But I'm certain that "spray it everywhere for 30 years and see if people die" is not the way.
Bypassing the proper protocols, publishing dishonest research, is the issue under discussion today. Glyphosate might be safe, or safe enough. Proper research could reveal more subtle effects than mortality numbers.
Glyphosate is already out there.
We have large papers that look into occupational and dietary exposures of real world cohorts, and they don't converge on much of anything that should make us concerned about our dietary exposure.
Yet you have some sort of "testing protocol" in mind that would somehow be more robust than the analyses already being done on real world populations that were inconclusive?
At least pitch a rough idea of what these experiments look like.
If you tell me that EPA doesn't have a better process than "dunno, seems OK", then I'll humbly defer.
Not holding EPA up as infallible, just asserting that intentionally-deceptive research should not be tolerated -- and should demand a higher degree of skepticism of other research from the same entities or with the same beneficiaries.
This is what I've come to expect from discussion on things like glyphosate, cholesterol, seed oils, etc.
You supposedly are raising an issue, yet you can't even squeak out the smallest concrete claim.
You're "in the field" enough to claim they didn't do the proper "testing protocols", but when simply asked what you mean by that or how it's different from the existing research, you're so "out of the field" that you can't even elaborate on the words you just used -- that's a task for the experts.
And I'm not raising an issue. The article is.
For the record, I do not have an opinion on the safety profile of glyphosate at all. And I've spent zero time even wondering about cholesterol, seed oils, etc. You're dropping me into the middle of the wrong argument.
I do have strong opinions about research integrity, and this story about Monsanto is unfavorable. Do you disagree with that?