I thought the IARC conclusion was that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic? This whole case was built on that, no?

The evidence IARC is relying on is extremely thin. I'm not commenting on the case, so much as making the observation that glyphosate can be fine (it most likely is) without the Roundup product itself being safe.

> Glyphosate isn't carcinogenic.

Opinion is divided on that assertion.

Even Monsanto seems unsure. Why else would they suppress so much unfavourable research and employ all those social media shills?

I don't care much for opinion. Science does not seem too divided on the matter. But humans are emotional creatures, and Monsanto understands that it does not really matter what the science says, it only matters who gets the better media spin. You can bet they are really wishing right now that they had gotten a better handle on the PR.

'Science' certainly is divided on the matter, (and I'd say most of it does not paint glyphosate in a great light) which is why Monsanto tries to suppress the science it doesn't like, hires trolls to brigade social media and engages in obfuscation and obstruction.