Bayer to Pull Glyphosate Products, from U.S. Home and Garden Market(ecowatch.com)
ecowatch.com
Bayer to Pull Glyphosate Products, from U.S. Home and Garden Market
https://www.ecowatch.com/bayer-ending-glyphosate-sales-us-market-2654298339.html
67 comments
Activism and religious fundamentalism are very similar in this regard.
> the anti-glyphosate crowd has completely failed for the last 40 years to provide any definitive proof that it causes cancer
Have they? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-i...
“ A California jury on Friday found Monsanto liable in a lawsuit filed by a man who alleged the company’s glyphosate-based weed-killers, including Roundup, caused his cancer and ordered the company to pay $289 million in damages.”
Have they? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-i...
“ A California jury on Friday found Monsanto liable in a lawsuit filed by a man who alleged the company’s glyphosate-based weed-killers, including Roundup, caused his cancer and ordered the company to pay $289 million in damages.”
From what I've read, glyphosate alone may not be carcinogenic, but it may interact with nitrite to form an n-nitroso compound that may be carcinogenic.
>>An email by Michael Cunningham (Monsanto) to several other colleagues found them discussing N-nitrosoglyphosate (“NNG”), a known carcinogen, that can be formed as reaction between glyphosate and nitrites, which are found in many foods. Specifically, Cunningham quoted Dr. Ruth Shearer from 1984: “The problem with glyphosate… is that it combines readily with nitrites, found in normal human saliva, to form an N-nitroso compound called Nnitrosoglyphosate. Although that particular compound has not been tested as a cancer-causing agent, over 75% of all other N-nitroso compounds so tested have been shown to cause cancer by way of tumour formation.”
https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2018/08/27/dewayne-johnson-vs-m...
https://www.science.gov/topicpages/c/carcinogenic+n-nitroso+...
Regardless of whether glyphosate and nitrite can interact to form a carcinogen, I suspect we often miss potentially dangerous chemical interactions because of the way we test things.
>>An email by Michael Cunningham (Monsanto) to several other colleagues found them discussing N-nitrosoglyphosate (“NNG”), a known carcinogen, that can be formed as reaction between glyphosate and nitrites, which are found in many foods. Specifically, Cunningham quoted Dr. Ruth Shearer from 1984: “The problem with glyphosate… is that it combines readily with nitrites, found in normal human saliva, to form an N-nitroso compound called Nnitrosoglyphosate. Although that particular compound has not been tested as a cancer-causing agent, over 75% of all other N-nitroso compounds so tested have been shown to cause cancer by way of tumour formation.”
https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2018/08/27/dewayne-johnson-vs-m...
https://www.science.gov/topicpages/c/carcinogenic+n-nitroso+...
Regardless of whether glyphosate and nitrite can interact to form a carcinogen, I suspect we often miss potentially dangerous chemical interactions because of the way we test things.
What I wonder is if n-nitrosoglyphosate is more/less carcinogenic than any of the other things nitrites could react with to create n-nitroso-x compounds.
Nitrites are heavily applied as a preservative. Not sure if that’s where the ones in saliva come from or if naturally occurring (in large amounts anyway).
Nitrites are heavily applied as a preservative. Not sure if that’s where the ones in saliva come from or if naturally occurring (in large amounts anyway).
If glyphosate does in fact turn out to be dangerous, then some sort of carcinogenic secondary product seems like the most probable source of carcinogenicity for glyphosate. However, there seems to be a lot of confusion from glyphosate critics about which products to test and as a result, I'm not aware of any definitive research that shows a) there are secondary products which are relevant for glyphosate used as directed that b) also definitely cause cancer.
From your first link, Dr. Perry's belief that glyphosate might be clastogenic is certainly interesting, but also a little weird. The proposed mechanism is that glyphosate causes oxidative damage to to DNA which causes strand breakage. This is not a subtle mechanism and I would expect evidence for it to be readily available from simple tests like the Ames test. If you have the research he's using to support this claim, I'd definitely be interested in seeing it.
