The public discourse on glyphosate is useless. As witnessed by calling it a pesticide, which is quite common among those most vocal against its use.

Less is more when it comes to chemicals, which is why reasonable uses of glyphosate seems to be the best we have come up with so far as a species - regardless of abuses of the chemical.

It’s probably the most studied herbicide on the planet at this point with very little evidence that it causes human health issues when used as intended. Doesn’t mean it’s zero risk, but we also feed an incredible number of people off a very small amount of landmass at this point in history.

Herbicides are pesticides. Are you implying that I made a mistake with that word? I did not.

Your other points are valid, but would you advocate for dishonest research to be acceptable as evidence that a pesticide is ready for widespread human field trials?

Assuming you would not, then I think you'd agree that there should be repercussions. Monsanto is not Uber for agriculture.