Baseline determination in social, health, and genetic areas in communities affected by glyphosate aerial spraying on the northeastern Ecuadorian border

Paz‐y‐Miño, César; Muñoz, María José; Maldonado, Adolfo; Valladares, Carolina; Cumbal, Nadia; Herrera, Catalina; Robles, Paulo; Sánchez, María Eugenia; López‐Cortés, Andrés

doi:10.1515/reveh.2011.007

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results provided for GBFs in Table 4.1 (human studies) of the IARC Monograph concluded positive evidence of DNA breakage as determined by results in humans using the comet assay Paz-y-Miño et al (2007), negative induction of chromosomal aberrations (Paz-y-Miño et al 2011), and positive induction of MN (Bolognesi et al 2009). Due to the importance of these studies in the IARC review, these papers were critically reviewed by the Expert Panel as described in detail below.…”

Section: Human Genotoxicity Biomonitoring Studiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Genotoxicity Expert Panel review: weight of evidence evaluation of the genotoxicity of glyphosate, glyphosate-based formulations, and aminomethylphosphonic acid

Brusick¹,

Aardema²,

Kier

et al. 2016

Critical Reviews in Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

published a monograph concluding there was strong evidence for genotoxicity of glyphosate and glyphosate formulations and moderate evidence for genotoxicity of the metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA). These conclusions contradicted earlier extensive reviews supporting the lack of genotoxicity of glyphosate and glyphosate formulations. The IARC Monograph concluded there was strong evidence of induction of oxidative stress by glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA. The Expert Panel reviewed the genotoxicity and oxidative stress data considered in the IARC Monograph, together with other available data not considered by IARC. The Expert Panel defined and used a weight of evidence (WoE) approach that included ranking of studies and endpoints by the strength of their linkage to events associated with carcinogenic mechanisms. Importantly, the Expert Panel concluded that there was sufficient information available from a very large number of regulatory genotoxicity studies that should have been considered by IARC. The WoE approach, the inclusion of all relevant regulatory studies, and some differences in interpretation of individual studies led to significantly different conclusions by the Expert Panel compared with the IARC Monograph. The Expert Panel concluded that glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA do not pose a genotoxic hazard and the data do not support the IARC Monograph genotoxicity evaluation. With respect to carcinogenicity classification and mechanism, the Expert Panel concluded that evidence relating to an oxidative stress mechanism of carcinogenicity was largely unconvincing and that the data profiles were not consistent with the characteristics of genotoxic carcinogens. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Human Genotoxicity Biomonitoring Studiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Genotoxicity Expert Panel review: weight of evidence evaluation of the genotoxicity of glyphosate, glyphosate-based formulations, and aminomethylphosphonic acid

Brusick¹,

Aardema²,

Kier

et al. 2016

Critical Reviews in Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beyond the standard genetic toxicity assays, IARC concluded for humans exposed to GBFs that there was positive evidence of DNA breakage as determined using the comet assay (Paz-y-Miño et al 2007), negative induction of chromosomal aberrations (Paz-y-Miño et al 2011), and positive induction of MN (Bolognesi et al 2009). These papers were critically reviewed by the Expert Panel and were found to be deficient as evidence for GBF genetic effects for many reasons (e.g.…”

Section: Genetic Toxicity and Oxidative Stress Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment

Williams

Aardema²,

Acquavella

et al. 2016

Critical Reviews in Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a monograph in 2015 concluding that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A) based on limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals. It was also concluded that there was strong evidence of genotoxicity and oxidative stress. Four Expert Panels have been convened for the purpose of conducting a detailed critique of the evidence in light of IARC's assessment and to review all relevant information pertaining to glyphosate exposure, animal carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and epidemiologic studies. Two of the Panels (animal bioassay and genetic toxicology) also provided a critique of the IARC position with respect to conclusions made in these areas. The incidences of neoplasms in the animal bioassays were found not to be associated with glyphosate exposure on the basis that they lacked statistical strength, were inconsistent across studies, lacked dose-response relationships, were not associated with preneoplasia, and/or were not plausible from a mechanistic perspective. The overall weight of evidence from the genetic toxicology data supports a conclusion that glyphosate (including GBFs and AMPA) does not pose a genotoxic hazard and therefore, should not be considered support for the classification of glyphosate as a genotoxic carcinogen. The assessment of the epidemiological data found that the data do not support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and nonHodgkin's lymphoma while the data were judged to be too sparse to assess a potential relationship between glyphosate exposure and multiple myeloma. As a result, following the review of the totality of the evidence, the Panels concluded that the data do not support IARC's conclusion that glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen" and, consistent with previous regulatory assessments, further concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…GlyBH are also controversial, with some claiming positive results(Bolognesi et al, 2009;Paz-y-Miño et al, 2007), but others not(Paz-y-Mino et al, 2011). A recent study revealed DNA damage (increase in micronuclei and nuclear buds) in soybean workers in the State of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil)(Benedetti et al, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits

Mesnage¹,

Defarge²,

Vendômois³

et al. 2015

Food and Chemical Toxicology

424

276

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glyphosate-based herbicides (GlyBH), including Roundup, are the most widely used pesticides worldwide. Their uses have increased exponentially since their introduction on the market. Residue levels in food or water, as well as human exposures, are escalating. We have reviewed the toxic effects of GlyBH measured below regulatory limits by evaluating the published literature and regulatory reports. We reveal a coherent body of evidence indicating that GlyBH could be toxic below the regulatory lowest observed adverse effect level for chronic toxic effects. It includes teratogenic, tumorigenic and hepatorenal effects. They could be explained by endocrine disruption and oxidative stress, causing metabolic alterations, depending on dose and exposure time. Some effects were detected in the range of the recommended acceptable daily intake. Toxic effects of commercial formulations can also be explained by GlyBH adjuvants, which have their own toxicity, but also enhance glyphosate toxicity. These challenge the assumption of safety of GlyBH at the levels at which they contaminate food and the environment, albeit these levels may fall below regulatory thresholds. Neurodevelopmental, reproductive, and transgenerational effects of GlyBH must be revisited, since a growing body of knowledge suggests the predominance of endocrine disrupting mechanisms caused by environmentally relevant levels of exposure.

show abstract

Baseline determination in social, health, and genetic areas in communities affected by glyphosate aerial spraying on the northeastern Ecuadorian border

Cited by 18 publications

References 31 publications

Genotoxicity Expert Panel review: weight of evidence evaluation of the genotoxicity of glyphosate, glyphosate-based formulations, and aminomethylphosphonic acid

Genotoxicity Expert Panel review: weight of evidence evaluation of the genotoxicity of glyphosate, glyphosate-based formulations, and aminomethylphosphonic acid

A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment

Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About