At the end of the day, we're left with the same haunting question however, if glyphosate so definitely causes cancer, then why has it been so hard to figure out? Monsanto is much smaller than the tobacco companies were so it's hard for me to believe that Monsanto masterminded some global conspiracy when they were only about the size of Expedia when Monsanto were bought out. Many of the most important papers critical of glyphosate have a number of issues. The IARC monograph seemed to deliberately exclude contradictory data, including a study that one of the monograph's writers was directly involved in. Even then, the monograph wasn't particularly definitive. The oft cited metastudy that came out in 2019 seemed like a big deal, but on closer inspection, they had decided that out of nearly 40 years of research, they would only examine 7 papers. Not to mention they also relied on data from exposure levels far in excess of directions provided by Monsanto.
The strongest conclusions we have about glyphosate seem to be that for exposure levels 10-100 times recommended by major health organizations and Monsanto there may be an increased chance of some cancers, though the effect doesn't seem to be large. This conclusion can get funky because some data (the IARC panel was criticized heavily for this) suggest that past a certain point, higher levels of glyphosate correlate with lower cancer rates.
From your first link, Dr. Perry's belief that glyphosate might be clastogenic is certainly interesting, but also a little weird. The proposed mechanism is that glyphosate causes oxidative damage to to DNA which causes strand breakage. This is not a subtle mechanism and I would expect evidence for it to be readily available from simple tests like the Ames test. If you have the research he's using to support this claim, I'd definitely be interested in seeing it.
At the end of the day, we're left with the same haunting question however, if glyphosate so definitely causes cancer, then why has it been so hard to figure out? Monsanto is much smaller than the tobacco companies were so it's hard for me to believe that Monsanto masterminded some global conspiracy when they were only about the size of Expedia when Monsanto were bought out. Many of the most important papers critical of glyphosate have a number of issues. The IARC monograph seemed to deliberately exclude contradictory data, including a study that one of the monograph's writers was directly involved in. Even then, the monograph wasn't particularly definitive. The oft cited metastudy that came out in 2019 seemed like a big deal, but on closer inspection, they had decided that out of nearly 40 years of research, they would only examine 7 papers. Not to mention they also relied on data from exposure levels far in excess of directions provided by Monsanto.
The strongest conclusions we have about glyphosate seem to be that for exposure levels 10-100 times recommended by major health organizations and Monsanto there may be an increased chance of some cancers, though the effect doesn't seem to be large. This conclusion can get funky because some data (the IARC panel was criticized heavily for this) suggest that past a certain point, higher levels of glyphosate correlate with lower cancer rates.
So, you'd be willing to drink a glass, right? https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/archive/2015-articles/16027-...
Sounds like no, you wouldn't. Perhaps you grok that the dangers of glyphosate are real.
This is one of those controversial topics that really tends to go off the rails because of all the Monsanto history and polarizing beliefs concerning the substance. Also, notably, this is only being pulled from the market to "manage litigation risk" according to Bayer
I am no Monsanto/Bayer fan or defender, necessarily, and as much as I've found it easy to jump on the anti-glyphosate bandwagon in the past - glyphosate doesn't seem to have any strong evidence for risk for low-exposure uses like home gardening? Doesn't the (weak, but present) evidence so far mostly point to the risk really only being when exposed to large amounts of glyphosate?
Or does the personal risk come from it being present in agricultural products it is sprayed on, that we then consume?
The key thing (even in the lymphoma studies) seems to be "high cumulative exposure"
I lean towards "this seems like it's potentially hazardous for all uses" but does the evidence really bear that out? I want to block out the noise of opinion on this issue and purely look at evidence- something that seems to be coming increasingly rare- but something we need to be willing to do, even if it's painful to our ego and bias to do so
I am no Monsanto/Bayer fan or defender, necessarily, and as much as I've found it easy to jump on the anti-glyphosate bandwagon in the past - glyphosate doesn't seem to have any strong evidence for risk for low-exposure uses like home gardening? Doesn't the (weak, but present) evidence so far mostly point to the risk really only being when exposed to large amounts of glyphosate?
Or does the personal risk come from it being present in agricultural products it is sprayed on, that we then consume?
The key thing (even in the lymphoma studies) seems to be "high cumulative exposure"
I lean towards "this seems like it's potentially hazardous for all uses" but does the evidence really bear that out? I want to block out the noise of opinion on this issue and purely look at evidence- something that seems to be coming increasingly rare- but something we need to be willing to do, even if it's painful to our ego and bias to do so
Ugh, you seriously sound like a lawyer from Bayer’s legal department.
