> What's the current consensus? The comments on HN are usually very informative, and this article is no exception. Here we have this comment: > The IARC is t

> What's the current consensus? The comments on HN are usually very informative, and this article is no exception. Here we have this comment: > The IARC is the odd one out here and their results are based mainly on discredited experiments on rats that are known to be prone to getting cancer (meaning they aren't a good model for humans in this case). It depends on how you define consensus, I guess. But the data is clear: one organisation out of many, and they drew their conclusions not from humans but from rats prone to cancer. > It's dangerous to the workers who work on the fields, not to the consumers at the end of the chain, or both? I don't know. But one of Glyphosate charms is it breaks down very rapidly. It means it doesn't do damage to surrounding plants that weren't directly exposed (unlike say 75-D). So my wild guess is you would have to be a field worker exposed to it directly. IIRC the people who won law suits against Monsanto were field workers who got regularly drenched in the stuff.