> It’s not supposed to “exist” in non-plants(?). No, it exists in many clades, which include many bacteria. It's most notable for being absent in Animalia. "

> It’s not supposed to “exist” in non-plants(?). No, it exists in many clades, which include many bacteria. It's most notable for being absent in Animalia. "exist" doesn't need to be in scare quotes, it simply means that animal genomes don't have the genes that encode for this pathway. The basic premise of the paper - that glyphosate may be affecting animals indirectly via their gut microbiota - is sound enough, but the paper itself is of very poor quality. It follows a pattern of dubious papers critical of glyphosate (e.g. Seralini) that 'throw data against a wall and see what sticks'. * 20% recollection rate of already small samples (n=80 IIRC, so just over a dozen to compute statistics on, patently absurd). * No dose response: 10mg/L exposure shows no results, while 5mg/L does. * The affected microbes appears random and likely a result of poor sampling and multiple comparisons. The paper is a joke. A bad one. Any of those three issues should result in immediate rejection. Think whatever the hell you want about glyphosate, Monsanto, etc., but science matters and this isn't fucking science.