Abstract
Following the introduction of genetically-engineered glyphosate-resistant (GEGR) crops, commercially known as Roundup Ready (RR), no pesticide’s active principle has been used as much as glyphosate; yet its safety measures have been sternly disputed. After its classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as probably carcinogenic to humans in 2015, scientists, activists, regulators and the general public revisited voluminous studies that outweighed the risk of this herbicide and raised ferocious concerns that warranted serious attention. Recently published studies on glyphosate established at least four toxicological principles. First, glyphosate exhibited severe mammalian toxicity at concentrations orders of magnitude lower than its regulatory-promulgated ‘No Observed Adverse Effect Level’ (NOAEL) or even its ‘Chronic Reference Dose’ (cRfD) and ‘Acceptable Daily Intake’ (ADI). Second, even though not transparently scrutinized or officially required for toxicological testing and risk assessment, glyphosate co-formulants and glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are orders of magnitude more toxic than the principle active ingredient alone. Third, glyphosate and GBHs are cytotoxic and endocrine disruptors, and the latter explains why ultra low concentrations - yet environmentally relevant-cause severe chronic toxicity. Fourth, the endocrine disruption likely leads to epigenotoxicity that may be extended to offspring and unexposed descending generations. Taken all together, it can be fairly said that confidence in the regulatory-certified ADI values is highly eroded. To resolve the paradoxical discrepancy between regulatory safety measures and elicited toxicities at concentrations far below these measures, ADI was refined using two safety or adjustment factors. Together, these two factors scale down ADI by four orders of magnitude and bring it to an Adjusted ADI (AADI) value of 2.5 ng/kg bw/day. Contrary to regulatory ADI, the new AADI successfully explains many research findings which demonsted severe mammalian toxicity at concentrations in the neighborhood of nanograms a.i./kg bw/day. This distills confidence in the new AADI value, as well as the magnitude of the proposed safety factors. Glyphosate uses as per human capita, in two countries representing the extremes of adopting RR crops (the USA) or not-adopting these crops (Egypt), were compared. The comparison confirms the association between growing RR crops and the escalated use of glyphosate, and shows that the American public is likely exposed to glyphosate residue at forty times higher levels than the Egyptian public. Key words: Acceptable daily intake, adjuvant, chronic reference dose, co-formulants, food quality protection act, hazard, glyphosate, glyphosate-based herbicides, no observed adverse effect level, risk, roundup, roundup ready crops.
Highlights
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto‟s first commercial herbicide (Roundup), and many other proprietary glyphosate-based brands (Monsanto, 2005)
The main objective of this manuscript is to create a quasimechanistic model to possibly adjust the pesticide safety measures (NOAEL, Acceptable Daily Intake’ (ADI), Chronic Reference Dose’ (cRfD), etc.) that are routinely calculated from the empirical risk assessment model
According to the empirical model, risk assessment of any pesticide to human health and the environment relies on two principal factors: (1) its innate or potential hazard of the active ingredient; and (2) its actual level of exposure to humans and the environment
Summary
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto‟s first commercial herbicide (Roundup), and many other proprietary glyphosate-based brands (Monsanto, 2005). The unprecedented use of GBHs provides uncountable exposure pathways, and increasingly raises concerns over their possible adverse outcomes in human-health and the environment. Regardless of the IARC classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans (Guyton et al, 2015), and of the serious scientific and public concerns over its safety, pesticide industry and regulatory authorities complacently claim that when GBHs are used as recommended, the public is exposed to only „safe‟ levels that pose no serious toxicological risks to humans (FAO/WHO, 2016). To interpret the level of risk of any pesticide, its actual exposure is compared to a reference safety threshold, e.g., ADI; calculated for experimental animals and extrapolated to humans. The calculation to set the ADI is based on one hundredth (1/100) the dose considered to be non-toxic in animal feeding trials; toxicologically known as NOAEL (Faustman and Omenn, 2001)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Sciences
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.