I agree with your comment in principle but the specific example of Roundup is rather weak. Yes, glyphosate is usually studied in isolation rather than as a commercial formulation including surfactants etc., but we have decades’ worth of epidemiological studies showing that proper use of Roundup has, at most, a marginal effect on tumour incidence. Conversely, the most-discussed studies that purport to show Roundup’s carcinogenicity have well-known, glaring methodological flaws (including some that formed the basis of the IARC report). The case of Roundup is made more complicated by the fact that Monsanto/Bayer has been caught red-handed skewing the publication record without disclosure of conflict of interest, and lobbying scientific journals. But the same is true for the opposition: for instance, the now-retracted 2012 Séralini study also failed to disclose the authors’ conflict of interest. And beyond improper publication practices (which, yes, is serious), there’s no evidence that Monsanto/Bayer actually falsified information.
In sum, I’d rank the risk of Roundup being carcinogenic on roughly the same level as that of 5G: possible but unlikely, given the best available evidence.
Ok, fair enough. I have enough other reasons to be against roundup without needing to cling to believing it's carcinogenic. Thanks!
For the record, the other reasons are to do with the larger ecological impact of roundup-based practices, such as harm to soil fungi and bacteria, and collateral damage from runoff or wind. Plus, there were some studies finding it may cause harm to intestinal lining and such, even if it's not actually a carcinogen.
Agroindustrial farming practices have led to most of our produce in stores becoming more caloric but less nutritionally dense. Interesting idea that perhaps our food plants are becoming more "obese-yet-malnourished" and this change in food plants could be at the root of a number of health risks.
In sum, I’d rank the risk of Roundup being carcinogenic on roughly the same level as that of 5G: possible but unlikely, given the best available evidence.