This is false centrism. The 'science' side is perfectly prepared to accept any compelling data about risks or hazards. In many cases, these are the same peopl

This is false centrism. The 'science' side is perfectly prepared to accept any compelling data about risks or hazards. In many cases, these are the same people that have raised the alarm on various pollutants or environmental risks. But they don't say that about glyphosate because .. there's no evidence. It's just not there. All the terrible evils that this compound is supposed to have, such powerful effects, would be easy to see in controlled studies. Even small effects that are nonetheless epidemiologically relevant are well within what is detectable. Instead, what you get is a bunch of certifiable bullshit like Seralini, that Samsel guy linked above, etc. Stuff that is objectively bad science, so far beyond what is on the margin that it beggars belief. It's crap. The 'science' folk may seem a little defensive, and that's because we absolutely are. We care deeply about science and epistemology. We don't take kindly to liars, and there are an awful lot of them who take up this torch for whatever reason.