But that's still a theory that makes no sense scientifically. Its not realistic. 99% of glyphosate gets excreted within a few days because humans don't metabolize it, and in the ng/ml trace amounts its less genotoxic than the other chemicals mixed with it in roundup, to the point its actually the least mutagenic herbicide. The tests that show low exposure DNA damage are from those other additives, the dose for getting your DNA strands to break from pure glyphosate is back to chugging hundreds of gallons of it in a single day at which point your body explodes. Just look at the whole gamut of Ames Tests run on it, up to the point of equivalent of someone drinking 5 gallons of 1% roundup, which still didn't show DNA damage from glyphosate but absolutely does from other additives that themselves are regulated as inert, non-harmful compounds because they fall well short of being hazardous on normal exposure levels.

If anyone was exposed to the theoretical amount of roundup necessary for any DNA damage to cause cancer, that person would already be a mutated post-apocalyptic fleshblob (well, just dead actually) from the other chemicals in it other than glyphosate

you're correct that glyphosate requires high levels of exposure for DNA damage in most studies, but im not sure why you keep leaning so heavily on glyphosate in a topic about roundup while also acknowledging the additives which are potentially harmful. people are suing Monsanto because of Roundup, which includes the additives across many different formulas which contain a lot of things we do know are harmful even in low dose exposure. You sounds like a Monsanto lawyer, you just keep saying glyphosate is tested and safe, no one is saying glyphosate and only glyphosate is a potential carcinogen. They're saying Roundup is a potential carcinogen. If monsanto can reformulate roundup to have no harmful additives and glyphosate is as safe as they claim that's a good thing. And those additives are IMO why they've paid out settlements, because they know they can be harmful. Likely not if you're using a 2 gal sprayer on your driveway, but if you are working 400 acres of fields and spraying for a full week with 500 gal rigs, im less convinced. now those comically high thresholds for ingesting aren't so comical.

Atrozine is why there are so many Trans now.

Well all the litigation and fearmongering was based on glyphosate, all those lawsuits are why Monsanto now ironically sells more toxic formulations without glyphosate, because people don't treat it as spooky chemicals. All those other chemicals are also tested and proven safe at the levels of exposure you'd get either eating or being sprayed, including farm workers getting comically large doses, but Glyphosate was the one that attracted all the regulatory nonsense and litigation. Some EU countries tried to seize on it for pure trade war reasons, like how they exclude chicken sanitized with chlorine or PAA despite it being objectively safer, with their nonce argument about it being a crutch that would allow contamination earlier in the supply line. When it was nakedly just a trade barrier to protect domestic industry. Same motive against roundup, but here we also have the undercurrent of anti-science on the left who distrust all GMOs, hate corporations and get tricked into signing petitions to outlaw dihydrogen monoxide. And the anti-science needs to get called out.

Great as harmless as standing in the rain. Ok why don't you drink the water from the proverbial cup you are offering others to drink?
This is big pharma/industry lobbying the government to downplay or lower regulation in order to sell their products. Just like when people who complained drinking from lead plumbing, living in asbestos cladded houses to eating out of teflon pfas chemical pans.

These glysophate chemicals are harmless
~ Goomshill (ex tobacco salesman)

This post was edited by addone on Jun 27 2026 05:08am

Tobacco, asbestos and lead all have clear mechanisms to be harmful. Glyphosate and PFAS don't. In glyphosates case we can rule out most chronic impacts from the extensive studies and the body excreting it rapidly. The difference at play isn't dirty corporations vs regulators, its between the scientists and the anti-science mob. You know, the science that established that tobacco is addictive and its contaminants when smoked damage the lungs directly. That asbestos fibers rip up your lungs and cause chronic inflammation when the body fails to dislodge them. That lead is a neurotoxin that binds to gluathione and disrupting heme synthesis of hemoglobin. Direct chemical interactions or physical trauma. Not "this chemical is spooky and foreign", because it turns out your body is filled with all kinds of random particles of foreign chemicals at any time, and not all of them are destructive.

What chemical in history has ever been studied by as many people angling to prove its toxic, and failing?

X2 oop

This post was edited by said_aouita on Jun 27 2026 08:31am

Yes, if you around it every day of your life, and it makes contact with your skin enough.

If you google and read all on the subject .."does roundup cause cancer" you most likely come to the conclusion it does !!
one example of the search..
The World Health Organization (WHO): In 2015, the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A). They based this on "limited" evidence of cancer in humans (specifically non-Hodgkin lymphoma) and "sufficient" evidence in experimental animals. Recent independent studies continue to back this association.

Furthermore, some researchers argue that Roundup's complete commercial formula (which includes other chemicals to help the weed killer penetrate plants) may be more toxic than glyphosate alone

you mean like:

>In February 2020, after receiving and considering public comments on the glyphosate proposed interim decision, EPA published the interim decision registration review decision (ID) for glyphosate. As part of this action, EPA found that there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label. EPA also found that glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen.

>The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday reaffirmed its finding that glyphosate, the world's most popular herbicide, is not a cancer risk to users.
>"There’s no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer," said Alexandra Dunn, an EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention. "There's no risk to public health from the application of glyphosate."

>The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) completed a comprehensive peer review of glyphosate, concluding that it did not identify any "critical areas of concern" for human, animal, or environmental health
>The EFSA’s assessment, in which 90 experts appointed by EU member states reviewed a 180,000-page dossier containing 2,400 total studies, was the most comprehensive and transparent assessment of a pesticide that EFSA and the EU Member States had ever carried out.

>One analysis of Ag Health Study data found no associations between glyphosate use and overall cancer risk, including Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Prior to its commercial release and periodically since, glyphosate has undergone rigorous regulatory evaluations by the EPA and has consistently met the strict standards of safety.

>The Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ) conducted a risk assessment of glyphosate (CAS No. 1071-83-6), an amino acid herbicide, based on results from various studies. Major adverse effects of glyphosate were observed on reduced gain of body weight, GI tract (diarrhea, increased cecum weight, bowel dilatation, thickening of intestinal mucosa), and liver (increased alkaline phosphatase (ALP), hepatocellular hypertrophy). Glyphosate had no neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, teratogenicity, and genotoxicity.

>Health Canada scientists conduct a thorough risk assessment to confirm that eating foods treated with a pesticide would not result in any human health concern to any segment of the population, including pregnant women, infants, children and seniors.
>During this re-evaluation, Health Canada assessed the potential human health risk of glyphosate from drinking water, food, occupational and bystander exposure, as well as the environmental risk to non-target organisms. The dietary exposure assessment determined that the levels found in food would not be a health risk to Canadians.

>The APVMA assesses the safety of glyphosate products, and registered products are considered safe to use when the instructions on the label are followed.
>Glyphosate has also been assessed by other government regulators and independent scientists around the world. These assessments consistently found that glyphosate has low toxicity for humans, animals, fish, insects (including bees) and other invertebrates.

How many countries and health agencies have to thoroughly examine a chemical to establish its safety when there isn't even a credible theory of how it could be hazardous to humans?
Its excreted from our bodies rapidly and it is biologically and chemically inert, interacting only with a pathway that doesn't exist in mammals or most animals.
Its not a significant endocrine disrupter or genotoxic, its not a neurotoxin or acute toxin, it doesn't build up over time in tissue.

But a lot of people who stand to make money off litigating against glyphosate and people who just hate farmers and corporations and science in general, will oppose it no matter what