Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement.

The broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate (common trade name "Roundup") was first sold to farmers in 1974. Since the late 1970s, the volume of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) applied has increased approximately 100-fold. Further increases in the volume applied are likely due to more and higher rates of application in response to the widespread emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds and new, pre-harvest, dessicant use patterns. GBHs were developed to replace or reduce reliance on herbicides causing well-documented problems associated with drift and crop damage, slipping efficacy, and human health risks. Initial industry toxicity testing suggested that GBHs posed relatively low risks to non-target species, including mammals, leading regulatory authorities worldwide to set high acceptable exposure limits. To accommodate changes in GBH use patterns associated with genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops, regulators have dramatically increased tolerance levels in maize, oilseed (soybeans and canola), and alfalfa crops and related livestock feeds. Animal and epidemiology studies published in the last decade, however, point to the need for a fresh look at glyphosate toxicity. Furthermore, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer recently concluded that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans." In response to changing GBH use patterns and advances in scientific understanding of their potential hazards, we have produced a Statement of Concern drawing on emerging science relevant to the safety of GBHs. Our Statement of Concern considers current published literature describing GBH uses, mechanisms of action, toxicity in laboratory animals, and epidemiological studies. It also examines the derivation of current human safety standards. We conclude that: (1) GBHs are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage continues to rise; (2) Worldwide, GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation, and air, especially in agricultural regions; (3) The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously recognized; (4) Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean supply; (5) Human exposures to GBHs are rising; (6) Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen; (7) Regulatory estimates of tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the United States and European Union are based on outdated science. We offer a series of recommendations related to the need for new investments in epidemiological studies, biomonitoring, and toxicology studies that draw on the principles of endocrinology to determine whether the effects of GBHs are due to endocrine disrupting activities. We suggest that common commercial formulations of GBHs should be prioritized for inclusion in government-led toxicology testing programs such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program, as well as for biomonitoring as conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

New Look at BTEX: Are Ambient Levels a Problem?

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) are retrieved during fossil fuel extraction and used as solvents in consumer and industrial products, as gasoline additives, and as intermediates in the synthesis of organic compounds for many consumer products. Emissions from the combustion of gasoline and diesel fuels are the largest contributors to atmospheric BTEX concentrations. However, levels indoors (where people spend greater than 83% of their time) can be many times greater than outdoors. In this review we identified epidemiological studies assessing the noncancer health impacts of ambient level BTEX exposure (i.e., nonoccupational) and discussed how the health conditions may be hormonally mediated. Health effects significantly associated with ambient level exposure included sperm abnormalities, reduced fetal growth, cardiovascular disease, respiratory dysfunction, asthma, sensitization to common antigens, and more. Several hormones including estrogens, androgens, glucocorticoids, insulin, and serotonin may be involved in these health outcomes. This analysis suggests that all four chemicals may have endocrine disrupting properties at exposure levels below reference concentrations (i.e., safe levels) issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These data should be considered when evaluating the use of BTEX in consumer and industrial products and indicates a need to change how chemicals present at low concentrations are assessed and regulated.

Is it time to reassess current safety standards for glyphosate-based herbicides?

Use of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) increased ∼100-fold from 1974 to 2014. Additional increases are expected due to widespread emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, increased application of GBHs, and preharvest uses of GBHs as desiccants. Current safety assessments rely heavily on studies conducted over 30 years ago. We have considered information on GBH use, exposures, mechanisms of action, toxicity and epidemiology. Human exposures to glyphosate are rising, and a number of in vitro and in vivo studies challenge the basis for the current safety assessment of glyphosate and GBHs. We conclude that current safety standards for GBHs are outdated and may fail to protect public health or the environment. To improve safety standards, the following are urgently needed: (1) human biomonitoring for glyphosate and its metabolites; (2) prioritisation of glyphosate and GBHs for hazard assessments, including toxicological studies that use state-of-the-art approaches; (3) epidemiological studies, especially of occupationally exposed agricultural workers, pregnant women and their children and (4) evaluations of GBHs in commercially used formulations, recognising that herbicide mixtures likely have effects that are not predicted by studying glyphosate alone.

