Center for Health Sciences, Exponent, Inc., 149 Commonwealth Dr, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA.
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2023 Jan;96(1):1-26. doi: 10.1007/s00420-022-01878-0. Epub 2022 May 23.
Human health risk assessments of glyphosate have focused on animal toxicology data for determining neurotoxic potential. Human epidemiological studies have not yet been systematically reviewed for glyphosate neurotoxicity hazard identification. The objective of this systematic literature review was to summarize the available epidemiology of glyphosate exposure and neurological outcomes in humans.
As of December 2021, 25 eligible epidemiological studies of glyphosate exposure and neurological endpoints were identified and assessed for five quality dimensions using guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Studies that assessed personal use of glyphosate were prioritized, whereas those assessing indirect exposure (other than personal use) were rated as low quality, since biomonitoring data indicate that indirect metrics of glyphosate exposure almost always equate to non-detectable glyphosate doses.
Overall, the scientific evidence on glyphosate and neurotoxicity in humans is sparse and methodologically limited, based on nine included epidemiological studies of neurodegenerative outcomes (two high quality), five studies of neurobehavioral outcomes (two high quality), six studies of neurodevelopmental outcomes (none high quality), and five studies of other and mixed neurological outcomes (one high quality). The five high-quality studies showed no association between glyphosate use and risk of depression, Parkinson disease, or peripheral nerve conduction velocity. Results were mixed among the eight moderate-quality studies, which did not demonstrate consistent associations with any neurological endpoints or categories. Low-quality studies were considered uninformative about possible neurotoxic effects due primarily to questionable assessments of indirect exposure.
No association has been demonstrated between glyphosate and any neurological outcomes in humans. To move the state of science forward, epidemiological studies should focus on scenarios involving direct and frequent use of glyphosate while collecting information on validated health outcomes, concomitant agricultural exposures, and relevant personal characteristics.
glyphosate 的人体健康风险评估主要集中在动物毒理学数据上，以确定其神经毒性潜力。目前尚未对 glyphosate 的神经毒性危害进行系统的人类流行病学研究。本系统文献综述的目的是总结现有关于 glyphosate 暴露与人类神经学结果的流行病学资料。
截至 2021 年 12 月，共确定了 25 项符合条件的 glyphosate 暴露与神经学终点的流行病学研究，并根据美国环境保护署的指导，对这五项质量维度进行了评估。优先评估个人使用 glyphosate 的研究，而那些评估间接暴露（除个人使用外）的研究被评为低质量，因为生物监测数据表明，间接测量 glyphosate 暴露几乎总是等同于无法检测到的 glyphosate 剂量。
总体而言，基于九项神经退行性疾病结局的流行病学研究（两项高质量）、五项神经行为结局研究（两项高质量）、六项神经发育结局研究（均为低质量）和五项其他混合神经学结局研究（一项高质量），关于 glyphosate 与人类神经毒性的科学证据非常有限。五项高质量研究表明，glyphosate 使用与抑郁、帕金森病或周围神经传导速度风险之间没有关联。八项中等质量研究的结果不一，没有一致表明与任何神经学终点或类别有联系。由于间接暴露的评估存在疑问，低质量研究被认为对可能的神经毒性效应没有提供信息。
在人类中，glyphosate 与任何神经学结果之间都没有关联。为了推动科学的发展，流行病学研究应集中在直接和频繁使用 glyphosate 的情况下进行，同时收集关于验证的健康结果、伴随的农业暴露和相关个人特征的信息。
