[Mvandenbergh]

There's broadly two reasons for this:

One, the evidence for it being a carcinogen remains relatively weak compared to many other substances we know of. It's in that category of chemicals where possible effects show up at the limits of detection for very high dose exposures. It's either weakly carcinogenic or that's just noise. Of course many chemicals, quite a few of them natural, are in that same class. There remains regulatory disagreement between the WHO and many other bodies on whether the evidence justifies a label as "possible carcinogen".

(toxicity to aquatic life is much better evidenced)

Second, it is indisputably much less carcinogenic and less toxic than almost every alternative wide spectrum herbicide.

It would seem disproportionate to me to entirely ban such an incredibly useful substance while we continue to live in a world with so many natural and artificial carcinogens for which we have much stronger evidence of danger and to which we are much more exposed. Nonetheless, it also seems reasonable to put additional controls on its use, restrict it to food production and other essential uses and discourage use for home gardeners and keeping city paths clear of weeds.

[jeroenhd]

There are health concerns with long-term exposure to glyphosate, but not by consumption of the end product. The stuff that gets sprayed with Roundup will get washed down and dairy doesn't contain glyphosate. Very few people actually come into contact with dangerous amounts of it, even over a long period of time.

I think governments know damn well that banning glyphosate, or even just marking it as dangerous, will threaten food supplies, while the stuff only endangers a select few people through long-time exposure. When it comes to food security, a few farmers getting sick and a collapsing ecosystem are a relatively small price to pay (from a government's perspective, at least). Plus, the farmers want to use this stuff anyway; safe alternatives are much less effective.

[physicsguy]

At least here in the UK there's a lot of talk about it along with neonicatanoids in part of disturbing bee populations rather than the cancer risk.

[hulitu]

There is a third, more important reason: Pfizer talks directly, in private with v. d. Leyen.