Science, Law, and Health

Glyphosate: Health Implications and Possible Adverse Consequences

Exposure to an excess of this biocide may negatively affect DNA, nerves, organs, and hormones, but science and regulation differ.

This article provides a balanced viewpoint and adds clarity to a hot topic. It does not intend to criticize stakeholders. The goal is to approach the issue with an open mind and optimism and discuss what we know, considering the standpoints of scientists, practitioners, regulators, and the public.

The subject is complex, involving multiple disciplines and intertwining health and economic considerations. Findings in the literature are conflicting. As a result, navigating this topic is challenging and prone to misunderstandings.

I’m not an expert on pesticides. However, considering the neurological effects of biocides, I researched the topic intensely to gain perspectives from scientists and practitioners comparing the findings with input from the regulatory authorities. I keep neutrality to give you a balanced view and create necessary awareness.

There is no right or wrong in my perspective at this stage. We are still in the dark with little knowledge. Scientists, clinicians, and regulators do their best to create the most reasonable outcome.

Varying methodologies and analytical approaches in scientific research contribute to conflicting viewpoints. This approach is not exclusive to this topic. I discussed several others in my previous posts.

Governments don’t create policies in a vacuum. They depend on multiple stakeholder inputs. For example, studies, industry interests, economic and social policies, and lobbying efforts can influence regulatory decisions.

Scientists use diverse study designs and interpret data. Thus, they get differing conclusions. Regulatory bodies strive to assess evidence and make informed decisions, but the complexity of glyphosate’s effects presents challenges in reaching a consensus at this stage.

Manifold interests and priorities among stakeholders can influence regulatory decisions and public perception of glyphosate. Balancing scientific evidence, societal concerns, health impact, and economic implications add complexity to the issue.

Ongoing research, transparency, and open dialogue are crucial for advancing understanding and making informed decisions about glyphosate’s impacts and implications on health and the environment.

To address these complexities, facilitating collaboration and inclusivity is essential. Rigorous research, transparent practices, and active communication between scientists, clinicians, regulators, and the public are crucial to deepening our understanding.

As the topic is highly complex and controversial, I only touch on the key points to give you valuable perspectives and references from credible sources to empower your research and help you make informed decisions in food choices. First, I’d like to provide an overview of glyphosate.

An Overview of Glyphosate and its Impact and Implications on Health

Glyphosate is a widely used herbicide in agriculture. Some countries use more than others. The National Library of Medicine indexed 4,963 reports on Glyphosate. Google’s search engine produces 16,600,000 results.

Glyphosate is used as a herbicidal chemical. It is sprayed on crops like corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, and wheat. Therefore, foods that are derived from these crops are more likely to contain glyphosate residues.

According to EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), “Glyphosate is a widely used herbicide that controls broadleaf weeds and grasses. It has been registered as a pesticide in the US since 1974.”

Researchers identified glyphosate residues in food items like grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and dairy products.

You may wonder how glyphosate can enter dairy. Cows, sheep, or goats fed glyphosate-contaminated food can accumulate it in their tissues and milk. It can enter the dairy through these animals' contaminated water sources.

Glyphosate can be toxic to “non-target organisms” like wildlife and beneficial insects. The herbicide can accumulate in soil and water, leading to long-term contamination.

The mechanism of glyphosate’s toxicity to non-target organisms involves inhibiting the shikimate pathway, essential for synthesizing aromatic amino acids crucial for protein synthesis.

In humans, glyphosate can enter the body through various routes of exposure, such as food, water, inhalation, and skin contact.

Once inside the body, glyphosate can be absorbed and distributed to cells, where it can potentially cause harm. However, the extent of glyphosate absorption and its effects on human health are still debated.

Concerns about its adverse impacts on human health and the environment exist. Here are six problems associated with glyphosate.

1 — Glyphosate might harm the beneficial bacteria in the gut, leading to an imbalance in the microbiome, affecting digestion and immune function.

2 — It might disrupt the function of sex hormones. This can lead to reproductive problems and developmental issues.

3 — It might cause DNA damage, potentially leading to mutations contributing to cancer and neurodegenerative disorders.

