This whole subject does reveal the duplicity and manipulation of Bayer-Monsanto on this topic, because they use studies on purified glyphosate to make their claims of harmlessness.
However, RoundUp is glyphosate + surfactants (oily lipid-type molecules) which are needed to dissolve the waxy leaf surface so that the glyphosate can be absorbed by the plant, without which the herbicide would be ineffective.
Studies with RoundUp formulation show the disruption of cell cycle effects, which can lead to cancer in applicators who get exposed. This is a common issue with a wide variety of strong surfactants, for example see this from the Deepwater Horizon blowout, where they dumped tons of a surfactant mix called Corexit:
There will always be people who believe the Bayer-Monsanto propaganda. Just like there are people who believe that burning 100m-year-old plant matter is fine. Just like people believe that there are aliens living among us.
There have been countless studies on the matter. Even without the surfactants it's still a nasty substance.
Surfactants are essentially soaps, right? So surely their safety profile is well understood already and glyphosate is the more important component to be researching anyway?
No. It's a common Monsanto/Bayer talking point to minimize these chemicals by calling them "soaps." These chemicals are what allows the active ingredient to permeate tissues. Monsanto/Bayer funds studies with only the active ingredient to mislead people into thinking RoundUp is safe to be sprayed on food.
Are they using an especially unusual choice of surfactant in roundup? Wouldn't it be trivial to just go to one with a better safety profile if it's not the active ingredient? It just doesn't seem like a plausible conspiracy to me that Monsanto would be going to such efforts to hide the side effects of the surfactant they are using. I'm not saying it shouldn't be studied, I'm just saying this doesn't seem like such a huge "gotcha" to me.
Plants have waxy leaves; surfactants which dissolve waxes allow the glyphosate to enter the plant; such surfactants tend to be highly potent (i.e, they'd effectively strip oils from skins cells and get into those cells). Soap probably wouldn't dissolve waxes.
Fundamentally, the exact identity of the 'inert ingredients' in Roundup and similar products should be exposed on the label. Currently that's proprietary information, but there's a wide range of toxicity of such substances.
> "(2019) As glyphosate-based-herbicide composition is legally classified as confidential commercial information, confusion concerning the identity and concentrations of co-formulants is common and descriptions of test substances in published studies are often erroneous or incomplete. In order to resolve this confusion, laws requiring disclosure of the chemical composition of pesticide products could be enacted. Research to understand health implications from ingesting these substances is required."
That the surfactants used are a "trade secret" seems to suggest they are not just soap.
That they carefully exclude them from every toxicity test they commission suggests so more strongly. Why are the concealing "soap", and carefully not testing the product with it?
However, RoundUp is glyphosate + surfactants (oily lipid-type molecules) which are needed to dissolve the waxy leaf surface so that the glyphosate can be absorbed by the plant, without which the herbicide would be ineffective.
Studies with RoundUp formulation show the disruption of cell cycle effects, which can lead to cancer in applicators who get exposed. This is a common issue with a wide variety of strong surfactants, for example see this from the Deepwater Horizon blowout, where they dumped tons of a surfactant mix called Corexit:
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Corexit