Brian: Thanks for your comments, and attitude toward this topic.

Bill: I’ll speculate on your question based on my own technical and business theories.
Tallow-amine surfactants are probably (speculation) the most “cost-effective” wetting-agent for enhancing glyphosate’s activity and performance, yet they aren't suitable (safe) for use in aquatic sites. Therefore, the various manufacturers of aquatic glyphosate formulations use the void/space left by omitting the tallow-amine surfactant to increase the formulated product’s a.i.-content, and let the end-user decide which aquatic-approved surfactant to employ – as well as its tank-mix ratio, since various means of applications (aerial, ground-boom, hand-gun, etc) may require more or less surfactant relative to the herbicide in order to accomplish the task at hand. In general, a “quality surfactant” is more expensive than the formulated glyphosate product on a v/v basis. For those who choose to use dishwashing detergent, instead of a commercial surfactant, be aware that dish-soap is primarily “detergent” with surfactant added for wetting-purposes. Furthermore, dish soaps contain anionic surfactant, instead of a non-ionic surfactant that herbicide-labels specify. Also, the foam created by dish-soap make refilling the mix-tank a pain – if not risky – since the product-laden foam usually billows out of the mix-tank’s opening long before it is refilled with water. Again, a “quality surfactant” will generally produce much less foam than dish soap, and whatever foam is created during the tank-refilling process usually breaks down quickly due to integrated defoaming-agents.

Canyoncreek: I fully respect your concerns when viewing such “information”. However, just because such “news” appears on the internet doesn’t mean that it’s factually-based "scientific information".
As I grow older, I’ve become much more skeptical of many things. Ranked at the top of my list of skeptical things are: smiling politicians, wealthy lawyers, weathermen, gas-pains after eating Mexican food and "news media” – especially web-sites that masquerade as “news media”. For the later, I always question the website’s driving motivation for "enlightening" the masses; AND where the site derives its funding.
The below excerpt came from the home-page of the site that you referenced in your post (adding my own emphasis on key words and phrases).

In September 2013, EcoWatch became a Certified B Corporation and joined more than 1,300 companies that leverage the power of business to solve social and environmental problems. In May of 2014, EcoWatch became a member of 1% for the Planet, an alliance of businesses that are financially committed to creating a healthy planet.

Last time I checked, a “business” must somehow turn a profit – or otherwise cease to exist (except for Amazon, but that’s another story). In the case of EcoWatch, it’s safe to assume that this entity is funded by the “alliance of businesses”, who are graciously seeking to save mankind from himself – undoubtedly for a profit. That said, let’s now take a tangent.
It is far easier to scare the populace about something of which they know little or nothing about than it is to educate them on a highly technical topic that requires years of higher education to properly understand.
HOWEVER! What if scaring the populace through misleading information and skewed or meaningless “statistics” were to shift the public’s perceptions, financial resources, consumption-demand and political-allegiances in the “alliance’s” favor? Sounds like a well contrived business model to me!

I have no intention of debating allegations that appear on such websites, especially when they fail to reference peer-reviewed data or "studies".
BTW, the term “researchers” is flaunted by such sites when referencing their so-called “studies”; which brings up one more inductee on my list of skeptical things.
“Researchers” are either contracted or employed – by someone – to do their bidding, whatever it may be. As a student of statistics, I can design a “study”, and “interpret” the data to insinuate almost anything - especially if I want something to appear as a “suspected causal-agent”.
In true circles of science, is up to the critical peer-review process to determine if my research methodology and data-interpretations are technically correct and worthy of endorsement. Without peer-reviews, a so-called “study” is nothing but propaganda-fodder.

I’m done here. I’ve got an early-morning swim-meet tomorrow – for my son, not me. smile G’nite all!