Search pubmed for glyphosate for a small taste. Then realize that most of those studies were done ONLY on glyphosate, the solvents and surfactants that glyphosate is mixed with to make Roundup are excluded. Post some studies if you find any juicy ones!
Search pubmed for glyphosate for a small taste. Then realize that most of those studies were done ONLY on glyphosate, the solvents and surfactants that glyphosate is mixed with to make Roundup are excluded. Post some studies if you find any juicy ones!
I have searched and been given links to numerous studies in the past, none of which seem to contradict anything I've said- but that's all I will say in reply- your first sentence is enough for me to know this will not be a fruitful exchange worth continuing.
I was once emotionally involved in glyphosate discussion and I understand people will have a visceral response to someone questioning the anti-glyphosate hype - I used to be part of that hype. (Monsanto was involved in Agent Orange production for f's sake, so this is anything but a defense of the company or its practices in general, or a defense of Bayer or its acquisition.)
So I've tried to approach the topic purely without an emotional run to a particular viewpoint without considering the current state of evidence, I'm just hoping more can do the same.
That, and I am taking into consideration other posts here which are going more into detail about other things to think about concerning glyphosate exposure that may not have occurred to me- I appreciate that level of conversation, not your unnecessary condescension.
I was once emotionally involved in glyphosate discussion and I understand people will have a visceral response to someone questioning the anti-glyphosate hype - I used to be part of that hype. (Monsanto was involved in Agent Orange production for f's sake, so this is anything but a defense of the company or its practices in general, or a defense of Bayer or its acquisition.)
So I've tried to approach the topic purely without an emotional run to a particular viewpoint without considering the current state of evidence, I'm just hoping more can do the same.
That, and I am taking into consideration other posts here which are going more into detail about other things to think about concerning glyphosate exposure that may not have occurred to me- I appreciate that level of conversation, not your unnecessary condescension.
ad hominem
>Ugh, you seriously sound like a lawyer from Bayer’s legal department.
>Search pubmed for glyphosate for a small taste. Then realize that most of those studies were done ONLY on glyphosate, the solvents and surfactants that glyphosate is mixed with to make Roundup are excluded. Post some studies if you find any juicy ones!
But you haven't provided any sources to support your dissent. You are right in that there have been many studies on glyphosate and products which include it but nothing so far to conclusively characterize it as a carcinogen or otherwise harmful to human life outside of exposure in large quantities.
Does that mean it's not harmful? No. Might we find it harmful in the future? Maybe. But we've nothing conclusive yet.
>Search pubmed for glyphosate for a small taste. Then realize that most of those studies were done ONLY on glyphosate, the solvents and surfactants that glyphosate is mixed with to make Roundup are excluded. Post some studies if you find any juicy ones!
But you haven't provided any sources to support your dissent. You are right in that there have been many studies on glyphosate and products which include it but nothing so far to conclusively characterize it as a carcinogen or otherwise harmful to human life outside of exposure in large quantities.
Does that mean it's not harmful? No. Might we find it harmful in the future? Maybe. But we've nothing conclusive yet.
How many "low-level" exposures does it take before it graduates to a "risky" exposure?
The other major effect is wide-range poisoning of insects that just happen to be passing through the garden.
The other major effect is wide-range poisoning of insects that just happen to be passing through the garden.
Does glyphosate poison insects at all? It targets a pathway specific to plants, and generally is non-toxic to everything else.
Farmers (and gardeners and homeowners) use a whole lot of other pesticides to kill insects, which will affect non-targeted species. Slug baits sometimes are mixed with other broad-spectrum insectisides, and Raid is persistent (part of it's design is to kill the wasps that return to the nest later!)
Farmers (and gardeners and homeowners) use a whole lot of other pesticides to kill insects, which will affect non-targeted species. Slug baits sometimes are mixed with other broad-spectrum insectisides, and Raid is persistent (part of it's design is to kill the wasps that return to the nest later!)
Roundup is glyphosate plus a surfactant. The surfactant is use to strip the waxy coating on plant leaves so the glyphosate can act. I've read the surfactant is the bigger issue for insects.
