Glyphosate was discovered by Monsanto and is one of the main components of roundup but it's not patent protected anymore and it's used in one form or another globally in 100's if not 1000's of herbicide products. So I don't understand why the focus on Monsanto other than it's an "evil" name that is more or less known.
This is also a weird request since the documents release was requested due to the fact that this was found to be unsafe, even tho quite a few other bodies found it to be generally safe even at pretty darn high doses (2000-5000mg/kg) including the EU Food Safety Agency which is a pretty strict organization.
Why does that make a difference? Monsanto makes $15 billion in revenue a year directly or indirectly from its glyphosate sales. They also sell GMOs that are glyphosate resistant, so they are helped by glyphosate sales whether it's sold by them or not.
Seeds and genomics $10,243 million 68.3%
Agricultural productivity $4,758 million 31.7%
[1]
The numbers you posted suggest that they make a maximum of $5 billion off of glyphosate ("Agricultural productivity"). It doesn't show how much of that is actually glyphosate. You're free to assume it's 100%, but it may not be maximally wise to expect everyone else to make the same leap of logic.
I expect their ownership of the Climate Corporation, which is about climate and weather data, falls under "Agricultural productivity".
You ignored the second half of my comments, which is that the other $10 billion of their profits are directly dependent on the commercial viability of glyphosate, no matter who sells it.
You're right! I did fail to expressly address the second half of your comment. Please accept my apologies for this egregious oversight.
The other half of your comment suffers from the same flaw. The source you provide has high-level numbers, but it doesn't show how much of that is actually glyphosate-related. You're free to assume it's 100%, but it may not be maximally wise to expect everyone else to make the same leap of logic.
It is known for certain that the number is not 100%, because Monsanto is known to have revenue-generating businesses outside of glyphosate.
I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole that always seems to appear whenever Monsanto is discussed. You can see in Monsanto's own website and literature, (for example [1]), that the majority of their revenue comes from glyphosate and glyphosate related products. If you wish to gaslight and deny reality, then we can end this discussion now.
details strong revenue of their glyphosate-resistent soybean:
I'm sorry. I was unaware that it was gaslighting someone to suggest that perhaps numbers in supporting documentation should be involved when they make strong claims about verifiable financial questions.
I'll stop immediately. Please accept my deepest and humblest apologies.
You can be sarcastic and rude, but you shouldn't be lazy. We aren't talking about something abstract like whether alien life exists. You can visit the website of the company's brands directly. If you still decide to sarcastically ignore this, I will assume you have an agenda.
No one doubts that Monsanto is making money of this, but they are really not the only ones Bayer and BASF SE are big even bigger than Monsanto you also have Pioneer (dupont) and quite a few other players which are of a similar size.
You also have China which are doing their own thing probably violating every patent in the world in the process.
Believe it or not, sometimes being over-the-top polite and accommodating to people gets them to take a counter-point seriously. You just have to wrap it in a lot of stuff about how they're obviously right and you're clearly completely wrong. Once in a while catering to someone's need to be right lets you slip an idea past it.
The 10b are crops that are genetically altered to resist glyphosate. If glyphosate was banned, then they couldn't sell these crops anymore. Their profits are directly related to glyphosate.
Glyphosate resistance is just one of many traits marketed by Monsanto. Most of the headliners are insect resistance (Bt toxin) and resistance to other herbicides (Liberty) among others.
They're moving their business to focus on value-adds and other things that GMO haters can't torpedo with pseudoscience and FUD. Refuge in Bag solutions, seed coatings, new fungicides, traditional breeding, soil bacteria supplements, mapping & climate data, and other agricultural productivity solutions are the future of their business.
Even if you accept that they make all of their money from glyphosate resistance (which is patently false), the business is moving to emphasis that substantially less than it is now.
So why is it a weird request? To me it seems logical that the industry wanted to know how the WHO came to its conclusion, exactly because those other bodies all came to a conclusion which was the opposite of the WHO's.
Weird in the sense that it's usually would be the other way around and that a FOIA would be used to uncover some "coverup".
This time it seems that there might be some political reasoning behind it there were issues about this matter handled at the WTO (not WHO) before especially between the US and China.
This is also a weird request since the documents release was requested due to the fact that this was found to be unsafe, even tho quite a few other bodies found it to be generally safe even at pretty darn high doses (2000-5000mg/kg) including the EU Food Safety Agency which is a pretty strict organization.