Critical Review of the Effects of Glyphosate Exposure to the Environment and Humans through the Food Supply Chain

Abstract

Abstract:Glyphosate is a synthesis product and chemical substance that entered in the global market during the 70s. In the beginning, the molecule was used as an active principle in a wide range of herbicides, with great success. This was mainly due to its systemic and non-selective action against vegetable organisms and also to the spread of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) crops, which over the years were specifically created with a resistance to glyphosate. To date, the product is, for these reasons, the most sprayed and most used herbicide in the world. Because of its widespread diffusion into the environment, it was not long before glyphosate found itself at the center of an important scientific debate about its adverse effects on health and environment. In fact, in 2015 the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France), an organization referred to as the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO, Geneva, Switzerland), classified the substance as "likely carcinogenic" to humans. This triggered an immediate and negative reaction from the producer, who accused the Agency and claimed that they had failed to carry out their studies properly and that these conclusions were largely contradictory to published research. Additionally, in 2015, just a few months after the IARC monography published on glyphosate, the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy), another WHO related organization, declared that it was "unlikely" that the molecule could be carcinogenic to humans or that it could cause any type of risk to human health. The conflict between the two organizations of the World Health Organization triggered many doubts, and for this reason, a series of independent studies were launched to better understand what glyphosate's danger to humans and the environment really was. The results have brought to light how massive use of the herbicide has created over time a real global contamination that has not only affected the soil, surface and groundwater as well as the atmosphere, but even food and commonly used objects, such as diapers, medical gauze, and absorbent for female intimate hygiene. How human health is compromised as a result of glyphosate exposure is a topic that is still very debatable and still unclear and unambiguous. This paper is a review of the results of the main independent recent scientific studies.

Examination of Short Supply Chains Based on Circular Economy and Sustainability Aspects

“…The environmental and health effects of certain widely-used chemical substances are debated. For example, Toretta et al (2018) [8] presented a scientific debate on the effects of glyphosate as the most sprayed and most used herbicide in the world.…”

Re-registration Challenges of Glyphosate in the European Union

“…The results suggest that epigenetic pathways may influence the regulation of genes important for herbicide detoxification (Markus et al, 2018). As for ecotoxicity, more research on the effects of exposure, particularly at sub-lethal levels, using appropriate target biomonitor species (Kissane and Shephard, 2017) and a corresponding new concept in agriculture are urged (Nicolopoulou-Stamati et al, 2016;Torretta et al, 2018). Taking these indications into consideration, and also considering the wide occurrence of glyphosate residues in environmental matrices, foodstuff and biological matrices, including the urine of livestock and humans, our current estimations of dietary exposure (Stephenson et al, 2018) may need to be reconsidered, which could substantially modify risk assessment.…”

Chemicals Denial—A Challenge to Science and Policy

“…In a review, Torretta et al focus on a controversy following the classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015 of the herbicide glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic to humans' [39]. The manufacturing company Monsanto reacted strongly on this classification and claimed that IARC's conclusion contradicted research in the field.…”