From my understanding, in the studies the 'pro-ban' people refer to, it was not that easy (although maybe impossible) to disentangle the source of the risk: the glyphosate or the products it is mixed with. Am I right here?
This being said, glyphosate as being classified as increasing the risks for cancer in the same way red meat, and many other things, is...
as I wrote above, disentagling one compound from all the other factors is never easy and is a main problem of epidemiologic studies.
De Roos et al., 2005, tried that by statistically adjusting their results for factors like "age, smoking, other pesticides, alcohol, family history of cancer". Doing this they found glyphosate to increase the risk for a special cancer type (non hopkins lymphoma) by a factor of 2.6. That means if you are a farmworker using glyphosate, your annual risk of getting that cancer is about 0.026% instead of 0.01%.
Thanks for the precisions :)
np, was in a super-boring lab meeting, time enough to look it up again ;-)
Lol! I see ;)