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.
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.