According to JoeSpareBedroom :

When Harry K used the term "agency", I interpreted that to mean a government
agency.

Why?

You mentioned a college which, unless I'm reading it wrong, did NOT
do the research itself. You posted an article by someone who offered
opinions on OTHER peoples' research.

Not a "someone". Several.

So? Reviews of studies are just as valid. That particular agency
isn't exactly your typical "college" churning out just philosophy
majors either.

How about WHO then?

How about just about all of the other studies on TOXNET (NIH) that a
search for "roundup toxicity" yield?

Some of those studies look a bit scary. But look closer - they're
talking about _extremely_ high dosage levels.

I don't know about you, but I think I'd notice drinking the LD50 dose
of Roundup - which is about a pound of the _pure_ stuff.

Doesn't matter, though. After you posted that information, I asked you a
question which you didn't respond to, unless you also post under the name of
"yourname". Until you answer the earlier question, we can't continue.

What question was that?

That loaded question about "why it can't be believed?", which either
turns into a diatribe about trusting Monsanto (which I'm not), or
some nonsense about animal tests are always totally irrelevant?

Whereas in fact, animal studies almost always reflect how we react
to things, and where they don't, they discover that, because they
test it on more than one kind of animal.

Let's on the other hand, talk about Greenpeace asserting that Roundup
is "one of the most toxic herbicides", without a slightest shred of
evidence, no citations, _nothing_.

Now compare the LD50 dose of Roundup (which is on the order of one _pound_
for a normal size man) with that of caffeine, paraquat, or that
matter, table salt.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.