This is the WHO factsheet on salt.
https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-s ... -reductionI doubt that this would be considered controversial amongst the medical profession. No doubt someone on the internet disagrees with it.
Glyphosate is classified by some agencies as probably carcinogenic, and by others not. This is not an uncommon occurrence, studies that shows a carcinogenic effect might be given more or less credit by different regulatory agencies when weighing up the body of information. Also, as time goes on and further studies are performed, new evidence comes to light and the consensus shifts. As an industrial chemist for 34 years, I saw this happen for many substances, generally becoming classified more hazardous as the years rolled on.
The classification and labelling of hazardous chemicals has in the past been done differently around the world, giving rise to different information in the US from the EU for example. Over the last few years there has been a move by the major regulatory regimes to adopt the Globally Harmonised System GHS.
Amusingly, the rules around these things mean that glyphosate is not classified carcinogenic under GHS, but due to its toxicity to aquatic life, the safety data sheet is obliged to include the precautionary statement 'Avoid release to the environment'