That's an impossible barrier. Not only are those complete subjective traits, that stuff is going to appear in nearly every online discussion, especially one with any sort of controversy attached.
It seems fairly clear to me that the harmfulness of glyphosate (when used as directed) is somewhere between none and inconclusive. Even in cases where it's been grossly misused, any "link" has come significantly short of a causal link since it's usually just a guy who got cancer and also used to work on a farm. Given the prevalence and duration of glyphosate use, compelling evidence should be readily available, just like it was with lead or asbestos. Absence of evidence is very much not evidence of absence but glyphosate has to be the number two most studied chemical behind aspartame, another chemical that's been routinely attacked and routinely proven to be safe.
Given that most of the assertions of glyphosate's harm is coming from the lawyers of people filing lawsuits, I'm not too swayed by their unsupported arguments.