John Acquavella’s research while affiliated with Aarhus University and other places

I reviewed the epidemiologic literature for glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in the context of the frequency of exposure in each epidemiologic study, systemic dose from biomonitoring studies of applicators, and aspects of study quality. Nine studies were identified, 7 case control and 2 cohort, by a literature search and a review of reference lists from published studies and recent regulatory evaluations. All but one study involved exposure scenarios that were so infrequent that they are not credible for cancer causation. Most studies failed to address potential confounding from other pesticides. Only one study - the US Agricultural Health Study (AHS) - included individuals with relatively frequent exposure to glyphosate and involved comprehensive statistical analyses to address potential confounding by personal factors and other pesticide exposures. The AHS did not find an association between glyphosate and NHL, even among the most frequently exposed participants (≥ 109 days of use) (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.60, 1.06). These findings are consistent with observations that glyphosate systemic doses from agricultural applications are many orders of magnitude less than daily lifetime doses considered by regulatory agencies to impart no excess risk of deleterious health effects, even for sensitive subpopulations.

Purpose Human health risk assessments of glyphosate have focused on animal toxicology data for determining neurotoxic potential. Human epidemiological studies have not yet been systematically reviewed for glyphosate neurotoxicity hazard identification. The objective of this systematic literature review was to summarize the available epidemiology of glyphosate exposure and neurological outcomes in humans. Methods As of December 2021, 25 eligible epidemiological studies of glyphosate exposure and neurological endpoints were identified and assessed for five quality dimensions using guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Studies that assessed personal use of glyphosate were prioritized, whereas those assessing indirect exposure (other than personal use) were rated as low quality, since biomonitoring data indicate that indirect metrics of glyphosate exposure almost always equate to non-detectable glyphosate doses. Results Overall, the scientific evidence on glyphosate and neurotoxicity in humans is sparse and methodologically limited, based on nine included epidemiological studies of neurodegenerative outcomes (two high quality), five studies of neurobehavioral outcomes (two high quality), six studies of neurodevelopmental outcomes (none high quality), and five studies of other and mixed neurological outcomes (one high quality). The five high-quality studies showed no association between glyphosate use and risk of depression, Parkinson disease, or peripheral nerve conduction velocity. Results were mixed among the eight moderate-quality studies, which did not demonstrate consistent associations with any neurological endpoints or categories. Low-quality studies were considered uninformative about possible neurotoxic effects due primarily to questionable assessments of indirect exposure. Conclusions No association has been demonstrated between glyphosate and any neurological outcomes in humans. To move the state of science forward, epidemiological studies should focus on scenarios involving direct and frequent use of glyphosate while collecting information on validated health outcomes, concomitant agricultural exposures, and relevant personal characteristics.

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 non-Hodgkin’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.

We conducted a systematic review of the epidemiologic literature for glyphosate focusing on non-Hodgkin?s lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma (MM) ? two cancers that were the focus of a recent review by an International Agency for Research on Cancer Working Group. Our approach was consistent with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. We evaluated each relevant study according to a priori criteria for study quality: adequacy of study size, likelihood of confounding, potential for other biases and adequacy of the statistical analyses. Our evaluation included seven unique studies for NHL and four for MM, all but one of which were case control studies for each cancer. For NHL, the case-control studies were all limited by the potential for recall bias and the lack of adequate multivariate adjustment for multiple pesticide and other farming exposures. Only the Agricultural Health (cohort) Study met our a priori quality standards and this study found no evidence of an association between glyphosate and NHL. For MM, the case control studies shared the same limitations as noted for the NHL case-control studies and, in aggregate, the data were too sparse to enable an informed causal judgment. Overall, our review did not find support in the epidemiologic literature for a causal association between glyphosate and NHL or MM.