A case for revisiting the safety of pesticides: a closer look at neurodevelopment.

The quality and quantity of the data about the risk posed to humans by individual pesticides vary considerably. Unlike obvious birth defects, most developmental effects cannot be seen at birth or even later in life. Instead, brain and nervous system disturbances are expressed in terms of how an individual behaves and functions, which can vary considerably from birth through adulthood. In this article I challenge the protective value of current pesticide risk assessment strategies in light of the vast numbers of pesticides on the market and the vast number of possible target tissues and end points that often differ depending upon timing of exposure. Using the insecticide chlorpyrifos as a model, I reinforce the need for a new approach to determine the safety of all pesticide classes. Because of the uncertainty that will continue to exist about the safety of pesticides, it is apparent that a new regulatory approach to protect human health is needed.

Minireview: Endocrine Disruptors: Past Lessons and Future Directions.

Within the past few decades, the concept of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) has risen from a position of total obscurity to become a focus of dialogue, debate, and concern among scientists, physicians, regulators, and the public. The emergence and development of this field of study has not always followed a smooth path, and researchers continue to wrestle with questions about the low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses seen with EDCs, their biological mechanisms of action, the true pervasiveness of these chemicals in our environment and in our bodies, and the extent of their effects on human and wildlife health. This review chronicles the development of the unique, multidisciplinary field of endocrine disruption, highlighting what we have learned about the threat of EDCs and lessons that could be relevant to other fields. It also offers perspectives on the future of the field and opportunities to better protect human health.

Clues from wildlife to create an assay for thyroid system disruption.

In 1996 the U.S. Congress charged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop a screening program to test chemicals for their possible estrogenic and other endocrine effects. Shortly thereafter, the Chemical Guidelines Program of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) Environmental Directorate organized a Task Force on Endocrine Disruption Testing and Assessment to coordinate development of internationally harmonized screening and testing protocols. Most of the research devoted to this effort has focused on detecting impaired estrogenicity, androgenicity, and/or steroidogenesis, with little progress toward developing assays to detect chemicals that might interfere with thyroid function. Despite the fact that wildlife biologists have been reporting abnormal thyroid gland development and unusual thyroid hormone (TH) and retinoid ratios in fish and birds since the early 1960s, few studies have demonstrated an association between an environmental contaminant and a particular health end point other than reduced reproductive success at the population level. This article is a review of the literature that specifically examines THs and their role in normal behavior and development in wildlife. It presents several studies that associated changes in the thyroid gland, TH concentrations, and behavior with contaminant exposure. The goal of this article is to provide fodder for the creation of simple screens to detect possible thyroid system agonists and antagonists.

Neurodevelopment and endocrine disruption.

In this article I explore the possibility that contaminants contribute to the increasing prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, and associated neurodevelopmental and behavioral problems in developed countries. I discuss the exquisite sensitivity of the embryo and fetus to thyroid disturbance and provide evidence of human in utero exposure to contaminants that can interfere with the thyroid. Because it may never be possible to link prenatal exposure to a specific chemical with neurodevelopmental damage in humans, I also present alternate models where associations have been made between exposure to specific chemicals or chemical classes and developmental difficulties in laboratory animals, wildlife, and humans.

Commentary: setting aside tradition when dealing with endocrine disruptors.

In 1996, the US Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency to produce screens and assays to detect estrogenic and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals in food and water. To date, there are none. Years have been wasted in attempts to utilize traditional toxicological approaches to solve the problem, when in retrospect, it is now apparent that the delay in part stems from the reluctance to attack the problem with entirely new approaches. To develop new testing protocols, it is necessary to set aside much of the dogma of toxicology and to begin again with open minds. A few pertinent examples are provided concerning what has been overlooked and what needs to be done. In particular, it is necessary to give close attention to the selection of animal strain and diet, factors that were only loosely controlled historically when one takes into consideration what has been learned in the last decade. Vast numbers of animals have been sacrificed, and more will be sacrificed, in futile attempts to validate assays and to develop safety standards unless knowledge gained over the past decade concerning the sensitivity and complexity of the endocrine system is taken into consideration.

