I would call causing chronic kidney disease to be toxic.

It sounds like they evaluated the chemical itself but didn't evaluate what could happen to the chemical once it was in the environment.

> It sounds like they evaluated the chemical itself but didn't evaluate what could happen to the chemical once it was in the environment.

I bet that's most of evaluations and it's probably not even required to take into consideration the environment and how it can change the response...

And I would hazard a guess that this "mountain of evidence" was bought and paid-for by Monsanto.

So there's just no way to convince you then, right? Well for my part I say that all the anti glyphosate studies (not that there are many of them) are financed by competitors in the herbicide market. Just super convenient

Another alternative is that no one did any studies because there's finite amount of people and a lot of other topics to study, topics which are better financed by various conglomerates;)

I would hazard to guess that it’s been on the market for over half a century and has been controversial for eons and mountains of independent research has been done on it by this point notably by national health orgs.

Of course Monsanto is putting its finger on the scales of both the research that is done and the research that is seen but they are not some sort of omnipotent evil.

Part of this case was that Monsanto “bullied” scientists into favorable reports.