Coming from a lawn care guy of all things... I'd really like you to provide a substantiating link for your comments as pronouncements like yours only sew the seeds of doubt and nothing else.
My view of Glyphosate is substantiated by my County Agronomist who is State certified in that field. That is the ingerent issue with a public forum like this. You post a comment like yours and people take it for gospel without anything to back it up, shame on you. Glyphosate does attach itself to soil particles and changes their molecular structure, why I don't use it. That and direct contact with it can contribute to cancer, much like certain solvents can be aspirated through your epidermis and migrate to your liver, causing irreversible harm which is why I always insist that my employees and myself wear surgical gloves when cleaning stainless steel in prepping for TIG welding.
How about some substantiating links that support your patently false assumptions about Glyphosate and how it don't change the molecular structure of soil for starters.
Until then, I call your assumptions phooey.
It was in the EU, based on laboratory animal studies, e.g.
New scientific publication confirms glyphosate causes cancer at EU “safe” exposure levels – evidence ignored in EU reapproval
It might be true in humans, it might not.
Lots of chemicals behave differently in humans than in animals, which is why drugs are tested in humans as a last step before approval and marketing. Unknown issues do crop in human trials precisely because animal testing is not a perfectly accurate predictor of human response. That cuts both ways for drugs and for chemical testing.
One can sometimes see from observing human diseases mapped by geography or profession that there are human health effects (black lung and coal miners, mesothelioma and asbestos workers, silicosis and lung cancer in stone workers, etc.). Some times the effects appear quickly after human exposure, sometimes it takes decades (Erin Brokovich's issue with hexavalent chromium). I don't think that chemical safety testing is easy, and it seems to me that there is a lot of misinformation around for lots of chemicals (pro and con).
Glyphosate may have a human effect, it may not, but it has been used by lots of humans (e.g. farmers, and homeowners) so if it were potent, one should be able to see the effect. As of the moment, there doesn't appear to be a huge cancer or toxicity signal, but that doesn't mean it is zero either. One in a billion risk may not be large in the big picture, but it matters a great deal to the one. Even water is lethal in excess, and I don't mean drowning.
Personally, I try to avoid additives in my food, and I try not to put them in/on our land as well. When we first moved here, I tried to use glyphosate on poison hemlock patches we had. (Poison hemlock is really toxic; tradeoffs) As it turned out, a flamethrower was a better tool for poison hemlock here, and we quit using the glyphosate after about two years.
Then again, I try to avoid exposure to things like nitrates, and
aflatoxin (a mold that grows on foods like damp corn or peanuts) as it is an extremely potent potential or of certain cancers. Like arsenic in ground water, not all problematic chemicals are man made. Life is, after all, a fatal disease.
All the best,
Peter