4 — The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified it as a probable carcinogen. Some studies have linked it to an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

5 — It can increase the toxicity of other chemicals, such as heavy metals and certain pesticides, making them more harmful to humans.

6 — Exposure to glyphosate can lead to respiratory problems. It is associated with higher amounts of eosinophils, neutrophils, and asthma-related cytokines.

Governmental agencies regulate the levels of glyphosate residues in food. Many foods tested have been found to be below the established safety limits. Still, concerns remain about long-term exposure to low levels of glyphosate in the diet and the potential health effects.

Here’s How Science and Regulation Conflict.

I want to highlight two conflicting perspectives among scientists and regulatory bodies briefly.

In 2015, a working group of 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to review the available published scientific evidence and evaluate the carcinogenicity of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides.

IARC-assigned scientists have followed strict scientific criteria. Their classification system is recognized and used as a reference worldwide due to rigorous standards and procedures.

The IARC Monographs evaluation was based on the systematic assembly and review of all publicly available and pertinent studies by independent experts, free from vested interests.

To reach conclusions, IARC reviewed about 1000 studies. Some studies looked at people exposed through their jobs, like farmers. Others were experimental studies on cancer in experimental systems.

After the review, IARC concluded that there was “strong” evidence for genotoxicity for “pure” glyphosate and glyphosate formulations.

Since glyphosate’s first registration in 1974, EPA has reviewed and reassessed its safety and uses, including undergoing registration review, a program that re-evaluates each registered pesticide on a 15-year cycle.

“In a June 17, 2022 decision, the US Court of Appeals vacated the human health portion of the glyphosate and remanded it to EPA for further analysis and explanation.” EPA’s underlying scientific findings regarding human health are summarized at this link pending reconsideration.

In summary, EPA responded publicly:

“No risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate.

No indication that children are more sensitive to glyphosate.

No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.”

Interestingly California OEHHA (The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) added glyphosate to the Proposition 65 list effective July 2017 based on IARC findings.

My Neutral Opinions on Manifestation of Conflict

I believe conflicting opinions and viewpoints of scientists and regulatory bodies regarding glyphosate stem from several factors.

Glyphosate’s impact on human health and the environment has been the subject of extensive research. Different scientific studies produced varying results, leading to conflicting conclusions.

The interpretation of research findings can vary among scientists and regulatory bodies. Different methods and sample sizes can contribute to differences in the conclusions drawn from the available data.

The weight given to different studies and the consideration of potential biases can vary, leading to divergent perspectives.

Industry interests and lobbying efforts can influence regulatory decisions and public perception. Stakeholders with different agendas and priorities may contribute to conflicting glyphosate safety and regulation viewpoints.

The complexity of glyphosate’s effects on human health and the environment adds to the conflicting opinions.

Glyphosate’s potential impact on the endocrine system, hormone disruption, and other health concerns requires in-depth investigation.

The interpretation of evidence and risk assessment might vary, leading to different conclusions and recommendations.

Nothing is set in stone in science. Scientific understanding is an ongoing process. New studies and data can lead to evolving perspectives over time.

Regulators strive to assess the available evidence and make informed decisions based on the best available information. However, disagreements and debates are inherent to the scientific process.

The conflicting opinions among scientists and regulators on glyphosate highlight the need for rigorous research, transparency, and robust scientific discourse to reach a public health and environmental safety consensus.

An Overview of Impact from the Growing Literature

In this high-level overview, I want to provide perspectives from the literature to shed light on the potential health risks of glyphosate exposure.

Glyphosate is a biocide known for its effectiveness in killing weeds and unwanted plants in agriculture as herbicides. It can persist in the environment for a long time, like months. Therefore, its intensive and large-scale use can cause significant environmental and health problems.

Overall literature indicates growing concerns about its potential adverse effects on human health, particularly on the nervous, metabolic, and endocrine systems. I will summarize the critical points of some reviews.

Nervous System and Neurological Disorders

A 2022 systematic review in the International Journal of Molecular Science investigated the current state of our knowledge related to the effects of this pesticide on the nervous system of humans and animals.

The information they analyzed indicates that exposure to glyphosate or its commercial formulations induces several neurotoxic effects.

