Pyrethroids are commonly used around the home and in agricultural production to control insects. Human contact to one or more pyrethroid insecticides is likely. Numerous epidemiology studies have evaluated the association between health outcomes in humans and pyrethroid exposure. The purpose of this review was to identify and evaluate the quality of pyrethroid-related epidemiology studies that addressed chronic health effects, and compare findings with animal toxicology studies. We evaluated the quality of 61 studies published between 2000 and 2016 by using elements of outcome, exposure metric, exposure level, and study design. None of the 61 publications demonstrated strong quality for all elements. A few of the outcome measures were strong, particularly those relying upon medical diagnoses. Most of the pyrethroid epidemiology studies used a poor exposure metric, relying upon a single sample of pyrethroid urinary metabolites, which is subject to misclassification of past exposures. In addition, many studies were a cross-sectional design, preventing an evaluation of the temporality of the exposure-disease association. Furthermore, none of the effects observed in the epidemiological literature was concordant with toxicological effects noted in extensive testing of pyrethroids in animals. In order to provide more robust data on potential health outcomes from low dose exposure to pyrethroid insecticides, future epidemiological studies should fully characterize an adverse outcome, include exposure validation components, and quantify exposure over time.

Purpose: The aim was to identify the scope of the epidemiology literature reviewed regarding the risk of cancer as related to occupational exposure to pesticides and to compare regulatory toxicity results where feasible. Methods: Review studies of breast, lung, prostate, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and colorectal cancer were identified from the published literature from 2010 to 2020 using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Epidemiology observations were first assessed and then compared against carcinogenicity profiles derived from regulatory toxicology studies. Results: Several active ingredients were associated with specific cancer but overall, there was neither strong nor consistent epidemiologic data supportive of a positive association between pesticide exposure in occupational settings and cancer. Authors noted common themes related to the heterogeneity of exposure, study design, control for confounders, and the challenge to collect these data reliably and validly with an adequate sample size. Toxicology studies in laboratory animals that assessed carcinogenic potential did not reveal cancer outcomes that were concordant with reported epidemiologic findings. Conclusions: Farming and pesticides represent diverse exposures that are difficult to quantify in epidemiologic studies. Going forward, investigators will need creative and novel approaches for exposure assessment. Integration of epidemiologic and toxicological studies with attention to biological plausibility, mode of toxicological action and relevance to humans will increase the ability to better assess associations between pesticides and cancer.

Environmental epidemiologic research provides invaluable information for understanding the relationship between environmental exposures and health outcomes. Chemical risk assessment, a foundation of public health decision-making, benefits from having information from various disciplines including epidemiology. While epidemiology and risk assessment have common goals of understanding and reducing human health impacts associated with exposure to environmental chemicals, each discipline utilizes different terminologies and skill sets. This contributes to the challenges faced when seeking to use human data in risk assessment. For over twenty years, scientists have recognized that dialogue between risk assessors and epidemiologists is crucial, although to date no specific path forward has been developed for this purpose. This need for communication motivated the organization of a workshop to explore the question “What do risk assessors need in order to be able to improve the value of epidemiologic research for use in decision-making?” This paper describes the outcome of the workshop, specifically a Matrix designed as a communication tool. The Matrix includes a description of key elements that when included in epidemiology design and/or reporting enhance the use of epidemiology results for a risk assessment. The Matrix is not intended to supplant best practices for environmental epidemiology or existing frameworks on integrating multidisciplinary data. Rather, the goal of the Matrix is to improve understanding and communication between the disciplines. Bridging the gap between epidemiology and risk assessment will enrich both disciplines and enhance public health decision-making.

The herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) has been commercially available since the 1940’s. Despite decades of data on 2,4-D in food, air, soil, and water, as well as in humans, the quality the quality of these data has not been comprehensively evaluated. Using selected elements of the Biomonitoring, Environmental Epidemiology, and Short-lived Chemicals (BEES-C) instrument (temporal variability, avoidance of sample contamination, analyte stability, and urinary methods of matrix adjustment), the quality of 156 publications of environmental- and biomonitoring-based 2,4-D data was examined. Few publications documented steps were taken to avoid sample contamination. Similarly, most studies did not demonstrate the stability of the analyte from sample collection to analysis. Less than half of the biomonitoring publications reported both creatinine-adjusted and unadjusted urine concentrations. The scope and detail of data needed to assess temporal variability and sources of 2,4-D varied widely across the reviewed studies. Exposures to short-lived chemicals such as 2,4-D are impacted by numerous and changing external factors including application practices and formulations. At a minimum, greater transparency in reporting of quality control measures is needed. Perhaps the greatest challenge for the exposure community is the ability to reach consensus on how to address problems specific to short-lived chemical exposures in observational epidemiology investigations. More extensive conversations are needed to advance our understanding of human exposures and enable interpretation of these data to catch up to analytical capabilities. The problems defined in this review remain exquisitely difficult to address for chemicals like 2,4-D, with short and variable environmental and physiological half-lives and with exposures impacted by numerous and changing external factors.

We conducted a literature review of urinary 2,4-D in populations not associated with a herbicide application. Of the 33 studies identified, the median/mean concentrations were similar for children, adults, and pregnant women regardless of geography. Individuals with highest concentrations may have had opportunities to directly contact 2,4-D outside of an application. Most studies were conducted in populations in North America and did not examine potential sources of 2,4-D, or what factors might influence higher or lower urinary 2,4-D concentrations. In the future, prioritizing the examination of 2,4-D biomonitoring in other regions and collecting information on sources and factors influencing exposures would better our understanding of 2,4-D exposures globally. In all the studies reviewed the concentrations of urinary 2,4-D observed were orders of magnitude below the US regulatory endpoints, suggesting that people are not being exposed to 2,4-D at levels high enough to result in adverse health effects.