The evidence on glyphosphate causing cancer isn’t particularly strong.
I wouldn’t bathe in the stuff, but the data strongly indicates it’s one of the more benign compounds used in agriculture and landscaping.
WHO classifies it as "Probably carcinogenic to humans". But it's important to talk about the exposure model.
Glyphosate in our food supply - almost no evidence of cancer risk. (The gut microbiome is affected though).
Direct and sustained contact to glyphosate as an agricultural worker - potentially very severe risks, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The data is strong but epidemiological.
So yeah, I think your conclusion is roughly correct. Don't bathe in it. Probably avoid using it at home or work. But otherwise, its not a serious risk to consumers.
> The evidence on glyphosphate causing cancer isn’t particularly strong.
This may be the case.
But I remember tobacco execs testifying under oath in the mid 90s that nicotine wasn't addictive and that there wasn't strong evidence smoking directly caused cancer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Berkshire
https://senate.ucsf.edu/tobacco-ceo-statement-to-congress
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/15/us/tobacco-chiefs-say-cig...
> The executives also made a number of other notable admissions, including these:
> * Cigarettes may cause lung cancer, heart disease and other health problems, but the evidence is not conclusive.
> * Despite earlier denials, a Philip Morris study that suggested that animals could become addicted to nicotine was suppressed in 1983 and 1985.