The reviewed paper indicated that exposure to this pesticide during the early stages of life could seriously affect normal cell development by deregulating some of the signaling pathways involved in this process, leading to alterations in differentiation, neuronal growth, and myelination.

Glyphosate can exert a significant toxic effect on neurotransmission and induce oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, and mitochondrial dysfunction, processes that lead to neuronal death due to necrosis or apoptosis and the appearance of behavioral and motor disorders.

The doses of glyphosate that produce these neurotoxic effects vary widely but are lower than the limits set by regulatory agencies.

“Although there are significant discrepancies between the analyzed findings, it is indisputable that exposure to glyphosate produces important alterations in the structure and function of the nervous system of humans, rodents, fish, and invertebrates.”

Another review conducted in 2022 published in the Environmental Research journal reviewed reports of glyphosate's effects on mammalian nervous system function. They pointed out an increased risk of Parkinson’s Disease and death of neurons in the substantia nigra.

They also found some evidence implicating elevated risk of autism. Other studies have shown the effects of it on synaptic transmission in animal and cellular studies.

Researchers point out that “the primary mechanism of action appears to be oxidative stress, accompanied by mitochondrial dysfunction. In addition, some gut bacteria utilize the enzyme from plants has been shown to alter the gut microbiome.”

They identified a large and growing body of evidence that “the gut microbiome alters susceptibility to many human diseases, including nervous system function.”

According to reviewers, “the weight of the evidence indicates that in addition to cancer and reproductive effects, glyphosate has significant adverse impacts on the brain and behavior and increases the risk of at least some serious neurological diseases.”

Endocrine System and Hormonal Imbalances

I want to summarize a 2021 review paper published in Frontier’s Endocrinology journal. It is titled “Controversies on Endocrine and Reproductive Effects of Glyphosate and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides.”

Researchers pointed out that recently, a debate on glyphosate risks to human health was raised due to conflicting views over its potential carcinogenic and endocrine disruptive properties.

Results from regulatory guideline studies, reports from regulatory agencies, and some literature studies point to a lack of endocrine-disrupting properties of the active ingredient glyphosate.

On the other hand, many in vivo and in vitro studies using different experimental model systems have demonstrated that glyphosate can disrupt specific hormonal signaling pathways, impacting the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and other organ systems.

I reviewed some papers that indicate that glyphosate can interfere with hormone signaling pathways, potentially disrupting reproductive health, thyroid function, and overall endocrine homeostasis.

For example, a 2017 review on Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology concluded, "Meta-analysis results support the hypothesis that glyphosate exposure decreased sperm concentration in rodents.”

After analyzing papers by endocrinology researchers, the reviewers highlighted the importance of refining regulatory testing strategies and considering the complexities of glyphosate's potential endocrine-disrupting effects.

Some studies have demonstrated that glyphosate can disrupt neurotransmitter function. These imbalances may contribute to mood disorders, cognitive impairments, and neurodegenerative diseases.

Potential Cancer Risks from Animal Studies

I want to summarize the key points of a 2020 review published in the BMC’s Environment Health Journal.

The paper pointed out that the increased use of glyphosate with the introduction of genetically-modified plants has led to differing opinions among scientists and regulatory authorities.

The focus of disagreement lies in how glyphosate causes cancer in laboratory animals after prolonged exposure.

The review identifies 21 chronic exposure animal carcinogenicity studies, with 13 of sufficient quality to be reanalyzed using various tests.

The analysis revealed significant tumor findings across studies, demonstrating consistency within the same sex, species, and strain.

The evidence indicated that “glyphosate was strongly associated with hemangiosarcomas, kidney tumors, malignant lymphomas, hemangiomas, kidney and liver adenomas, skin tumors, and adrenal cortical carcinomas in rats and mice.”

Overall Perspective from Scientists

The potential adverse effects of glyphosate on the nervous, metabolic, and endocrine systems are a topic of concern and ongoing scientific investigation.

More research is needed to understand the mechanisms and establish definitive conclusions fully. But, the evidence suggests that glyphosate exposure may harm metabolic, neurological, and hormonal health when the body exposes it in high amounts.

Initial studies have suggested that glyphosate may contribute to antibiotic resistance by promoting the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, a 2023 review confirmed that “Glyphosate affects persistence and tolerance but not antibiotic resistance.”

