Linkedin Facebook X-twitter Youtube Pinterest Envelope Viber

RoundupTM: Are we safe from its exposure?

February 6, 2022

 

All of us have likely seen the advertisements on television offering legal counsel for individuals who might have had exposure to the herbicide RoundupTM and have certain cancers. These ads are based on a court ruling in California, which was based in part on publications that purport to show links between cancers and hormone-related effects. Others have opined that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not doing its job in protecting the US public from the dangers of glyphosate, the active ingredient of this herbicide. So natural questions for any of us to ask might be:

Are the EPA and big agricultural groups defending glyphosate because they need to maintain business as usual?

Should the public be concerned about cancer and hormone effects from RoundupTM?

The short answer to either question is an emphatic NO. EPA and health agencies around the world have reviewed hundreds of experimental animal and human studies on glyphosate and come to a near unanimous conclusion:

RoundupTM does not cause cancer and, when used according to directions, is safe at the occasional, tiny levels found in our food. 

For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a 2016 report that found no pesticide residue levels high enough to pose any human health risks, even for infants. Specifically, the USDA tested for pesticides in 10,619 samples of food. Pesticide residue levels were found to be at or below tolerance levels set by the EPA in all but 0.4% of the samples. Importantly, tolerances would have to be exceeded routinely for nearly a lifetime for any possible health effects in the most sensitive members of our public—a very remote possibility.

The one exception to the otherwise unanimous conclusion on the safety of RoundupTM by US and other health organizations was that drawn by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in France. Importantly, judgments by this group are not peer reviewed. Other items included in IARC classifications are eating red meat, exposure to emissions from high frying temperatures, and working as a hair-dresser or barber.

So why is IARC’s judgment different than all other organizations? 

IARC classifications are based primarily on a chemical’s “hazard” potential, and do not generally consider the dose at which effect can occur. This IARC approach differs greatly from the “real world” conclusions drawn by multiple international regulatory agencies that RoundupTM exposure at current levels does not cause cancer in humans. Moreover, the IARC approach ignores one of the key principles of toxicology—that all chemicals are toxic at some dose, yes, even water. So making statements of health risk without accounting for the dose causing the health effect is not good toxicology, nor good medicine.

 

For additional reading on the supposed risks from RoundupTM and for links to stories about its well-known benefits, especially to the farmers in our area and around the world, please see well-balanced essays here and here.

WEEL OEL

Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) are designed to safeguard the health of healthy workers during their careers. These limits are based on the assumption of repeated daily exposure throughout a working lifetime, typically averaged over an 8-hour workday. Their purpose is to prevent both immediate (acute) and long-term (chronic) health issues arising from workplace exposures. It’s important to note that OELs are not intended for the general public, which includes vulnerable groups like infants, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health conditions.

Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels (WEELs) are health-based guidelines for chemical hazards in the workplace. These values represent air concentrations believed to protect the majority of workers from negative health effects resulting from occupational chemical exposure.

The WEEL Process
Click Here

The development of new or revision of existing WEELs is typically assigned to voluntarily designated subcommittees. A subcommittee usually comprises 3 – 4 members from the WEEL Committee. New WEELs are developed using the OARS-WEEL administrative standard operating procedure (SOP), while existing WEELs are usually revised every 10 years, unless the availability of significant new data which may impact the existing WEEL value compels the committee to make a revision sooner. The OARS-WEEL SOP contains procedures and guidelines governing conflicts of interest, draft document preparation, literature searches, draft document review, balloting process, post-ballot WEEL documentation quality assurance scientific review, and publication.

Once a subcommittee has prepared a draft WEEL document, a review of the draft is scheduled for the next available Committee meeting. The WEEL Committee members are expected to have reviewed all such drafts prior to the meeting. If no major changes are necessary to a draft, the attending Committee membership may, by a simple majority, approve the WEEL for balloting. Alternatively, the Committee may direct the subcommittee to revise the WEEL and present it for further discussion at a future meeting. If a ballot is not approved by a two-thirds majority of non-abstaining Committee members, it is discussed at the next Committee meeting to determine the appropriate course of action. Once the WEEL is approved by a two-thirds majority of non-abstaining Committee members, copies of ballot comments are forwarded to the designated subcommittee and all substantive comments must be addressed in the final draft. If resolution of a substantive comment results in a change to the WEEL value or a change in the basis for the value, the draft must be re-balloted.

Once all comments have been addressed on a successfully balloted draft, document formatting and editorial review are performed by TERA, before the draft WEEL document is made available for public comment (usually for a period of 30 days but may be extended if the need arises). After the public comment period has elapsed, comments are addressed by the subcommittee responsible for that specific draft, after which the WEEL documentation is submitted to Toxicology and Industrial Health (TIH), a peer-reviewed medical journal that covers research in the fields of occupational health and toxicology, for publication. A thorough review of the galley proof by the scientific content quality coordinator at TERA, and proofreaders and editors at TIH is the penultimate step before eventual publication of the WEEL documentation.

The WEEL Committee

The OARS-WEEL Committee is composed of volunteer experts specializing in the scientific determination of occupational exposure levels. This committee actively seeks a balanced representation of professionals from toxicology and industrial hygiene, drawing upon a diverse range of experience from industry, government, academia, and consulting. Importantly, each member contributes to the Committee based on their individual expertise and not as an official representative of their respective employer, organization, or agency.