↓ Skip to main content

Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 1,423)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
476 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1003 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement
Published in
Environmental Health, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Peterson Myers, Michael N. Antoniou, Bruce Blumberg, Lynn Carroll, Theo Colborn, Lorne G. Everett, Michael Hansen, Philip J. Landrigan, Bruce P. Lanphear, Robin Mesnage, Laura N. Vandenberg, Frederick S. vom Saal, Wade V. Welshons, Charles M. Benbrook

Abstract

The broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate (common trade name "Roundup") was first sold to farmers in 1974. Since the late 1970s, the volume of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) applied has increased approximately 100-fold. Further increases in the volume applied are likely due to more and higher rates of application in response to the widespread emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds and new, pre-harvest, dessicant use patterns. GBHs were developed to replace or reduce reliance on herbicides causing well-documented problems associated with drift and crop damage, slipping efficacy, and human health risks. Initial industry toxicity testing suggested that GBHs posed relatively low risks to non-target species, including mammals, leading regulatory authorities worldwide to set high acceptable exposure limits. To accommodate changes in GBH use patterns associated with genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops, regulators have dramatically increased tolerance levels in maize, oilseed (soybeans and canola), and alfalfa crops and related livestock feeds. Animal and epidemiology studies published in the last decade, however, point to the need for a fresh look at glyphosate toxicity. Furthermore, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer recently concluded that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans." In response to changing GBH use patterns and advances in scientific understanding of their potential hazards, we have produced a Statement of Concern drawing on emerging science relevant to the safety of GBHs. Our Statement of Concern considers current published literature describing GBH uses, mechanisms of action, toxicity in laboratory animals, and epidemiological studies. It also examines the derivation of current human safety standards. We conclude that: (1) GBHs are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage continues to rise; (2) Worldwide, GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation, and air, especially in agricultural regions; (3) The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously recognized; (4) Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean supply; (5) Human exposures to GBHs are rising; (6) Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen; (7) Regulatory estimates of tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the United States and European Union are based on outdated science. We offer a series of recommendations related to the need for new investments in epidemiological studies, biomonitoring, and toxicology studies that draw on the principles of endocrinology to determine whether the effects of GBHs are due to endocrine disrupting activities. We suggest that common commercial formulations of GBHs should be prioritized for inclusion in government-led toxicology testing programs such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program, as well as for biomonitoring as conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 717 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,003 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Latvia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 991 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 204 20%
Student > Master 175 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 112 11%
Researcher 105 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 62 6%
Other 142 14%
Unknown 203 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 218 22%
Environmental Science 133 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 92 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 79 8%
Chemistry 52 5%
Other 181 18%
Unknown 248 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 901. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2022.
All research outputs
#13,826
of 21,453,375 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#6
of 1,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223
of 278,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,453,375 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,731 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them