He wasn't offered, he claimed it was safe. If it had stopped there, it would just have been a huge turd of a hypocritical lie, as it turned out it's a lesson for those with eyes to see. It's not like he made an appointment to drink one in controlled circumstances either, so you got nothing with your attempt of an excuse for someone who also has nothing. And if that's too personal, then you're blaming me for your not imagining, say, someone seeing the hypothetical shorter version of the interview and, you know, having a pint of it for laughs. This shit to me is the little brother of murder and it's disgraceful to wriggle around it. He should be forced to drink it. That's what he bet on after all, to just say it and not have to do it. Multiply that by billions of people, theoretical victims in the future where this lie is never corrected, and you got yourself a lenient punishment. If you can't tell, this guy and similar peddlers make the hair on my neck stand up.
Glyphosate is only one ingredient of roundup. There are surfactants used in the formulation which are indeed lethal in large doses. Would you trust that the thing you are drinking is only glyphosate, the chemical in question, from some gotcha journalist? I hope not.
Yes and spokeperson implied RoundUp was safe and nontoxic to drink straight, which is obviously and demonstrably inadvisable. What level of low-level, continuous exposure is deemed safe (perhaps from long-term studies not funded by industry) is the billion dollar question.
PS to anyone in the know: How does RoundUp use compare to the US in Scandinavian countries where there are much stricter chemical residue and registers chemical controls?