Trust the science. The World Health Organization on glyphosate in 2016:

  "The only large cohort study of high quality found no evidence of an association at any exposure level"
  "Glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures"
  "Glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet"
  "The Meeting concluded that it was not necessary to establish an ARfD for glyphosate or its metabolites in view of its low acute toxicity"

Tptacek in 2018:

  "There are no credible studies indicating that glyphosate is a carcinogen, and it would be a little bit surprising it if was, since it targets a metabolic pathway not present in animals. Meanwhile, many of the herbicides that glyphosate displace, plenty of which remain in use, are known human carcinogens. The most widely reported declaration of glyphosate's carcinogenicity, by IARC, was disavowed by the WHO, IARC's parent organization...The evidence seems to suggest that glyphosate is basically inert in humans"

When Dr. Oz in 2015 spoke out against glyphosate, ten prominent physicians wrote a letter to Columbia University in demanding his removal from the faculty for an "egregious lack of integrity" and for his "disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine." He replied "I bring the public information that will help them on their path to be their best selves" and provides "multiple points of view, including mine, which is offered without conflict of interest."

https://www.agrimarketing.com/ss.php?id=95305

Here is Reuters with a 3000-word Special Inverstigative Report filed under "Glyphosate Battle" carrying water for Monsanto, after IARC declared the chemical 2A (probably carcinogenic):

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc...

How many retractions has Dr Oz published?

Has he retracted his claim that “raspberry ketones” are a miracle for burning fat in a jar?

Idiots look at people who never admit they were wrong and think those are the people to follow.

People with the slightest bit of intelligence look at the people (or process in this matter) who are constantly checking themselves and willing to admit they were wrong (or in this case misled by frauds) when they find the truth.

Meanwhile, the real issue here is not the science. The real issue here is the American GRAS system, because Europe didn’t allow glyphosates because their political system requires stuff going into your food to be proven safe, whereas the American system simply requires it to not be proven harmful.

> The evidence seems to suggest that glyphosate is basically inert in humans

It actually might be the case and it still can be damaging to people by affecting the gut microbiome:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

> The only large cohort study of high quality found no evidence of an association at any exposure level

Was that the retracted study or a different one?

>Tptacek in 2018:

Oh man that's comedy gold.

Makes me want to punch everyone else on the high score board into a search engine.

Kinda funny how the "it kills stuff, it can't be good for ya" luddite crowd turned out to be right all along.

CGMthrowaway writes:

> Trust the science.

Science is a process, not a result. Retractions like this promote the integrity of scientific research and evidence-based medicine.

> When Dr. Oz in 2015 spoke out against glyphosate...

Oz also promoted MLM dietary supplements, antimalarial drugs as COVID treatments, gay conversion "therapy", colloidal silver, and vaccine skepticism. He has zero credibility and cannot be trusted.

Big Dr Oz fan eh? Got any quotes from Oprah or other HNers to balance the epistemic master class?