"the herbicide is more toxic to human cells than glyphosate alone.'

Totally bogus. This is a very disingenuous, misleading, "study".

Why do we wash our hands and possessions with soap? Because it kills viruses and bacteria by disrupting their cell membranes.

Cells growing in a culture are notoriously easy to kill because their membranes are fragile. Outside the shelter of your skin, unprotected by mucus, they are hard to culture and easy to kill.

Any surfactant (soap or detergent) will damage the membranes and kill them. It could be pure Castile soap made from organically grown, cold-pressed olive oil and they would still die. It could be Dr. Bronners liquid soap and they would still die. It could be soap made from unicorn milk by leprechauns and they would still die.

Selection of surfactants for cell lysis in chemical cytometry to study protein‐DNA interactions

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/elps.200500732

Detergents for Cell Lysis and Protein Extraction

https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/protein-biology/protein-biology-learning-center/protein-biology-resource-library/pierce-protein-methods/detergents-cell-lysis-protein-extraction.html

The article I posted is not about bacteria and viruses, lazy. It is about the synergetic affect of two chemicals reacting with each other and washing your hands with soap will not help.

The effects of any surfactant on cell cultures is well-known and totally predictable. It will damage or kill them.

There was no synergy, the effect is not exclusive to "Roundup" (which by the way is a trademark, not a specific formulation of herbicide), that was just the expected effect of a surfactant on mammalian tissue cells growing in cultures.

They are reporting this as if it's news, and as if it's going to happen outside a dish in a laboratory. it isn't and it won't.

A test of glyphosate with a commercially used surfactant:

http://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0056/ea0056p940.htm

Another test of glyphosate with a commercially used surfactant:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691518303004

A discussion of why testing the commercial product is meaningful.

"Given the all-pervasive nature of adjuvants in products used in both an agricultural and urban/domestic environment, potential toxicity arising from exposure to these chemical mixtures can be greater than from any pesticide active principle. Although we are aware that all chemicals have intrinsic toxicological properties and that hazardous chemical properties do not necessarily translate into a risk for human health, it is scientifically not sound to argue that adjuvants are so safe that they can be ignored. The implementation of the above recommendations will allow major progress to be made in protecting the environment and general human population from these toxicants. Current practices in risk assessment and regulation fall far short of providing such protection."

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00361/full

"“We saw an increase in ano-genital distance in the formulation that is of specific importance for reproductive health,” Mandrioli said. “It might indicate a disruption of the normal level of sexual hormones.”

"The study’s three peer-reviewed papers will be published in Environmental Health later in May, ahead of a €5m follow-up study that will compare the safe level against multiple other doses."

See:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/16/glyphosate-shown-to-disrupt-microbiome-at-safe-levels-study-claims

I get pruritus just reading about it.

Also, please read Meeting resistance | Science .