Are herbicides really needed in the consumer lawn and market? Weeding the garden can be done manually, or even now robotically: https://tertill.com/
There are some plants like mint that can spread like crazy if you don't maintain it. I had mint spread from my neighbors fence one spring and it just started blanketing my backyard. I had no choice but to use herbicides. Also with age I find it hard to bend down to pull weeds. I mostly resort to string trimmers, some root puller tools and once in the spring some roundup to get me a head start for the year. Longterm I need to add more mulch but I need to fix the yard drainage first since I can't raise the elevation much.
They really not needed in commercial agriculture either. Farmers know their craft and would do well without it, and wouldn’t have the additional finance burden.
Also Roundup doesn’t particularly work that well anymore. Ask anyone who uses Roundup in a commercial setting about it.
Also Roundup doesn’t particularly work that well anymore. Ask anyone who uses Roundup in a commercial setting about it.
>They really not needed in commercial agriculture either. Farmers know their craft and would do well without it, and wouldn’t have the additional finance burden.
This could not be further from the truth. Farmers do everything to increase their margins. If they could just stop spraying their crops they would.
>Farmers know their craft and would do well without it
Unfortunately knowledge of a problem doesn't make that problem disappear. They know their craft which is why they spray their crops.
This could not be further from the truth. Farmers do everything to increase their margins. If they could just stop spraying their crops they would.
>Farmers know their craft and would do well without it
Unfortunately knowledge of a problem doesn't make that problem disappear. They know their craft which is why they spray their crops.
I can only assume you've never dealt with a quackgrass infestation... pulling that stuff out of an established lawn or garden by hand is the definition of a Sisyphean task.
Up until the landmark ruling against Monsanto in 2018, there would be pro-glyphosate shills polluting forums like Hacker News with misleading statements and outright lies. After the initial court case that ruled in favor of a grounds keeper that got Lymphoma, they magically disappeared. Its been pretty nice. Guess the PR budget got cut!
This is an amazing development but the job isn't done yet. This poison needs to be banned in all agriculture applications worldwide immediately. This is our FOOD WE ALL EAT for crying out loud.
This is an amazing development but the job isn't done yet. This poison needs to be banned in all agriculture applications worldwide immediately. This is our FOOD WE ALL EAT for crying out loud.
Reddit, as well.
Sharpened my bullshit detector — cheers Monsanto.
Sharpened my bullshit detector — cheers Monsanto.
Not sure why this is downvoted, it is a documented fact that monsanto was paying people to engage on social media forums while pretending to have no affiliation. [1]
You can read the court testimony here [scroll down about half-way]: https://usrtk.org/tag/let-nothing-go/
You can read the court testimony here [scroll down about half-way]: https://usrtk.org/tag/let-nothing-go/
I don’t see that claim anywhere in that article, despite how hard it’s reaching to be a hit piece.
Okay, here's the actual court document with a direct quote
"Monsanto even started the aptly-named “Let Nothing Go” program to leave nothing, not even facebook comments, unanswered; through a series of third parties, it employs individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs."
[1] https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGo...
"Monsanto even started the aptly-named “Let Nothing Go” program to leave nothing, not even facebook comments, unanswered; through a series of third parties, it employs individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs."
[1] https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGo...
Well, I guess we just have to wait and see if the other ingredient will be an improvement. It could end up like BPA being replaced by BPS, or the specific PFAS on nonstick pans being replaced by a largely untested different PFAS.
Not saying this is happening here, but good to know about -
https://usrtk.org/tag/let-nothing-go/
https://usrtk.org/tag/let-nothing-go/
Glyphosate is the only way I can deal with the marestail weeds infesting my garden. They are highly resilient and grow very deep allowing them to spread through the soil to neighbouring gardens. I mix it with wallpaper paste then brush it onto the shoots, and it starts dying within 24 hours.
I wonder if this means General Mills will stop adding it to Cheerios.
Search for “roundup oat drying” if you don’t know what I’m talking about. They spray roundup on crops immediately before harvest to kill them and dry them out. It (slightly) increases crop yields, but contaminates the crop.
Search for “roundup oat drying” if you don’t know what I’m talking about. They spray roundup on crops immediately before harvest to kill them and dry them out. It (slightly) increases crop yields, but contaminates the crop.
Source?
Great deal for lawn & garden companies who will still be able to get it forever and charge us a fortune to kill weeds we could kill ourselves today for pennies.
And it's those exact sort of workers who are the ones most likely to be exposed to harmful amounts and experience health effects.
And it's those exact sort of workers who are the ones most likely to be exposed to harmful amounts and experience health effects.
