Well I am not responsible for coming up with an answer but if the government comes up with an acceptable maximum intake then I would like to think it was backed by medical research and science and not lobbying dollars. So what is the answer? Stop letting lobbyists dictate what concerns our health. Why is there a maximum acceptable level then? It means excessive amounts could be dangerous but accumulated levels are NEVER considered. No one has determined that glyphosate is being consumed by all of us on a regular basis through crops with no science to back it up that it is ok. I don't want to smoke and you no longer have the right to subject me to second hand smoke. Congress, businesses and local states finally ignored the lobby and paid attention to science and fixed the situation ( prompted by lawsuits by the way). I do not want to really have glyphosate in all my foods if there is a maximum level set up that is easily surpassed through accumulation. Seems Monsato has all foods covered as judged by the cereal graphic and most vegetables. Round up kills plants but crops have been modified to outlive it and I doubt it has been proven it is not carcinogenic. So who should make the decision? Objective health industry or the government? That is the solution but it will never happen so what Avenue is left? The courts though it can be unscientific in many ways.
The Bugs Are Coming, and They’ll Want More of Our Food https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/climate/insects-eating-more-crops.html Climate change is expected to make insect pests hungrier, which could encourage farmers to use more pesticides.
Just when you thought it was safe to into the garden. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...wyers-claim-have-explosive-monsanto-documents The Ever Transient VIPER