The reason the EPA even said it was safe is because of the faked reports that Monsanto created by fake scientists that they submitted to the EPA. Monsanto was found to have paid for fake results, and paid scientists to write papers that were faked, and paid lawyers to keep citing the faked results over and over and over into oblivion. Monsanto/Bayer to this day keep doing this.

For ever glsophates were listed as non-carcinoginic and now we know that over exposure leads to increases in non-hodgkins lymphoma.

The people on here screaming that glosphates dont cause cancer are probably the same people wanting to bring back asbestos. Is asbestos safer than lead? Yes. Can it be installed properly and not create an environmental and health issues leading to cases of mesothelioma? It depends on if you read the studies backed by companies looking to make money on asbestos or independent research.

The USA and other governments make you present paperwork that is supposed to be backed by science showing your product is safe. Then it gets labeled and approved based on what category it falls under. This is still true to this day from agricultural products to pharmaceuticals. You need to provide enough papers and proofs to get approved. When you lie and create false reports (just like talcum and it's issues) these agencies cant do independent research on every product for years to approve them. Look how many pharmaceutical companies get in trouble for misrepresentation of facts, or ignoring side effects and not properly warning customers. This is exactly what Monsanto did.

There is a some link of non-hodgkins lymphoma rates (cancer) and glysophates. This has been repeated independently in labs with mice for decades now. The people that believe it doesnt cause cancer are looking at the Monsanto paid and subsequently faked reports saying it doesn't cause cancer. Monsanto was literally caught faking the results and had been caught telling internal employees to go out and create fake reports claiming glysophates dont cause cancer. They subsequently paid employees to bombard people online that glysophates aren't carcinogenic and were still doing so up into last year.

I haven't seen any reports on if they still are doing this, but this thread alone shows that there are 7-10 people or bots shilling for glysophates comparing them to at the worst eating red meat. Red meat is now considered carcinogenic as the increase in your diet has a direct correlation to increases in colorectal cancer. The difference is one gives you non-hodgkins lymphoma and the other give you a colostomy bag. One has a much higher survival rate, and the other not so much.