This is a prime reason to put the precautionary principle and truly independent testing by multiple sources into law.
Who'll be liable for damages if the study is confirmed and future studies confirm it in humans?
Exposure to GBHs was associated with androgen-like effects, including a statistically significant increase of anogenital distance (AGD) in males and females, delay of first estrous and increased testosterone in females. [Source]
The stuff is ubiquitous. Who'd be required to prove a specific case was caused by Roundup?
Why didn't earlier testing by Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) find the statistically significant results? Was the testing insufficient? Was the reporting insufficient?