Pesticide formulations contain declared active ingredients and co-formulants presented as inert and confidential compounds. We tested the endocrine disruption of co-formulants in six glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH), the most used pesticides worldwide. All co-formulants and formulations were comparably cytotoxic well below the agricultural dilution of 1% (18–2000 times for co-formulants, 8–141 times for formulations), and not the declared active ingredient glyphosate (G) alone. The endocrine-disrupting effects of all these compounds were measured on aromatase activity, a key enzyme in the balance of sex hormones, below the toxicity threshold. Aromatase activity was decreased both by the co-formulants alone (polyethoxylated tallow amine—POEA and alkyl polyglucoside—APG) and by the formulations, from concentrations 800 times lower than the agricultural dilutions; while G exerted an effect only at 1/3 of the agricultural dilution. It was demonstrated for the first time that endocrine disruption by GBH could not only be due to the declared active ingredient but also to co-formulants. These results could explain numerous in vivo results with GBHs not seen with G alone; moreover, they challenge the relevance of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value for GBHs exposures, currently calculated from toxicity tests of the declared active ingredient alone.

Over 2000 surface, ground and raw drinking water samples have been analyzed in the frame of different monitoring projects in Hungary and watercourses in neighboring countries between 1990 and 2015. Effects of pesticide contamination on ecological farming and drinking water supply have been assessed. Main water pollutant ingredients of agricultural origin in Hungary are herbicides related to maize production. After EU pesticide re‐registration, diazinon, atrazine, and trifluralin gradually disappeared as contaminants. High levels of water soluble pollutants (e.g., acetochlor) in surface water result in temporarily enhanced levels in raw drinking water as well. Extreme levels observed for herbicide residues were of agrochemical industrial origin.

A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired. For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a hotly controversial topic that has been much debated around the world. Published results are contradictory, in part due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences in the analysis and interpretation of data. Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of policymakers from over 160 countries - in the UN¿s Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius - to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for `safe¿. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests.

One of the most controversial societal issues today, regarding pesticide registration in the European Union (EU) may be the case surrounding re-registration of the active herbicide ingredient glyphosate. Shortly before the announcement of the conflicting views regarding the carcinogenicity status of this regulated agrochemical by EU Agencies, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on the one hand, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on the other hand, the Cancer Assessment Review Committee of the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) also published re-evaluations. The US EPA assessment classified glyphosate into Group E, “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Similar positions were reached by EFSA and ECHA, assessing glyphosate as “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans” and “not classified as a carcinogen,” respectively. A strongly opposing evaluation has previously been reached by IARC by classifying glyphosate into Group 2A, “probably carcinogenic to humans.” IARC identified potential cancer hazards in this case, but did not estimate the level of risk it may present, which was taken into consideration by opposing agencies. Multiple effects of glyphosate have been reported, of which carcinogenic effects are only one component. Formulated glyphosate products—especially with polyethoxylated tallowamine and related compounds—have been shown to cause stronger cytotoxic or endocrine disrupting effects than the active ingredient glyphosate alone. Questions related to hazards and corresponding risks identified in relation to this active ingredient and its formulated herbicide preparations divide scientific circles and official health and environmental authorities and organizations, and touch upon fundamental aspects of risk assessment and product regulation. The decision has to consider both hazard-based (IARC) and risk-based analysis (EFSA); the former may not be suitable to calculate practical significances, and the latter being challenged if exposure estimations are uncertain in light of new data on residue levels. The results of current analytical surveys on surface water are particularly worrisome. In turn, the precautionary principle appears to be the optimal approach in this case for regulation in the EU.

Glyphosate (GLY), the most widely used herbicide active ingredient (AI) in the world, is frequently detected in aquatic environments where it can affect non-target organisms. Globally, more than 2000 commercial GLY-based herbicides (GBHs) are used to control weeds. Non-target organisms are exposed to complex pesticide formulations under real environmental conditions, but the co-formulants contained in GBHs are classified as so-called inert and inactive ingredients in terms of their biological effects. The main objective of this comprehensive review is to compile the results of aquatic ecotoxicological studies on the side-effects of GLY, GBHs, and their formulating agents. Based on the results demonstrated for a variety of plant and animal aquatic organisms, oxidative stress appears to be a major trigger for these adverse effects, affecting the integrity of DNA and other biochemical functions. Furthermore, there is evidence of impairment of various physiological and behavioral functions. Adverse effects of GLY and GBHs have been observed even at very low concentrations. There are also differences in the sensitivity of the aquatic organisms tested, even with similar lifestyles, habitats or identical taxa. The studies typically investigate the short-term effects of a single exposure to GLY/GBH on a single species, whilst in reality multiple applications of GBHs together with other pesticides are common during a cropping cycle. Moreover, the interactions between GLY/GBHs and other aquatic contaminants are rarely studied. Higher toxicity of GBHs compared to GLY alone has often been observed, demonstrating that co-formulants can be highly toxic on their own and markedly increase the toxicity of the GBH formulation. The possible impurities in GBHs, such as heavy metals, can cause additional problems for the environment and food safety. The widespread and massive use of GBHs leads to increased exposure and environmental hazards. In addition, the need for a revision of the risk assessment system is emphasized. According to the results of aquatic ecotoxicological studies, the current use and pollution of the aquatic environment by GLY/GBHs is highly problematic and cannot be considered environmentally sustainable. It is, therefore, necessary to at least tighten the permitted forms of use.