Contaminants in Svalbard polar bear samples archived since 1967 and possible population level effects.

Blood plasma samples were collected in 1967 from 32 polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in eastern Svalbard. These samples were stored frozen until 2001 and then analyzed for 33 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), two toxaphene congeners, DDTs, chlordanes (CHL), hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCHs), and polybrominated flame retardants (biphenyls and diphenyl ethers). The 1967 pollutant levels were compared with values from 1993 to 1994 for adult females and adult males to obtain insights into the historical development of pollution in the Norwegian Arctic. Differences in the OC levels measured between 1967 and 1993-1994 ranged from a decrease (PCB 187 and p,p-DDE) to unchanged in both sexes (PCBs 105, 118, 209, and HCH) to an increase in females (PCBs 99, 128, and CHL), to increases in both sexes (PCBs 138, 153, 156, 157, 170, 180, 194, and 206). The maximum change was a nine-fold increase in PCB 157 in adult females. Changes from 1967 to 1993-1994 in contaminant pattern expressed relative to PCB 153 could be explained by a combination of selective metabolism and accumulation of organochlorines in polar bears and temporal changes in the contaminant mixture being transported to the Arctic. Harvest of polar bears in Svalbard ended in 1973 and it appears that most pollutant levels were increasing at the same time that the population was expected to recover from over-harvest. The mean age of adult females in the Svalbard population was similar to other populations where pollution levels are lower but harvest is intense. Females with cubs-of-the-year > or =16 years old are uncommon in the population for unknown reasons. The impacts of contaminants on the Svalbard polar bear population are inconclusive but there are suggestions of contaminant-related population level effects that could have resulted from reproductive impairment of females, lower survival rates of cubs, or increased mortality of reproductive females.

Regulatory decisions on endocrine disrupting chemicals should be based on the principles of endocrinology.

For years, scientists from various disciplines have studied the effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on the health and wellbeing of humans and wildlife. Some studies have specifically focused on the effects of low doses, i.e. those in the range that are thought to be safe for humans and/or animals. Others have focused on the existence of non-monotonic dose-response curves. These concepts challenge the way that chemical risk assessment is performed for EDCs. Continued discussions have clarified exactly what controversies and challenges remain. We address several of these issues, including why the study and regulation of EDCs should incorporate endocrine principles; what level of consensus there is for low dose effects; challenges to our understanding of non-monotonicity; and whether EDCs have been demonstrated to produce adverse effects. This discussion should result in a better understanding of these issues, and allow for additional dialog on their impact on risk assessment.

Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses.

For decades, studies of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have challenged traditional concepts in toxicology, in particular the dogma of "the dose makes the poison," because EDCs can have effects at low doses that are not predicted by effects at higher doses. Here, we review two major concepts in EDC studies: low dose and nonmonotonicity. Low-dose effects were defined by the National Toxicology Program as those that occur in the range of human exposures or effects observed at doses below those used for traditional toxicological studies. We review the mechanistic data for low-dose effects and use a weight-of-evidence approach to analyze five examples from the EDC literature. Additionally, we explore nonmonotonic dose-response curves, defined as a nonlinear relationship between dose and effect where the slope of the curve changes sign somewhere within the range of doses examined. We provide a detailed discussion of the mechanisms responsible for generating these phenomena, plus hundreds of examples from the cell culture, animal, and epidemiology literature. We illustrate that nonmonotonic responses and low-dose effects are remarkably common in studies of natural hormones and EDCs. Whether low doses of EDCs influence certain human disorders is no longer conjecture, because epidemiological studies show that environmental exposures to EDCs are associated with human diseases and disabilities. We conclude that when nonmonotonic dose-response curves occur, the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. Thus, fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination are needed to protect human health.

Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol A.

BACKGROUND: In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION: Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS: Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.