Glyphosate Based Herbicides Causing DNA Damage
A new paper from the US National Institutes of Health reports indications of DNA damage among men applying Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides.
DNA damage is concerning because it can lead to cancer.
A commentary on the new paper published in the same issue of the journal, titled “Important new evidence for glyphosate hazard assessment”, calls it “a critical step forward in filling knowledge gaps of glyphosate carcinogenicity in humans”.
The study’s authors, Vicky C. Chang et al, were inspired to conduct their study because although mechanistic studies in human cells and animals support the genotoxic effects of glyphosate, “evidence in human populations is scarce“.
They analysed the blood, urine and mouth cells of licensed pesticide applicators in Iowa and North Carolina. They found links between lifetime occupational use and a marker of DNA damage known as mosaic loss of chromosome Y (mLOY).
mLOY is a chromosomal alteration that is commonly detected in the blood cells of adult men, especially ageing men. It has been associated with blood cancers such as lymphoma, myeloma, and leukemia, as well as with Alzheimer’s disease.
Results from the study suggest that greater lifetime glyphosate use was associated with higher prevalence of mLOY affecting at least 10 percent of cells. Associations were strongest among applicators aged 70 years or over, those who were never smokers, and those who were not obese.
Particularly compelling is that the authors observed a dose-response relationship, with higher odds of mLOY as total lifetime days of glyphosate use increased.
The authors state that their findings on mLOY provide new insights into the biological mechanisms through which glyphosate may contribute to genomic instability, which is another key characteristic of carcinogens, beyond the mechanisms of direct DNA damage (genotoxicity) and oxidative stress (an imbalance in the body that can damage organs and result in cancer).
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen based on “strong” evidence that it causes genotoxicity and oxidative stress.
As the commentary on the new paper says, “This work provides important mechanistic support for genotoxicity of glyphosate in an observational, population-based context.”
The new study:
Chang VC et al (2023). Glyphosate Use and Mosaic Loss of Chromosome Y among Male Farmers in the Agricultural Health Study. Environmental Health Perspectives 131(12). CID: 127006. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12834
See more here gmwatch.org
Header image: Sprout San Francisco
Some bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
So many things causing DNA damage, but that’s the plan.
Reply
Eduardo Ferreyra
| #
The biggest problem with glyphosate is not its toxicity but the anti-glyphosate campaign that was born within the IARC itself with the report of technician Christopher Portier, an IARC employee. Portier was the special external advisor to the IARC Working Group that prepared the infamous “glyphosate is probably carcinogenic” statement. This exhibit will highlight the following information:
• During the same week that IARC published its opinion on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, Portier signed a lucrative contract to be a litigation consultant to two law firms preparing to sue Monsanto on behalf of victims of cancer caused by glyphosate.
• This contract compensated Portier with no less than $160,000 (through June 2017) for initial preparatory work as a legal consultant (plus travel expenses).
• This contract contained a confidentiality clause restricting Portier from transparently declaring this employment to others with whom he has contacts. Furthermore, Portier stated that he has not been paid a cent for the work he did on glyphosate.
• It was made clear in the emails provided in the deposition that Portier’s role in the “ban glyphosate” movement has been crucial. He promised in an email to the IARC that he would protect his reputation, the monograph’s conclusions and that he would handle the BfR and EFSA’s rejections of the IARC’s conclusions.
• Portier admitted in the deposition that prior to the IARC meetings on glyphosate, where he served as the sole outside EXPERT ADVISOR, he had NEVER worked with, nor had experience with, glyphosate.
Christopher Portier chaired the IARC committee that in 2014 proposed glyphosate as a substance to be studied by the monograph working group, to which Portier was invited as the sole technical specialist. It is alarming when you find that Portier is attached to the IARC panel, and that violates scientific ethics and a big conflict of interest given his affiliation with the Environmental Defense Fund. It is documented that for years the IARC, and Portier in particular, were acting as zealot activists to promote an anti-glyphosate, anti-Monsanto agenda.
Reply
MattH
| #
IARC stands for International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the WHO.
Their home page has a search function so I searched;
vitamin D-cancer
Result. Nothing found.
Reply