Source: Phil McKinney's Studio
The retraction of a foundational glyphosate study that regulators globally used to justify Roundup's safety for 25 years exposes a systemic failure: research institutions and approval bodies built entire risk frameworks on work that couldn't withstand scrutiny, then moved on without revisiting it. This reveals how "ghost research"—studies that become regulatory canon but are rarely re-examined—enables both corporate liability gaps and institutional inertia. The delayed accountability matters for every R&D organization: what other decades-old studies are your compliance decisions actually built on?