Remember when people were called cranks and tin foil hatters for suggesting Roundup might contribute to health problems?
Unfortunately Monsanto will just wheel out their next toxic poison right after Roundup is banned completely.
Unfortunately Monsanto will just wheel out their next toxic poison right after Roundup is banned completely.
They already got away with it. They sold to Bayer and like Chevron they will claim they are not responsible for what the previous company did.
So what am I supposed to use as a non-selective herbicide now?
Compare 'n' Save glyphosate concentrate with your choice of surfactant added.
Sump oil
acheron(1)
Glyphosate doesn't kill humans like it does plants but it does alter human physiology. It causes cell walls to become permeably all over the body. That includes intestines (some suspect IBS and may be linked to it), the blood-brain barrier (suspected of possible links to brain cancers, mental illness, etc.), and many, many others. Membranes that are never supposed to be impermeable become leaky.
Animal cells do not have cell walls.
There’s a theory that glyphosate is the cause of many deaths from Covid…
Do you have a source?
Just from Stephanie Seneff, whom a lot from the pro-vax & pharma industry label a quack and discard. Her points are pretty controversial but not without a lot of data and reasoning, but I am no expert in this.
https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2021/HealthFreedom2021.p...
Sadly the damage from this stuff is already done.
Glyphosate should be banned, destroyed and removed from the planet.
Its impact will last generations.
Glyphosate should be banned, destroyed and removed from the planet.
Its impact will last generations.
> Its impact will last generations.
According to Wikipedia,
> The half-life of glyphosate in soil ranges between 2 and 197 days; a typical field half-life of 47 days has been suggested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Environmental_fate
As far as herbicides go, it's relatively safe and short-lived. It's nothing compared to DDT.
According to Wikipedia,
> The half-life of glyphosate in soil ranges between 2 and 197 days; a typical field half-life of 47 days has been suggested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Environmental_fate
As far as herbicides go, it's relatively safe and short-lived. It's nothing compared to DDT.
I can confirm from personal experience dumping glyco on my yard, this isn't the same as DDT / PFAS.
Hey maybe the next one won’t give cancer to whoever’s exposed to it. I’m just psyched the soil will able to be grown in eventually.
>Sadly the damage from this stuff is already done.
What is the damage that has been done?
>Glyphosate should be banned, destroyed and removed from the planet.
Why, though? You haven't stated any reason why you feel this way.
> Its impact will last generations.
What, specifically, is the impact to which you refer?
What is the damage that has been done?
>Glyphosate should be banned, destroyed and removed from the planet.
Why, though? You haven't stated any reason why you feel this way.
> Its impact will last generations.
What, specifically, is the impact to which you refer?
> What is the damage that has been done?
Runoff from crops getting into aquifers, rivers, reservoirs which turns into drinking water for humans. Later it will rain contaminated water all over our properties, gardens, bodies
Runoff from crops getting into aquifers, rivers, reservoirs which turns into drinking water for humans. Later it will rain contaminated water all over our properties, gardens, bodies
>Runoff from crops getting into aquifers, rivers, reservoirs which turns into drinking water for humans.
What is the damage being done here? You've mentioned how something happens but not what that something is.
What is the damage being done here? You've mentioned how something happens but not what that something is.
> What is the damage being done here?
It'll sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids, duh.
It'll sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids, duh.
Don't drink the water, fish excrete urea in it!
Impact to fish waterlife, the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order, the impact to the insect food life cycle which affect the entire chain.
Its a killer. There is no arguing that - and seriously ALL of it ends up in the water. The most important resource on the planet.
I am surprised I have to even say this.
---
>>>>the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order
>>>>Where does this come from? There have been no recorded cases to support this claim.
Jeasus christ, before you try to shut something down, know your facts:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-i...
Its one of the reasons Monsanto merged with Bayer - to "cleanse" the name of the fact that glyphosate is liquid cancer in a bottle.
Its a killer. There is no arguing that - and seriously ALL of it ends up in the water. The most important resource on the planet.
I am surprised I have to even say this.
---
>>>>the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order
>>>>Where does this come from? There have been no recorded cases to support this claim.
Jeasus christ, before you try to shut something down, know your facts:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-i...
Its one of the reasons Monsanto merged with Bayer - to "cleanse" the name of the fact that glyphosate is liquid cancer in a bottle.