Scientists in my circles think that rather than saying “no scientific evidence” when making public health decisions, it is vital to continue monitoring and evaluating the risks associated with glyphosate use and consider alternative weed control approaches prioritizing health and environmental safety.

France was the first pesticide-consuming country in Europe. A 2022 study included 6848 participants recruited between 2018 and 2020. “Quantifiable urine glyphosate levels were detected in 99% of the French population, with higher values in men, younger people, and farmers.”

Here’s a report from the CDC checking the urines of children in the US.

Takeaways: What does this confusing situation mean to my readers?

You may ask if scientists and government organizations cannot agree on the health impacts and implications of glyphosate, what can the public do about it?

This is an important question that we need to ponder. It can be challenging for the public to navigate the information and make informed decisions.

Staying optimistic, open-minded, and neutral is the first step. Neither scientists nor government organizations have ill intentions for the public. I want to share a few ideas that can also apply to dealing with other controversial topics.

We must remain informed with the latest research from reputable sources. It is essential to consume information from independent research institutions, scientific journals, and regulatory bodies.

Evaluating multiple perspectives from various sources, health experts, and consumer advocacy groups can increase our confidence in the accuracy of information. You may check the consensus among multiple studies.

Critical thinking to assess the quality and reliability of information is essential. We can check the methodology, sample size, funding sources, and potential biases of studies. For example, my confidence in clinical studies is much higher than in epidemiological studies.

From a practical point of view, consulting qualified healthcare professionals can be invaluable. Physicians, specialists, and therapists might provide personalized advice based on specific circumstances and medical history.

As good citizens, we should advocate for transparency and further research by independent researchers to address the remaining uncertainties. We should share our opinions openly to encourage regulatory bodies to prioritize public health and consider long-term effects in decision-making.

At a personal level, we may explore alternatives to glyphosate-based products in our personal lives, like organic farming practices or using natural options for weed control. This approach can reduce potential exposure and promote healthier alternatives.

It is not bulletproof, but organic foods have fewer herbicides than inorganic ones. Therefore organic food is a better option. However, affordability and availability at a large scale are societal and economic issues yet to be addressed.

Thank you for reading my perspectives. I wish you a healthy and happy life.

As a new reader, please check my holistic health and well-being stories reflecting my reviews, observations, and decades of experiments optimizing my hormones and neurotransmitters.

ALS, Metabolic Syndrome, Type II Diabetes, Fatty Liver Disease, Heart Disease, Strokes, Obesity, Liver Cancer, Autoimmune Disorders, Homocysteine, Lungs Health, Pancreas Health, Kidneys Health, NCDs, Infectious Diseases, Brain Health, Dementia, Depression, Brain Atrophy, Neonatal Disorders, Skin Health, Dental Health, Bone Health, Leaky Gut, Leaky Brain, Brain Fog, Chronic Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Elevated Cortisol, Leptin Resistance, Anabolic Resistance, Cholesterol, High Triglycerides, Metabolic Disorders, Gastrointestinal Disorders, Thyroid Disorders, Anemia, Dysautonomia, cardiac output, and urinary track disorders.

I also wrote about valuable nutrients. Here are the links for easy access:

Lutein/Zeaxanthin, Phosphatidylserine, Boron, Urolithin, taurine, citrulline malate, biotin, lithium orotate, alpha-lipoic acid, n-acetyl-cysteine, acetyl-l-carnitine, CoQ10, PQQ, NADH, TMG, creatine, choline, digestive enzymes, magnesium, zinc, hydrolyzed collagen, nootropics, pure nicotine, activated charcoal, Vitamin B12, Vitamin B1, Vitamin D, Vitamin K2, Omega-3 Fatty Acids, N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine, and other nutrients.

Disclaimer: My posts do not include professional or health advice. I only document my reviews, observations, experience, and perspectives to provide information and create awareness.

I publish my lifestyle, health, and well-being stories on EUPHORIA. My focus is on cellular, mitochondrial, metabolic, and mental health. Here is my collection of Insightful Life Lessons from Personal Stories.

You are welcome to join my publications on Medium as a writer by sending a request via this link. 21K writers contribute to my publications. You may join Medium with my referral link to enjoy unlimited content.