{"title":"草甘膦和非霍奇金淋巴瘤的流行病学研究:一项考虑暴露频率、全身剂量和研究质量的综述","authors":"John Acquavella","doi":"10.1016/j.gloepi.2023.100101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>I reviewed the epidemiologic literature for glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in the context of the frequency of exposure in each epidemiologic study, systemic dose from biomonitoring studies of applicators, and aspects of study quality. Nine studies were identified, 7 case control and 2 cohort, by a literature search and a review of reference lists from published studies and recent regulatory evaluations. All but one study involved exposure scenarios that were so infrequent that they are not credible for cancer causation. Most studies failed to address potential confounding from other pesticides. Only one study – the US Agricultural Health Study (AHS) – included individuals with relatively frequent exposure to glyphosate and involved comprehensive statistical analyses to address potential confounding by personal factors and other pesticide exposures. The AHS did not find an association between glyphosate and NHL, even among the most frequently exposed participants (≥ 109 days of use) (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.60, 1.06). These findings are consistent with observations that glyphosate systemic doses from agricultural applications are many orders of magnitude less than daily lifetime doses considered by regulatory agencies to impart no excess risk of deleterious health effects, even for sensitive subpopulations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36311,"journal":{"name":"Global Epidemiology","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3f/2f/main.PMC10445963.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: A review with consideration of exposure frequency, systemic dose, and study quality\",\"authors\":\"John Acquavella\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gloepi.2023.100101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>I reviewed the epidemiologic literature for glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in the context of the frequency of exposure in each epidemiologic study, systemic dose from biomonitoring studies of applicators, and aspects of study quality. Nine studies were identified, 7 case control and 2 cohort, by a literature search and a review of reference lists from published studies and recent regulatory evaluations. All but one study involved exposure scenarios that were so infrequent that they are not credible for cancer causation. Most studies failed to address potential confounding from other pesticides. Only one study – the US Agricultural Health Study (AHS) – included individuals with relatively frequent exposure to glyphosate and involved comprehensive statistical analyses to address potential confounding by personal factors and other pesticide exposures. The AHS did not find an association between glyphosate and NHL, even among the most frequently exposed participants (≥ 109 days of use) (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.60, 1.06). These findings are consistent with observations that glyphosate systemic doses from agricultural applications are many orders of magnitude less than daily lifetime doses considered by regulatory agencies to impart no excess risk of deleterious health effects, even for sensitive subpopulations.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36311,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3f/2f/main.PMC10445963.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113323000044\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113323000044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: A review with consideration of exposure frequency, systemic dose, and study quality
I reviewed the epidemiologic literature for glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in the context of the frequency of exposure in each epidemiologic study, systemic dose from biomonitoring studies of applicators, and aspects of study quality. Nine studies were identified, 7 case control and 2 cohort, by a literature search and a review of reference lists from published studies and recent regulatory evaluations. All but one study involved exposure scenarios that were so infrequent that they are not credible for cancer causation. Most studies failed to address potential confounding from other pesticides. Only one study – the US Agricultural Health Study (AHS) – included individuals with relatively frequent exposure to glyphosate and involved comprehensive statistical analyses to address potential confounding by personal factors and other pesticide exposures. The AHS did not find an association between glyphosate and NHL, even among the most frequently exposed participants (≥ 109 days of use) (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.60, 1.06). These findings are consistent with observations that glyphosate systemic doses from agricultural applications are many orders of magnitude less than daily lifetime doses considered by regulatory agencies to impart no excess risk of deleterious health effects, even for sensitive subpopulations.