Sorry @careywedler, but as a food toxicologist I have to tell you that when it comes to glyphosate, the common narrative about its harmfulness is misleading.
It is associated with a slight increase of cancer risk. But only for workers who came in contact with large amounts of the chemical. Consumers are exposed to very small concentrations, where no harm whatsoever was observed in hundreds of scientific studies.
The real problems with its use are not about human health, but ecological.
I wrote a dedicated post about it summing all the stuff up back in 2017: https://steemit.com/science/@sco/tox-bog-2-glyphosate-and-the-problem-of-conflicting-studies
While you are correct that the ecological damage is far worse than the human health risks, the hundreds of studies you mention are almost all suspect, and but few have been done by labs independent and uncompromised by industry.
I have seen the tumors that come from RoundUp, which isn't only glyphosate. The studies that are done almost always only consider glyphosate, and do not look at how it concatenates with other ingredients in common products, including those in which glyphosate isn't an ingredient.
How it reacts in living things with other chemicals is practically unknown. When it's found in the cord blood of newborns who have never personally eaten a thing, how it got there, and what it does when combined with all the other stuff out there, such as the agonists, adjuvants, and foreign DNA and diseases in vaccines, other herbicides, pesticides, industrial chemicals, etc., is critically important.
I note Carey specifically did not claim any adverse effects, but merely pointed out it was found in products people commonly wouldn't suspect it to be in, like honey.
As you point out, the ecological destruction glyphosate is executing is utterly horrible. That's not a safety recommendation at all, and every possible means of preventing further harm to our world and ourselves needs to be undertaken, asap.