no? that isn't the way biology works whatsoever. here is an example. think of glyphosate as a key. the key is designed to unlock a certain type of lock with

no? that isn't the way biology works whatsoever. here is an example. think of glyphosate as a key. the key is designed to unlock a certain type of lock with a certain arrangement of pins. when the key unlocks the lock, the target dies. this is intended behavior. but given the way that locks work -- patterns of pins -- it could very easily coincidentally work on other locks that it was not designed to unlock. it won't be most other locks. it will be a small minority. it won't necessarily have the same result when that lock is opened as it does under its intended use. in fact, it might not even open the lock -- it might just get stuck in there real good and be impossible to remove. it might even have a beneficial effect (but probably not). the details of this play out on the biochemical / enzyme-substrate level. another commenter pointed out how glyphosate is an estrogen-equivalent. this would not surprise me whatsoever. it wouldn't have to be a carcinogen to be wildly destructive in that context. any time -- any time -- you have a chemical which is known to be bioactive, it's going to have an effect. i just want to make it very clear that there is no excuse to have these chemicals in our food. they are not harmless. at best, they are an added inconvenience for the host's body to deal with.