Lots of people living in a small area that care about their environment. Unlike the US.
The problem with intestinal interactions with glyphosate isn't cancer. If you aren't aware, one's intestinal biota are critical to one's health.
There is a good argument that Americans invented the environmental movement. Ever hear of Earth Day? You seem to think Americans love to see their air and enjoy shit flavored water. You confuse politics with science. The two world wars in Europe did not do great things for the environment there.
You have no credible source for your assertions that glyphosate is detrimental to the gut microbiome. You're following Food Babe's lead now. So far all the studies have been in vitro. You brush off the profound complexity that such an in vivo study suggests. Most people don't understand biology very well. Sorting millions of different microbes in an active gut into detrimental or innocuous would be daunting. The fact that everyone has a different micro biome only complicates things more. The anti GE foodies are grasping for anything and can only speculate.
This thread was about the safety of GE crops which has nothing to do with glyphosate but somehow the argument always turns to the evils of chemicals and Monsanto.
Regardless of his knowledge about any of these topics, I've tried explain to moa multiple times how a large percentage of his posts are basically just giant middle fingers to anyone that does not share his exact background and beliefs, even more so when his targets are people with actual scientific acumen. He doesn't seem very interested in other ways to broach these topics.
It should go without saying that I disagree completely with the conclusions moa and estockly present, but I will concede that the "GRAS" standard is probably in need of revision. Last year I listened to a debate on NPR between an anti-GMO activist and a lobbyist for some big Ag company about how this standard is used, and it basically boiled down to "someone said this food is okay, so it's okay". If the process is actually based on science and sensible risk assessment, I hope for the sake of that company they fired the lobbyist the instant he got off the air.
If sensible reforms need to be made in how we test and research food products, I'll still put my money on "GMO" being a completely useless category for establishing standards. Come up with rules based on specific techniques, or plant, or general rates of allergies to the food, or expected mass in a typical person's diet ... literally anything would more helpful than GMO.