I’m sure there are plenty of environmental people who want to get rid of glyphosate and other massively popular chemicals used in industrial farming. But you’re right it could be some competitor or monetary influence - besides maybe the incentives within WHO and IARC themselves getting a whole lot of attention and influence from presenting a very damaging report instead of a mixed one.

Maybe it allowed some of them to become “expert witnesses” at major multi million dollar trials and compensated well by the law firms, who knows.

Or it could be as insignificant as some people trying to make their job seemingly important and justified sort of thing. An inconclusive report doesn’t get headlines.

Either way the organization owes the world a better explanation.