Probably glyphosate isn't really carcinogenic. It's a substituted amino acid and lots of studies have shown it to be benign. But maybe it is. Maybe there is so

Probably glyphosate isn't really carcinogenic. It's a substituted amino acid and lots of studies have shown it to be benign. But maybe it is. Maybe there is something we didn't know. Maybe Monstanto pumped out a bunch of fake studies. Probably not but this could be. Something to consider is this. The cheapness of our food production, which is not just the US but much of the world at the moment is in part to use of glyphosate aka "roundup ready" base crops like corn and soybeans. This allows higher yields with less cultivation. Now maybe this is all wrong and we should do it differently, but at the moment that is how it is. These "base" products trickle up into all sorts of things like meat, sodas, beer, who knows what else. And internationally. If glyphosate is not carcinogenic and this case is about lawyers and sensationalists and non scientific people out to stop "chemicals" or make a fast buck and in so doing raise global food prices it would be very egregious. Because it won't just be Wheaties in California that go up in price, it will be tortillas in Honduras and flatbread in Algeria and who knows what else. In those places, unlike the US, a non insignificant portion of income is spent on food so the pain will be greater. I'm not suggesting if a chemical is shown to be harmful it should be allowed. But there are ramifications of short term greed and non scientific thinking beyond the immediate.