Klátyik Szandra, Simon Gergely, Takács Eszter, Oláh Marianna, Zaller Johann G, Antoniou Michael N, Benbrook Charles, Mesnage Robin, Székács András
Agro-Environmental Research Centre, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter K. u. 1, 2100, Gödöllő, Hungary.
Pesticide Action Network Europe, Rue de La Pacification 67, 1000, Brussels, Belgium.
Arch Toxicol. 2025 May 26. doi: 10.1007/s00204-025-04076-2.
Over the last decade and worldwide, an enormous investment in research and data collection has been made in the hope of better understanding the possible ecological and toxicological impacts triggered by glyphosate (GLY). This broad-spectrum, systemic herbicide became the most heavily applied pesticide ever in the 2000s. It is sprayed in many different ways in both agricultural and non-agricultural settings, resulting in multiple routes of exposure to organisms up and down the tree of life. Yet, relatively little is known about the environmental fate of GLY-based herbicide (GBH) formulations, and even less on how GBH co-formulants alter the absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity of GLY. The environmental fate of GLY depends on several abiotic and biotic factors. As a result of heavy annual GBH use over several decades, GLY residues are ubiquitous, and sometimes adversely affect non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms. GLY has become a frequent contaminant in drinking water and food chains. Human exposures have been associated with numerous adverse health outcomes including carcinogenicity, metabolic syndrome, and reproductive and endocrine-system effects. Nonetheless, the existence and magnitude of GLY-induced effects on human health remain in dispute, especially in the case of heavily exposed applicators. A wide range of biochemical/physiological modes of action have been elucidated. Various GBH co-formulants have long been considered as inert ingredients relative to herbicidal activity but clearly contribute to GLY-induced hazards and risk gradients. In light of already-identified toxicological and ecosystem impacts, the intensive research focuses on GLY and GBHs should continue, coupled in the interim with commonsense, low-cost changes in use patterns and label requirements crafted to slow the spread of GLY-resistant weeds and reduce applicator and general-population exposures.
在过去十年间,全球范围内对研究和数据收集投入了巨额资金,以期更好地了解草甘膦(GLY)可能引发的生态和毒理学影响。这种广谱性、内吸性除草剂在21世纪成为使用最为广泛的农药。它在农业和非农业环境中有多种喷洒方式,导致生物在生命之树上的各个层级都有多种接触途径。然而,对于基于草甘膦的除草剂(GBH)制剂的环境归宿,人们了解相对较少,对于GBH的辅助剂如何改变草甘膦的吸收、分布、代谢、排泄和毒性,了解更少。草甘膦的环境归宿取决于多种非生物和生物因素。由于几十年来GBH的大量年使用量,草甘膦残留无处不在,有时会对非靶标陆生和水生生物产生不利影响。草甘膦已成为饮用水和食物链中的常见污染物。人体接触草甘膦与许多不良健康后果相关,包括致癌性、代谢综合征以及对生殖和内分泌系统的影响。尽管如此,草甘膦对人类健康影响的存在及其程度仍存在争议,尤其是在大量接触的施药人员中。人们已经阐明了多种生化/生理作用模式。长期以来,各种GBH辅助剂相对于除草活性被视为惰性成分,但显然它们会导致草甘膦引发的危害和风险梯度。鉴于已经确定的毒理学和生态系统影响,对草甘膦和GBHs的深入研究应继续进行,与此同时,临时采取一些常识性、低成本的使用模式和标签要求的改变,以减缓抗草甘膦杂草的传播,并减少施药人员和普通人群的接触。