The last EPA review of glyphosate was thrown out because the manufacturer ghost-wrote research and bribed EPA officials.

Nov 8, 2026

Previously: The last EPA review of glyphosate was thrown out because the manufacturer ghost-wrote research and bribed EPA officials. [Distorted]: The most recent EPA glyphosate decision was in fact thrown out. In June 2022 the Ninth Circuit set aside the human-health part of EPA's 2020 interim decision, and EPA then withdrew the whole decision. But the court's reason was that EPA's cancer finding contradicted itself: it said glyphosate was 'not likely' to cause cancer while also saying it could not reach a conclusion on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Lawsuit documents did show Monsanto ghostwrote some research and had close contacts with an EPA official, but no court has found that EPA officials were bribed, and the ruling did not rest on either. This verdict would be wrong if the Ninth Circuit's NRDC v. EPA opinion, or any other court ruling, gave ghostwriting or bribery as a reason for setting aside the review.

Now: The last EPA review of glyphosate was thrown out because the manufacturer ghost-wrote research and bribed EPA officials. [Distorted]: The Ninth Circuit vacated the human-health portion of EPA's 2020 decision in June 2022 because its analysis did not adequately support its cancer conclusion, and addressed endangered-species obligations separately. The opinion is not a judicial finding that bribery caused the review to be thrown out. Industry ghostwriting is a separate evidentiary issue; it should not be substituted for the court's actual legal reasoning.

Deeper review against transcript context and primary evidence.