Probable carcinogenicity of glyphosate

Kogevinas, Manolis

doi:10.1136/bmj.l1613

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of literature focusing on the evaluation procedures for regulatory risk assessment of pesticides [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Particular discussion points include that chronic pesticide studies are only on the active ingredient (i.e., technical glyphosate) and the requirement for more real-world exposure data on the formulated glyphosate products, due to the combined effects on the toxicity [ 18 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Biomonitoring of Glyphosate Exposures: State-of-the-Art and Future Research Challenges

Connolly

Coggins

Koch

2020

Toxics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Biomonitoring of Glyphosate Exposures: State-of-the-Art and Future Research Challenges

Connolly

Coggins

Koch

2020

Toxics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A jury in California ordered Monsanto to pay more than $2bn (£1.54bn; €1.78bn) to a couple who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using the weedkiller Roundup, which contains glyphosate—identified as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer 4. The victory for Alva and Alberta Pilliod is the third verdict against Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer.…”

Section: Glyphosatementioning

confidence: 99%

Seven days in medicine: 8-14 May 2019

2019

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Therefore, non-target organisms such as humans are most susceptible to GBH exposure, resulting in various health issues ( Turkmen et al, 2019 , Samsel and Seneff, 2013 ). In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), identified glyphosate as group 2A chemical – whose constituents have probable carcinogenic effects on humans ( Kogevinas, 2019 , Tarazona et al, 2017 ). Across the globe and in particular Africa, use of herbicides to control weeds is rampant in the absence of vital data on their composition and safety.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%