Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28374158›Full record

ReviewArchives of toxicology2017

Glyphosate toxicity and carcinogenicity: a review of the scientific basis of the European Union assessment and its differences with IARC.

Jose V Tarazona, Daniele Court-Marques, Manuela Tiramani, Hermine Reich, Rudolf Pfeil, Frederique Istace, Federica Crivellente

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of toxicology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Toxic Effects of Glyphosate on the Nervous System: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Risk of Cancer for Workers Exposed to Antimony Compounds: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jose V TarazonaPesticides Unit, European Food Safety Authority, Via Carlo Magno 1/A, 43126, Parma, Italy. Jose.Tarazona@efsa.europa.eu.
Daniele Court-MarquesPesticides Unit, European Food Safety Authority, Via Carlo Magno 1/A, 43126, Parma, Italy.
Manuela TiramaniPesticides Unit, European Food Safety Authority, Via Carlo Magno 1/A, 43126, Parma, Italy.
Hermine ReichPesticides Unit, European Food Safety Authority, Via Carlo Magno 1/A, 43126, Parma, Italy.
Rudolf PfeilFederal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Frederique IstacePesticides Unit, European Food Safety Authority, Via Carlo Magno 1/A, 43126, Parma, Italy.
Federica CrivellentePesticides Unit, European Food Safety Authority, Via Carlo Magno 1/A, 43126, Parma, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide worldwide. It is a broad spectrum herbicide and its agricultural uses increased considerably after the development of glyphosate-resistant genetically modified (GM) varieties. Since glyphosate was introduced in 1974, all regulatory assessments have established that glyphosate has low hazard potential to mammals, however, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in March 2015 that it is probably carcinogenic. The IARC conclusion was not confirmed by the EU assessment or the recent joint WHO/FAO evaluation, both using additional evidence. Glyphosate is not the first topic of disagreement between IARC and regulatory evaluations, but has received greater attention. This review presents the scientific basis of the glyphosate health assessment conducted within the European Union (EU) renewal process, and explains the differences in the carcinogenicity assessment with IARC. Use of different data sets, particularly on long-term toxicity/carcinogenicity in rodents, could partially explain the divergent views; but methodological differences in the evaluation of the available evidence have been identified. The EU assessment did not identify a carcinogenicity hazard, revised the toxicological profile proposing new toxicological reference values, and conducted a risk assessment for some representatives uses. Two complementary exposure assessments, human-biomonitoring and food-residues-monitoring, suggests that actual exposure levels are below these reference values and do not represent a public concern.

Indexed as

AnimalsCarcinogensEnvironmental MonitoringEuropean UnionGlycineGlyphosateHerbicidesHumansInternational AgenciesReference ValuesRisk AssessmentRodentiaTime FactorsToxicity TestsCarcinogensGlycineGlyphosateHerbicidesCarcinogenicityConsumer riskEFSAGlyphosateIARCPublic healthToxicity

Identifiers

PMID28374158
PMCPMC5515989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.