A tiered approach to prioritizing registered pesticides for potential cancer hazard evaluations: implications for decision making

Abstract

Background Over 800 pesticides are registered for use in the United States. Human studies indicate concern that some pesticides currently in use in large quantities may also pose a carcinogenic hazard. Our objective is to identify candidates for future hazard evaluations among pesticides used in high volumes in the United States and also classified as potential carcinogens by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). We also identify data gaps where further research is needed. Methods We used a systematic, two-tiered review approach to prioritize pesticides. First, we identified currently registered pesticides classified by USEPA as “possible”, “suggestive”, or “likely” human carcinogens. Among these, we selected pesticides USEPA has listed as commonly used by volume in at least one sector (agriculture, home and garden, or industry, commercial, and/or government), and those without a published hazard evaluation in the past 5 years. Second, we searched primary literature databases for peer-reviewed human cancer studies reporting pesticide-specific data published since the last USEPA carcinogenicity evaluation for each pesticide, and created evidence maps of the number of studies meeting our criteria for each identified pesticide. No evaluation of study results or risk-of-bias assessments were conducted. Results We identified 18 pesticides meeting our selection criteria, 16 pesticides had information from human cancer studies published after their initial carcinogenicity review. Of these, eight pesticides had at least three studies for one or more cancer sites: carbaryl, dichloropropene, dimethoate, mancozeb, metolachlor, pendimethalin, permethrin, and trifluralin. A major limitation in the literature revealed a shortage of studies reporting risk estimates for individual pesticides, rather pesticides were grouped by chemical class. Conclusions Our scoping report provides a map of the existing literature on real-world exposures and human cancer that has accumulated on pesticides classified as potential carcinogens by USEPA and used in high volumes. We also illustrate that several pesticides which are “data-rich” may warrant updated authoritative hazard evaluations. Our two-tiered approach and utilization of evidence mapping can be used to inform future decision-making to update cancer hazard evaluations.

Utilizing Environmental Analytical Chemistry to Establish Culturally Appropriate Community Partnerships

“…An additional limitation of CERCLA and the HRS is that both are designed on historical pollutants (e.g., inorganic elements, metals, respiratory toxins, etc. ), leading to a lack of evaluation for modern chemicals, especially emerging contaminants of concern such as organic pollutants [9,15,16].…”

Endophytic Bacillus subtilis H17‐16 effectively inhibits Phytophthora infestans, the pathogen of potato late blight, and its potential application

“…81,82 Recent studies have suggested that it could be a potential threat to human health, such as affecting sleep and neurodevelopment, and even posing a carcinogenic hazard. [83][84][85] Given the risks of fungicides, the search for biocontrol agents to reduce their use has been a hot topic of research. Although there are some commercial biological agents, few have a stable effect on late blight control.…”

Effervescent powder-assisted floating organic solvent-based dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction for determination of organochlorine pesticides in water by GC–MS

“…From various type of pesticides, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) are highly toxic and resistant to biological and chemical degradation. They can cause acute health problems: headaches, skin irritation, breathing difficulties, and nausea [ 4 ], and chronic diseases such as cancer [ 8 , 9 ], birth defects [ 10 ] and autoimmune disorders [ 11 ]. However, due to their toxicity, several OCPs were banned from use worldwide.…”