Sort:  

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/

I think I find the assessment here accurate. Glyphosate likely needs a modern broad scale risk assessment done on it. Likely that will find that exposure levels need to be lower than are currently allowed (as old research indicated that it was entirely safe, likely not correct but likely still a concentration dependence that skews to the high side).

At this point, the vehement opposition to glyphosate is still NOT supported by the scientific literature. There are plenty of studies reporting some issues, but these for the most part are not an endorsement against the use of glyphosate, but rather increasing the regulation of use. Setting more strict exposure limits for people. That sort of thing. Heck I have even written a post discussing a study describing a link between glyphosate and fatty liver disease in a mouse model. I also discuss some of the limitations and criticisms of this work (it's not a great study).

I've also written posts discussing work showing issues with carbamide pesticides. However as with glyphosate this work really doesn't illustrate that these are necessarily an issue given low exposure levels (it's a common theme with a lot of this research).

You're fear-mongering IMO.