No abstract

No abstract

Glyphosate continues to attract controversial debate following the International Agency for Research on Cancer carcinogenicity classification in 2015. Despite its ubiquitous presence in our environment, there remains a dearth of data on human exposure to both glyphosate and its main biodegradation product aminomethylphosphonic (AMPA). Herein, we reviewed and compared results from 21 studies that use human biomonitoring (HBM) to measure urinary glyphosate and AMPA. Elucidation of the level and range of exposure was complicated by differences in sampling strategy, analytical methods, and data presentation. Exposure data is required to enable a more robust regulatory risk assessment, and these studies included higher occupational exposures, environmental exposures, and vulnerable groups such as children. There was also considerable uncertainty regarding the absorption and excretion pattern of glyphosate and AMPA in humans. This information is required to back-calculate exposure doses from urinary levels and thus, compared with health-based guidance values. Back-calculations based on animal-derived excretion rates suggested that there were no health concerns in relation to glyphosate exposure (when compared with EFSA acceptable daily intake (ADI)). However, recent human metabolism data has reported as low as a 1% urinary excretion rate of glyphosate. Human exposures extrapolated from urinary glyphosate concentrations found that upper-bound levels may be much closer to the ADI than previously reported.

No abstract

Occupational exposures to glyphosate among amenity horticulturalists are greater than those reported in environmental studies and comparable with previously reported agricultural studies. A suitable sampling strategy for occupational exposures to glyphosate is the collection of a spot urine sample up to 3 h after completing the application of a glyphosate based pesticide product, which provides a reliable marker of peak exposure.

Exposure information is a critical element in various regulatory and non-regulatory frameworks in Europe and elsewhere. Exposure science supports to ensure safe environments, reduce human health risks, and foster a sustainable future. However, increasing diversity in regulations and the lack of a professional identity as exposure scientists currently hamper developing the field and uptake into European policy. In response, we discuss trends, and identify three key needs for advancing and harmonizing exposure science and its application in Europe. We provide overarching building blocks and define six long-term activities to address the identified key needs, and to iteratively improve guidelines, tools, data, and education. More specifically, we propose creating European networks to maximize synergies with adjacent fields and identify funding opportunities, building common exposure assessment approaches across regulations, providing tiered education and training programmes, developing an aligned and integrated exposure assessment framework, offering best practices guidance, and launching an exposure information exchange platform. Dedicated working groups will further specify these activities in a consistent action plan. Together, these elements form the foundation for establishing goals and an action roadmap for successfully developing and implementing a 'European Exposure Science Strategy' 2020-2030, which is aligned with advances in science and technology.

No abstract

No abstract