We keep asking ourself "is this chemical safe".

But what we should be asking is "does use of this chemical have benefits to humans that outweigh the disadvantages to humans".

A weedkiller that harms people might still be a good thing if it has overwhelming benefits too, like for example it saves far more peoples lives through greater food production.

Regulators never seem to see this bigger picture - instead we allowed things that have small benefits and large known harm (eg. leaded fuels), and disallow things that could have huge benefits and tiny harm (gm crops).

Regulators need to be the ones seeing the bigger picture, because the people getting the benefits (eg. farmers) are rarely the ones taking the downsides (eg. cancer risk of those eating the produced food).