally supplied.
We have not received an adequate explanation as to why the necessary level of transparency was not met on first submission and welcome the opportunity to address this. We regret that these corrections were necessary and thank those who brought this matter to our attention.
To the best of our knowledge, the scholarly record is now accurate; however, we recommend that readers take the additional context the corrected disclosures provide into account when reading the articles.