Scientists, environmentalists, and herbicide industry concede that Roundup and GBHs need far more study and are toxic, carcinogenic, and unsafe.

Any formulation of chemicals being used as widely as Roundup before proper studies have come to as close to a conclusion as possible should be widely criticized. The formulation being used has NEVER been studied by anyone outside Monsanto. How many toxic chemicals have ended up in the environment and destroyed the lives of humans, animals, and plants that after properly being studied are no longer used but were rushed into usage by corrupt and questionable government and the manufacturers? Conducting the studies AFTER it has been widely used is extremely dangerous at best and fraud and corruption at worst. Ensuring these type of things are being done correctly is important to society and the planet as a whole but the decision making is in control of those who make vast amounts of money by ignoring prudence and spraying baby spraying. We have a responsibility to the planet and everything that lives on it when we make such extreme changes and use chemicals and substances or gene therapy to accomplish it that we are only doing it when we are certain that they are not damaging and destructive to the planet and all life on it. I do not believe the studies on Roundup meet that requirement, do you?

Recently, scientists, environmentalists, and people working inside the herbicide industry made a joint declaration stating that Roundup and GBHs need far more study and are toxic, carcinogenic, and unsafe. Here are the main points in the declaration. http://jech.bmj.com/content/71/6/613.long

1. It's use has grown over 100 fold since the research being used to declare it safe was done. The amount we are being exposed to now are far greater than the amounts that were studied for safety. https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0

2. The research is outdated and a large portion has not been peer reviewed and done under questionable ethical standards. In the US EPA's 1993 registration review of GBHs, for example, 73% of the almost 300 citations were published prior to 1985; importantly, only 11 were peer-reviewed. A search of PubMed reveals more than 1500 published studies on glyphosate in the last decade alone. It is incongruous that safety assessments of the most widely used herbicide on the planet rely largely on fewer than 300 unpublished, non-peer-reviewed studies while excluding the vast, modern literature on glyphosate effects.

3. The EPA who have decided that it is safe are well known to be corrupted and overly influenced by Monsanto. Decisions are being made under a very questionable ethical environment. The common good and safety of the environment and citizens should be the main priority of the EPA. (Evidence and examples of this corruption): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/monsanto-accused-of-ghost-writing-papers-on-roundup-cancer-risk
   https://www.classaction.com/news/court-documents-allege-monsanto-influenced-epa/
   http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a53906/monsanto-glyphosphate-roundup-epa/
   https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-2468647604.html

4. Research was only done on glyphosate itself, which it dubious because when it is used has formulations which use agents that cause it to bond much more strongly with organic cells and studies are very difficult to do to ascertain safety because these formulations are well guarded secrets. GBHs are chemical mixtures, and may be more toxic than glyphosate alone. GBHs are always used as a mixture of glyphosate plus numerous other so called inert ingredients, which are added to alter the herbicide's physicochemical properties and enhance its herbicidal action. Some inert ingredients or chemicals are used to enhance the adhesion of glyphosate to plant surfaces (eg, alkyl polyglycosides), whereas others facilitate its penetration of plant cell walls and into plant tissues (eg, ethoxylated tallow amines) to exert its herbicidal effects. Unfortunately, the full list of these chemicals, collectively known as adjuvants or coformulants, is treated as a trade secret by the manufacturers; the composition of GBHs are unknown and available data on the hazards posed by different mixtures remain limited. Chemical mixtures can have effects that are more potent than the effects of individual ingredients. https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/153/9/4097/2423830
   GBHs have been shown to be more toxic than glyphosate. It also should be noted that some of the studies discussed here evaluated GBHs, and thus likely reveal effects that may not be observed if studies examined only the active ingredient. These results reveal that GBH safety evaluations focused on glyphosate alone can underestimate toxicity and are insufficient to assess relevance to human and environmental exposures. Although the number of commercial formulations is extensive and will be difficult to study comprehensively, the most widely applied GBH formulations should be tested in parallel with glyphosate alone.
   http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/3/264
   http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653503003060?via%3Dihub
   https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01056243
   http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0300483X12003459

5. Recent research done show that GBHs are dangerous and raise many new questions about GBH safety. In laboratory animals, glyphosate can disrupt reproductive development in male rats: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-011-0788-9
   and male and female fish:
   http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166445X14002422?via%3Dihub https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-011-0788-9
   Studies in fish and the amphibian Xenopus laevis demonstrate that developmental exposures to GBHs induce malformations in craniofacial structures and the brain:
   http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749
   Research from controlled laboratory studies also suggests that GBHs may contribute to liver, hepatorenal and cardiovascular damage:
   https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39328
   https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-015-0056-1
   http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378427404002188?via%3Dihub
   https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-015-1254-5
   https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5
   Some of these effects may be due to altered ion flux in these tissues:
   https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12012-014-9299-2
   GBHs are also recognized to cause serious eye damage based on evaluation of six separate studies:
   https://www.echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13626/clh_report_glyphosate_en.pdf
   Finally, GBH exposures have been shown to induce oxidative stress and genotoxicity in vitro and in vivo:
   http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1415-47572014000100016&lng=en&tlng=en
   https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12012-014-9299-2
   In a previous consensus statement concerns over the setting of ‘safe’ levels of exposure by regulatory agencies around the world were raised:
   https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0
   Recently, there have been studies showing evidence of the possibility that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. Studies in cell culture showed that glyphosate induces endocrine-mediated effects on end points relevant to toxicity, as well as cell proliferation. The final conclusion of the US EPA was that ‘there was no convincing evidence’ that glyphosate interacts with endocrine pathways. Significant criticism of the EPA has been raised by endocrinologists, and others have expressed concern about the failure of the EPA to acknowledge non-monotonic dose responses, which have been documented for other endocrine disruptors.
   https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-011-0788-9
   http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2014.880393
   http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691513003633?via%3Dihub
   http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0300483X09003047
   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1638308/
   https://academic.oup.com/edrv/article/33/3/378/2354852

6. It has been shown to be carcinogenic in recent studies. In December 2016, an EPA scientific advisory panel was charged with evaluating the human carcinogenic potential of glyphosate only, not GBHs. The conclusions of this panel have not yet been released. The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group's 2015 decision to classify glyphosate as a grade 2A probable human carcinogen followed an extensive review and evaluation of the weight of all available evidence.
   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25907210
   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20799287?dopt=Abstract
   http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-09.pdf

Due to all these factors I believe it is insanely irresponsible to continue to allow the growth of its use until further testing and studies are done. Some may say this is hyperbole but our government has decided that Monsanto keeping its formulation secret and being allowed to continue to sell a insufficiently tested product that is being sprayed and consumed all over the planet is more important than the safety of all life on earth.