It is really worth emphasizing just how bad the last paper ("the worst of all") is. It does not contain a single piece of actual data, there are no experiments

It is really worth emphasizing just how bad the last paper ("the worst of all") is. It does not contain a single piece of actual data, there are no experiments there, only wild hypotheses. There isn't a single piece of evidence in that paper, the authors simply assume that glyphosate can subvert one of the most important mechanisms in the cell and change any protein that contains glycine. What kills this hypothesis entirely is that glyphosate is a glycine with a modification on the amino group. That is the part of the amino acid that is used to make the connection to the previous one in a protein. This kind of modification makes it impossible for it to be incorporated into a protein by a peptide bond. The journal also does not seem trustworthy, it doesn't seem to be indexed in Pubmed, which is a very, very bad sign. Why would a scientist publish in a journal that none of their colleagues could easily find? In this area of science, every journal worth reading (and some more) are indexed in Pubmed. It also seems to only publish ~3 papers per issue.