Which option would represent a balanced ethical response to the dilemma?

Explain to Isabella that the public fear of cancer$-$causing herbicide in the drinking water is too powerful a narrative to effectively counter, so the use of Expunge

should be discontinued altogether. Though this will harm operations and create a significant cost, you will be able to promote the virtue of your decision to the

community as you search for a replacement herbicide.

Recommend to Isabella that you rely on the stated needs of your farmers for more than $0\mathrm{.}7$ points of herbicide per acre. Bury the independent report and instead

publicly announce that you are following the manufacturer's recommended usage of $0\mathrm{.}9$ pounds per acre, which is still a reduction. Direct any complaints and

concerns to the manufacturer, who claims the product is safe.

Request to Isabella that you be able to follow up with the independent team to evaluate the safety of the higher rates of usage to determine where the exact

threshold lies. If $0\mathrm{.}7$ pounds per acre is necessary, recommend that you hold to that limit as you phase out and pursue supplemental means of weed control.

Share your findings with the community to promote transparency and earn trust.