I'm not opposed to further studies, but basic critical thinking makes it unlikely that this is a danger outside of those specific areas.

First remember that glyphosate has been used around the world continuously for 52 years. If there is some kind of pattern of harm due to its use, it's already happened, so it should be possible to find those harms all over the place.

85% of the USA has hard water. If glyphosate being in hard water causes 10% of children to have early onset kidney disease, we would have been seeing that in the USA for at least the last 42 years. But we haven't. So it's likely that whatever is happening in Sri Lanka, is specific to Sri Lanka.

You can take this same basic logical premise and apply it to all of the concerns about glyphosate. None of them stand up to scrutiny, because we have been using it for so long, everywhere, and despite that, we have no concrete evidence of any significant harms caused by glyphosate itself.