Comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of chemicals: A case study on glyphosate.

The integrity of environmental toxicology is undermined by selective risk assessments that focus intently on certain chemicals while overlooking others. Glyphosate, one of the most widely used herbicides, serves as a case study of how regulatory decisions can be shaped by incomplete or biased evidence. This paper argues for a holistic approach to toxicology, calling for balanced assessments that consider both health risks and societal benefits. It critically examines current regulatory practices concerning glyphosate, investigating its association with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and its positive effects on agricultural productivity and food security. While definitive evidence linking glyphosate to cancer remains inconclusive, its role in enhancing crop yields, by as much as 20 % in some regions, has had measurable benefits for food security and public health. The paper advocates for regulatory frameworks that transparently weigh these societal benefits against potential health risks, particularly in settings of occupational exposure, where the need for balanced assessment is especially pressing. Through a narrative review of major studies, this paper underscores the need for transparency, accountability, and evidence-based approaches in environmental regulation. Such practices are essential for crafting policies that not only mitigate risk but also promote global food security and well-being. By integrating both risks and benefits into the regulatory process, the study proposes an inclusive and data-driven approach to chemical policy that aligns with the broader goals of sustainability and public health.