The evidence on glyphosphate causing cancer isn’t particularly strong.

I wouldn’t bathe in the stuff, but the data strongly indicates it’s one of the more benign compounds used in agriculture and landscaping.

▲

perrygeo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

WHO classifies it as "Probably carcinogenic to humans". But it's important to talk about the exposure model.

Glyphosate in our food supply - almost no evidence of cancer risk. (The gut microbiome is affected though).

Direct and sustained contact to glyphosate as an agricultural worker - potentially very severe risks, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The data is strong but epidemiological.

So yeah, I think your conclusion is roughly correct. Don't bathe in it. Probably avoid using it at home or work. But otherwise, its not a serious risk to consumers.

	▲	parineum an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Included in this list under the same classification (2A)[1]: > Night shift work > Red meat (consumption of) > Very hot beverages at above 65 °C (drinking) Defined as[2]: > Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans > This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and either sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals or strong mechanistic evidence, showing that the agent exhibits key characteristics of human carcinogens. Limited evidence of carcinogenicity means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed “chance”, “bias”, or “confounding”) could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence. This category may also be used when there is inadequate evidence regarding carcinogenicity in humans but both sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong mechanistic evidence in human cells or tissues. [1] https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications [2] https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/I...