HHRA Research Partners Publish Groundbreaking Paper with New Insights on Glyphosate’s Impact to the Microbiome

HHRA research partners Dr. Michael Antoniou and Robin Mesnage at King’s College London have over the last 6 years become world’s leaders in researching the toxicity of glyphosate herbicides. Dr. Antoniou and an international team of collaborators now report a new study on this topic with important implications for public health.

Paul Hartnett, HHRA’s Executive Director
Paul Hartnett has served as HHRA’s CFO since our founding . Paul has now joined the board as Treasurer and Executive Director.
Heartland Study Enrolls 1,000th Mother-Infant Pair
July 19, 2024 – In June of this year, the Heartland Study achieved a major milestone, enrolling its 1,000th mother-infant pair. Enrollment is now at 50% of goal. The objective of the Study is to help fill major gaps in our understanding of the impacts of herbicides on maternal and infant health. Currently in Phase 1, the Study is focused on evaluating associations between herbicide concentrations in body fluids and tissue samples from pregnant women and infants, and pregnancy/childbirth outcomes. Phase 2 is designed to evaluate potential associations between herbicide biomarkers and early childhood neurological development. Much appreciation for the mothers enrolled, and the entire Heartland Study Team including scientists, support staff and clinicians for this tremendous achievement, and for our funders to making this work possible. Read more about the study including peer-reviewed studies published in Chemosphere and Agrichemicals at our publications page. The investment required to conduct this study exceeds $1 million each year. You can support this important work by making a donation here.
HHRA’s 2023 Annual Report
Last year was a year of progress for the HHRA and the Heartland Study. Read about it here!
Supporting HHRA and the Heartland Study Through Donor-Advised Funds
An increasingly popular way to manage charitable giving is by donating cash, securities, or other assets into a donor-advised fund (DAF), from which you will receive an immediate tax deduction. From this, donors can recommend grants to IRS-qualified nonprofit organizations. DAFs are one of the easiest and most tax-advantageous ways to “grow” resources earmarked for future charitable giving. The HHRA is an IRS-qualified organization, and we encourage you to use your DAF, if you have one, to support our mission. You can find three simple steps to supporting our research via your DAF here. Simple and convenient, your DAF can have genuine effects on the health of mothers, babies, and future generations. Thank you!
HHRA-funded Dicamba study published in “agrochemicals”
Dicamba and 2,4-D in the Urine of Pregnant Women in the Midwest: Comparison of Two Cohorts (2010–2012 vs. 2020–2022) Abstract Currently, there are no known human biomonitoring studies that concurrently examine biomarkers of dicamba and 2,4-D. We sought to compare biomarkers of exposure to herbicides in pregnant women residing in the US Midwest before and after the adoption of dicamba-tolerant soybean technology using urine specimens obtained in 2010–2012 from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-be (N = 61) and in 2020–2022 from the Heartland Study (N = 91). Specific gravity-standardized concentration levels for each analyte were compared between the cohorts, assuming data are lognormal and specifying values below the LOD as left-censored. The proportion of pregnant individuals with dicamba detected above the LOD significantly increased from 28% (95% CI: 16%, 40%) in 2010–2012 to 70% (95% CI: 60%, 79%) in 2020–2022, and dicamba concentrations also significantly increased from 0.066 μg/L (95% CI: 0.042, 0.104) to 0.271 μg/L (95% CI: 0.205, 0.358). All pregnant individuals from both cohorts had 2,4-D detected. Though 2,4-D concentration levels increased, the difference was not significant (p-value = 0.226). Reliance on herbicides has drastically increased in the last ten years in the United States, and the results obtained in this study highlight the need to track exposure and impacts on adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Keywords: pesticide; exposure; 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid; human biomonitoring You can read the paper here.

This new study — the first to compare the toxicity of glyphosate to the widely used European Union (EU) Roundup formulation MON 52276 at doses that regulators claim to be safe — was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives on January 27, 2021. MON 52276 is the EU “representative” Roundup formulation upon which risk assessments are based. See the full paper in our bibliography.

The study, conducted by an international team of scientists based in London, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, and led by Dr. Michael Antoniou of King’s College London, is the first to describe a mechanism by which glyphosate and Roundup affect the function of the gut microbiome (bacterial populations and biochemical function) in rats, which is the standard surrogate system which regulators rely upon for assessing the human health risks of chemicals. The study found that glyphosate disrupts the rat gut microbiome by the same mechanism by which it acts as an herbicide: inhibition of the shikimate biochemical pathway (see this FAQ for why this matters to public health).

Moreover, by measuring molecular composition profiles in both blood and the gut, the new study also shows that Roundup MON 52276 (as Roundup BioFlow) is more disruptive than glyphosate alone. Rats consuming this Roundup formulation developed signs of oxidative (reactive oxygen) stress, which was not so evident with solely glyphosate. This is a concern as oxidative stress can not only cause damage to cells and organs, but also to DNA, which can lead to serious disease such as cancer.

“Our results highlight the importance of investigating the long-term toxicity, not just of glyphosate alone, as regulators worldwide currently require, but also the chemical mixtures that make up commercial Roundup formulations, to which people and the environment are exposed,” says lead author Michael Antoniou. “In addition, this study demonstrates the need for regulators to urgently adopt state-of-the-art molecular composition profiling methods (collectively called “omics” analyses) as part of their risk assessment procedures in order to assess more accurately the toxicity of chemical pollutants and thus better protect public health. Furthermore, the molecular composition profiles found in this study can serve as signatures to measure the effects of glyphosate and Roundup in human populations.”

For a closer look at the implications of the study, see guest blogs by co-author Dr. Mesnage and pediatrician and HHRA Science Advisory Board member Dr. Michelle Perro. For research updates, sign up here.

Source:

Mesnage, R, Teixeira, M, Mandrioli, D., Falcioni, L., Ducarmon, QR, Zwittink, RD, Mazzacuva, F, Caldwell, A, Halket, J, Amiel, C., Panoff, J. , Belpoggi, F., & Antoniou, MN; “Use of shotgun metagenomics and metabolomics to evaluate the impact of glyphosate or Roundup MON 52276 on the gut microbiota and serum metabolome of Sprague-Dawley rats;” Environmental Health Perspectives, 2021 (in press); DOI: 10.1289/EHP6990.