I assert that they would not have done this (and risked the discovery of this fudging) had they not determined themselves that it wasn't as safe as they claim.

It's equally plausible that they feel the product is safe, and also want to ensure that third parties support their position, all the same. You're suggesting that the fact that Monsanto did something unethical must mean RoundUp causes cancer, you're jumping from A to Z and skipping the rest of the alphabet. It's not unusual for a rich corperation to have a huge legal department that attacks and defends on multiple fronts, especially when they're being sued for $270,000,000 in a trial by jury. Sure, this was probably a bad idea on their part, but to conclude that this means RoundUp must be unsafe is silly. If I break the speed limit or shop lift, that doesn't mean I must be liable to commit murder, too. Multiple health and safety organizations all around the world have concluded that there is no evidence RoundUp causes cancer. Do you have reason to suspect RoundUp causes cancer that goes beyond how you choose to interpret the actions of the defendent?