I can no longer edit my original reply so I have to create this new one to address your edit.
>Jeasus christ, before you try to shut something down, know your facts:
>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-i...
The article you link discusses a legal case. It isn't a finding in research of glyphosate being a carcinogen. Indeed the article describes this fact in the very last paragraph.
I'm not sure what facts you expect me to glean from this piece but there are none supporting glyphosate as a carcinogen.
>Its one of the reasons Monsanto merged with Bayer - to "cleanse" the name of the fact that glyphosate is liquid cancer in a bottle.
This is hyperbole.
>Jeasus christ, before you try to shut something down, know your facts:
>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-i...
The article you link discusses a legal case. It isn't a finding in research of glyphosate being a carcinogen. Indeed the article describes this fact in the very last paragraph.
I'm not sure what facts you expect me to glean from this piece but there are none supporting glyphosate as a carcinogen.
>Its one of the reasons Monsanto merged with Bayer - to "cleanse" the name of the fact that glyphosate is liquid cancer in a bottle.
This is hyperbole.
>Impact to fish waterlife, the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order, the impact to the insect food life cycle which affect the entire chain.
>Its a killer. There is no arguing that - and seriously ALL of it ends up in the water. The most important resource on the planet.
I'm sorry but the research just doesn't agree.
>Impact to fish waterlife
What is the impact you are referring to? An impact can be anywhere from barely observable to catastrophic. There have been many studies on the impact of glyphosate on water life. Nothing so far has conclusively ascertained a significant threat.
>the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order
Where does this come from? There have been no recorded cases to support this claim.
>the impact to the insect food life cycle which affect the entire chain.
Again, what is the magnitude of impact to which you refer? Saying something has impact, without further context, is almost meaningless.
>Its a killer. There is no arguing that
Killer of what?
>I am surprised I have to even say this.
Not much has been said short of broad claims and generalizations without any supporting information.
>Its a killer. There is no arguing that - and seriously ALL of it ends up in the water. The most important resource on the planet.
I'm sorry but the research just doesn't agree.
>Impact to fish waterlife
What is the impact you are referring to? An impact can be anywhere from barely observable to catastrophic. There have been many studies on the impact of glyphosate on water life. Nothing so far has conclusively ascertained a significant threat.
>the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order
Where does this come from? There have been no recorded cases to support this claim.
>the impact to the insect food life cycle which affect the entire chain.
Again, what is the magnitude of impact to which you refer? Saying something has impact, without further context, is almost meaningless.
>Its a killer. There is no arguing that
Killer of what?
>I am surprised I have to even say this.
Not much has been said short of broad claims and generalizations without any supporting information.
>What is the damage that has been done?
For one thing, huge impacts on native insects, which has domino effects across ecosystems which rely on them for pollination and food.
For one thing, huge impacts on native insects, which has domino effects across ecosystems which rely on them for pollination and food.
The problem with glyphosate is that even if it does turn out to cause some kind of cancer, it's acute toxicity is incredibly low, lower than table salt. As as a result, people can easily ignore the directions for years with minimal, if any, health effects.
However, the anti-glyphosate crowd has completely failed for the last 40 years to provide any definitive proof that it causes cancer, what cancers it might cause, any kind of dose-response curve, or any other evidence that what we're seeing is anything else that chance. Non-hodgkin's lymphoma is relatively rare, but glyphosate usage is not. Take any popular product, nail polish, Nike shoes, Cheeze-its, and with enough scrutiny you will be able to correlate the population of heavy users with some rare and critical health condition. It's inevitable. You can tell such a claim is likely spurious by weak and contradictory findings, alongside frequent goalpost moving and changing claims from the product's critics. This is exactly what we see with glyphosate.
So why is glyphosate so criticised? Why did Greenpeace fight nuclear power so hard in the 60's and 70's, even though fossil fuels were far worse for their claimed cause? Why are there so many anti-vaxers? Why was golden rice destroyed? People don't need a rational reason to fervently take up a cause. Especially if they think they're fighting an evil empire.
The craziest thing is that even if glyphosate is as carcinogenic as its detractors claim, it's still far less toxic than most, if not all, of the other less controversial herbicides. In other words, anti-glyphosate campaigners are not choosing targets based on harm, they're choosing targets based on popularity.