It was 1996 and I was working as a regulatory chemist at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). What I learned at the agency was that even when data indicated a need for risk reduction, up to and including cancellation of a pesticide use, such actions were too often avoided. In our work assessing risk through dietary exposure to pesticides, it was not difficult to refine different levels of analyses and I learned of one case where a high-level director in the reregistration division asked if the risk numbers could be reduced. Such pressure for results that avoided restrictions on certain pesticides led me to learn that if you tell a chemical company “No” too often, you hurt your chances for promotion. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Yet still to this day, the EPA officially characterizes glyphosate as “not likely” to be carcinogenic. Glyphosate remains the most widely used weed killer in the world. During my time at the EPA, my “chemical” assignments there included atrazine, at that time the most frequently used weedkiller on corn. A 2015 assessment by OPP concluded that even after finding atrazine interacted with both estrogen and androgen pathways, there was no need for more testing because it would not likely impact EPA-established endpoints for human health or ecological risk.