Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31495885›Full record

ReviewJournal of animal science2019

Glyphosate in livestock: feed residues and animal health1.

John L Vicini, William R Reeves, John T Swarthout, Katherine A Karberg

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of animal science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Feed Safety and the Development of Poultry Intestinal Microbiota.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Trends in science on glyphosate toxicity: a scientometric study.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

John L Vicini
William R ReevesBayer CropScience, St. Louis, MO.
John T SwarthoutBayer CropScience, St. Louis, MO.
Katherine A KarbergBayer CropScience, St. Louis, MO.
Bayer (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glyphosate is a nonselective systemic herbicide used in agriculture since 1974. It inhibits 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase, an enzyme in the shikimate pathway present in cells of plants and some microorganisms but not human or other animal cells. Glyphosate-tolerant crops have been commercialized for more than 20 yr using a transgene from a resistant bacterial EPSP synthase that renders the crops insensitive to glyphosate. Much of the forage or grain from these crops are consumed by farm animals. Glyphosate protects crop yields, lowers the cost of feed production, and reduces CO2 emissions attributable to agriculture by reducing tillage and fuel usage. Despite these benefits and even though global regulatory agencies continue to reaffirm its safety, the public hears conflicting information about glyphosate's safety. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency determines for every agricultural chemical a maximum daily allowable human exposure (called the reference dose, RfD). The RfD is based on amounts that are 1/100th (for sensitive populations) to 1/1,000th (for children) the no observed adverse effects level (NOAEL) identified through a comprehensive battery of animal toxicology studies. Recent surveys for residues have indicated that amounts of glyphosate in food/feed are at or below established tolerances and actual intakes for humans or livestock are much lower than these conservative exposure limits. While the EPSP synthase of some bacteria is sensitive to glyphosate, in vivo or in vitro dynamic culture systems with mixed bacteria and media that resembles rumen digesta have not demonstrated an impact on microbial function from adding glyphosate. Moreover, one chemical characteristic of glyphosate cited as a reason for concern is that it is a tridentate chelating ligand for divalent and trivalent metals; however, other more potent chelators are ubiquitous in livestock diets, such as certain amino acids. Regulatory testing identifies potential hazards, but risks of these hazards need to be evaluated in the context of realistic exposures and conditions. Conclusions about safety should be based on empirical results within the limitations of model systems or experimental design. This review summarizes how pesticide residues, particularly glyphosate, in food and feed are quantified, and how their safety is determined by regulatory agencies to establish safe use levels.

Indexed as

Animal Welfare3-Phosphoshikimate 1-CarboxyvinyltransferaseAgricultureAnimal FeedAnimalsCrops, AgriculturalFood SafetyGlycineGlyphosateHerbicidesHumansLivestockPesticide ResiduesRumen3-Phosphoshikimate 1-CarboxyvinyltransferaseGlycineGlyphosateHerbicidesPesticide Residuesfeed safetyglyphosatepesticide residuesrumen microbes

Identifiers

PMID31495885
PMCPMC6827263
OpenAlexW2972771561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.