I am no expert on glyphosates, but that article has left me less than convinced that they are "safe".
While activists exaggerate to persuade people it's not safe because it might be carcinogenic, the author is on the other extreme: it's safe until proven otherwise.
It also sports a fair share of whataboutism: "what about bacon, that's also considered carcinogenic!?".
It's all about "how much?" and "over which time period?" and "where did you put it into your body?" to determine if something will kill you or cause cancer.
Also note that glyphosate is Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the FDA, which means that it can be used in any quantity. With that designation, arguments about dosage carry less weight for me. If a regulatory agency were concerned with dosages in final food products, I'd feel a lot more comfortable.
Thusly my argument on dosages in final food products hold and I feel fairly comfortable. I suggest either petitioning the FDA to introduce food safety standards or moving to another country with food safety standards.
Most natural pesticide and herbicide show bad affect on young people brain developpement. I would be really surprised if a chemical, more potent one was harmless.
If it barely or not at all goes through then there should be less of an impact.
Indeed it's the dosage and not the substance, even if it will sound stupid when somebody on your funeral says that you were crushed by a ton of cherries.
It's a poison, let's be clear about that. So treat it carefully and with respect. But when you do, the end result to human life is more save than bacon.
Basically, the article claims people don't understand HOW the IARC does its job, what its reports mean. And that its data is easily misused for fear mongering. Eg scary fact, did you know your water contains lots of dihydrogen monoxide?
First and foremost it judges on hazard, which is how much an effect it could be in the worst exposure cases. Only secondly is its job to assess risks, that is how much is the effect under normal/expected exposures.
Few things pisses me off as much as people saying you have to listen to science without presenting the science and in turn only use hyperbole and stupid arguments such as "Bacon causes cancer, so no worries... smoke your cigarettes"
More a social/political article about the toxicity of legal firms (in pursuit of class action lawsuits) paying activists along with the toxicity of non-scientific alarmist public opinion.