Evidence mapPaperPMID 34340709Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2021

Commentary: Novel strategies and new tools to curtail the health effects of pesticides.

Charles Benbrook, Melissa J Perry, Fiorella Belpoggi, Philip J Landrigan, Michelle Perro, Daniele Mandrioli, Michael N Antoniou, Paul Winchester, Robin Mesnage

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Charles BenbrookHeartland Health Research Alliance, 10526 SE Vashon Vista Drive, Port Orchard, WA, 98367, USA. cbenbrook@hh-ra.org.ORCID 0000-0002-8071-0920
Melissa J PerryDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Fiorella BelpoggiRamazzini Institute, Bologna, Italy.
Philip J LandriganSchiller Institute for Integrated Science and Society, Boston College, Newton, MA, 02467, USA.
Michelle PerroGordon Medical Associates, San Rafael, CA, 94901, USA.
Daniele MandrioliRamazzini Institute, Bologna, Italy.
Michael N AntoniouGene Expression and Therapy Group, Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.
Paul WinchesterSchool of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Robin MesnageGene Expression and Therapy Group, Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.
Guy's Hospital · GBIstituto Ramazzini · ITBoston College · USGeorge Washington University · USHealth Research Alliance · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFlaws in the science supporting pesticide risk assessment and regulation stand in the way of progress in mitigating the human health impacts of pesticides. Critical problems include the scope of regulatory testing protocols, the near-total focus on pure active ingredients rather than formulated products, lack of publicly accessible information on co-formulants, excessive reliance on industry-supported studies coupled with reticence to incorporate published results in the risk assessment process, and failure to take advantage of new scientific opportunities and advances, e.g. biomonitoring and "omics" technologies. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Problems in pesticide risk assessment are identified and linked to study design, data, and methodological shortcomings. Steps and strategies are presented that have potential to deepen scientific knowledge of pesticide toxicity, exposures, and risks. We propose four solutions: (1) End near-sole reliance in regulatory decision-making on industry-supported studies by supporting and relying more heavily on independent science, especially for core toxicology studies. The cost of conducting core toxicology studies at labs not affiliated with or funded directly by pesticide registrants should be covered via fees paid by manufacturers to public agencies. (2) Regulators should place more weight on mechanistic data and low-dose studies within the range of contemporary exposures. (3) Regulators, public health agencies, and funders should increase the share of exposure-assessment resources that produce direct measures of concentrations in bodily fluids and tissues. Human biomonitoring is vital in order to quickly identify rising exposures among vulnerable populations including applicators, pregnant women, and children. (4) Scientific tools across disciplines can accelerate progress in risk assessments if integrated more effectively. New genetic and metabolomic markers of adverse health impacts and heritable epigenetic impacts are emerging and should be included more routinely in risk assessment to effectively prevent disease.

conclusionsPreventing adverse public health outcomes triggered or made worse by exposure to pesticides will require changes in policy and risk assessment procedures, more science free of industry influence, and innovative strategies that blend traditional methods with new tools and mechanistic insights.

Indexed as

Environmental ExposureGovernment RegulationAnimalsDecision MakingHumansPesticidesRisk AssessmentPesticides

Identifiers

PMID34340709
PMCPMC8330079
OpenAlexW3188538842

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.