This is a good one. Perhaps most importantly what is often lost when the news media covers the WHO's IARC reports is that they evaluate hazards, not risks. That's an important distinction. We saw this with the aspartame coverage too.
Hazards assess the potential for harm irrespective of exposure and dose. Risks assess the actual harm from typical exposure. #4 here is the WHO/UN's JMPR report which actually evaluates risk instead of hazard and that showed glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans through food.
As they noted, the IARC report had some controversy as there were edits of the draft report that removed the evidence that showed no carcinogenic effect.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate