Residues of glyphosate in food and dietary exposure.

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup® brand nonselective herbicides, and residue testing for food has been conducted as part of the normal regulatory processes. Additional testing has been conducted by university researchers and nongovernmental agencies. Presence of residues needs to be put into the context of safety standards. Furthermore, to appropriately interpret residue data, analytical assays must be validated for each food sample matrix. Regulatory agency surveys indicate that 99% of glyphosate residues in food are below the European maximum residue limits (MRLs) or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tolerances. These data support the conclusion that overall residues are not elevated above MRLs/tolerances due to agricultural practices or usage on genetically modified (GM) crops. However, it is important to understand that MRLs and tolerances are limits for legal pesticide usage. MRLs only provide health information when the sum of MRLs of all foods is compared to limits established by toxicology studies, such as the acceptable daily intake (ADI). Conclusions from dietary modeling that use actual food residues, or MRLs themselves, combined with consumption data indicate that dietary exposures to glyphosate are within established safe limits. Measurements of glyphosate in urine can also be used to estimate ingested glyphosate exposure, and studies indicate that exposure is <3% of the current European ADI for glyphosate, which is 0.5 mg glyphosate/kg body weight. Conclusions of risk assessments, based on dietary modeling or urine data, are that exposures to glyphosate from food are well below the amount that can be ingested daily over a lifetime with a reasonable certainty of no harm.

Benchmarking the Current Codex Alimentarius International Estimated Short-Term Intake Equations and the Proposed New Equations.

The International Estimated Short-Term Intake IESTI equations are used during the establishment of Codex Maximum Residue Limits. A recent proposal to revise the equations sparked international debate regarding selection of residue inputs and the appropriate level of consumer protection. The 49th Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues meeting recommended benchmarking the IESTI equations against distributions of actual exposures. Using publicly available data and models, this work compares dietary exposures for strawberries, tomatoes, and apples at five levels of refinement to place these equations into context relative to real-world exposures. Case studies were based on availability of robust USDA PDP monitoring data, which is uniquely suited to refine dietary exposures for a population. Benchmarking dietary exposure involves several decision points. Alternate methodology choices are not expected to impact the large margins observed between the probabilistic estimates and the IESTI equations or to change the overall conclusion that existing IESTI equations are conservative and health-protective.

Comparison of four probabilistic models (CARES(®), Calendex™, ConsExpo, and SHEDS) to estimate aggregate residential exposures to pesticides.

Two deterministic models (US EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs Residential Standard Operating Procedures (OPP Residential SOPs) and Draft Protocol for Measuring Children's Non-Occupational Exposure to Pesticides by all Relevant Pathways (Draft Protocol)) and four probabilistic models (CARES(®), Calendex™, ConsExpo, and SHEDS) were used to estimate aggregate residential exposures to pesticides. The route-specific exposure estimates for young children (2-5 years) generated by each model were compared to evaluate data inputs, algorithms, and underlying assumptions. Three indoor exposure scenarios were considered: crack and crevice, fogger, and flying insect killer. Dermal exposure estimates from the OPP Residential SOPs and the Draft Protocol were 4.75 and 2.37 mg/kg/day (crack and crevice scenario) and 0.73 and 0.36 mg/kg/day (fogger), respectively. The dermal exposure estimates (99th percentile) for the crack and crevice scenario were 16.52, 12.82, 3.57, and 3.30 mg/kg/day for CARES, Calendex, SHEDS, and ConsExpo, respectively. Dermal exposure estimates for the fogger scenario from CARES and Calendex (1.50 and 1.47 mg/kg/day, respectively) were slightly higher than those from SHEDS and ConsExpo (0.74 and 0.55 mg/kg/day, respectively). The ConsExpo derived non-dietary ingestion estimates (99th percentile) under these two scenarios were higher than those from SHEDS, CARES, and Calendex. All models produced extremely low exposure estimates for the flying insect killer scenario. Using similar data inputs, the model estimates by route for these scenarios were consistent and comparable. Most of the models predicted exposures within a factor of 5 at the 50th and 99th percentiles. The differences identified are explained by activity assumptions, input distributions, and exposure algorithms.