Who to believe? In its collective expert appraisal “Pesticides and effects on health”, presented on Wednesday June 30, the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm) takes the issue seriously. The experts appointed by the institute thus devoted entire sections of their report to exploring the controversies that have crossed the scientific world and society, in particular on the dangerousness of glyphosate and of a family of fungicides, SDHIs (for inhibitors of succinate dehydrogenase).
In these two cases, divergent interpretations of the data have fueled heated controversy in recent years between regulatory agencies (responsible for evaluating pesticides before they are placed on the market) and groups of researchers or scientific institutions. “Several works in social sciences underline the risk of an increasing separation between ‘regulatory’ toxicology (…) and academic research in toxicology ”, thus notes the summary of Inserm’s expert report. In other words, products deemed safe by health authorities may be considered far too risky by the scientific community.
Opposite ratings
The most emblematic example is that of glyphosate, classified as a “probable carcinogen” in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), but deemed non-carcinogenic by most regulatory agencies around the world. The IARC ensures that the evidence for the genotoxicity of glyphosate is “Strong”, while the same glyphosate is considered non-genotoxic by the agencies and is not considered to be an endocrine disruptor.
Inserm’s collective expertise leans towards IARC evaluation. “Numerous studies show genotoxic damage (DNA breaks or changes in its structure), they observe of the famous herbicide. This damage, if not repaired without error by the cells, can lead to the appearance of mutations and thus trigger a process of carcinogenesis. “ The presumption of the link between occupational exposure to glyphosate and the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is considered ” average “ by Inserm experts.
The latter are also laying a new stone in the garden of regulatory agencies: “Experimental studies suggest deleterious effects linked to a mechanism of endocrine disruption, mitochondrial toxicity (mitotoxicity associated with behavioral disturbances in models such as zebrafish), activation of estrogenic pathways without binding to estradiol receptors or impaired steroidogenesis. “ Characteristics which raise suspicion of endocrine disrupting properties.
You have 27.43% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.