Top Banner
November 27, 2015 Mr. Vytenis Andriukaitis Commissioner Health & Food Safety European Commission Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat 200 1049 Brussels Belgium Cc: (email only) Mr. Phil Hogan, European Commissioner for Agriculture and Human Development Dr. Ladislav Miko, Deputy Director-General, DG Health & Food Safety Dr. Bernhard Url, Executive Director, EFSA Dr. Giovanni La Via, Chair, ENVI Committee EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues Mr. Christian Schmidt, Minister of Food and Agriculture Dr. Helmut Tschiersky, President of the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) Professor Dr. Dr. Andreas Hensel, President, BFR Dr. Christopher Wild, Director, IARC Mr. Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator, USEPA Open letter: Review of the Carcinogenicity of Glyphosate by EFSA and BfR Dear Commissioner Andriukaitis, We are a group of independent academic and governmental scientists from around the world who have dedicated our professional lives to understanding the role of environmental hazards on cancer risks and human health. We have banded together and write to you at this time to express our deep concern over the recent European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) decision [1] that the widely used herbicide, glyphosate “is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.” We ask that you forward the letter to the representatives of all EU member states before the next meeting of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (December 10/11). The EFSA decision, based upon the Renewal Assessment Report [2] provided by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), runs counter to the finding earlier this year by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the highly respected cancer arm of the World Health Organization that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. This IARC classification is based on a comprehensive assessment of the peer-reviewed toxicologic and epidemiologic literature undertaken over a 12-month period by a Working Group of 17 independent expert scientists. The IARC review linked glyphosate to dose- related increases in malignant tumors at multiple anatomical sites in experimental animals and to an increased incidence of non- Hodgkin lymphoma in exposed humans.
22

96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

Jan 30, 2016

Download

Documents

Michèle Rivasi

lettre des 96 scientifiques ayant alerté le Commissaire en charge de la santé et de la sécurité alimentaire, Vytenis Andriukaitis, au sujet de l'évaluation de l'EFSA et du caractère scientifiquement contestable de la prétendue étude de l’Institut allemand d’évaluation des risques (BfR) concernant le glyphosate (substance active du Roundup de Monsanto, l’herbicide le plus vendu au monde ). Ce perturbateur endocrinien étant considéré depuis mars 2015 comme un « cancérogène probable » par l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

November27,2015Mr.VytenisAndriukaitisCommissionerHealth&FoodSafetyEuropeanCommissionRuedelaLoi/Wetstraat2001049BrusselsBelgiumCc:(emailonly)Mr.PhilHogan,EuropeanCommissionerforAgricultureandHumanDevelopmentDr.LadislavMiko,DeputyDirector-General,DGHealth&FoodSafetyDr.BernhardUrl,ExecutiveDirector,EFSADr.GiovanniLaVia,Chair,ENVICommitteeEFSAPanelonPlantProtectionProductsandtheirResiduesMr.ChristianSchmidt,MinisterofFoodandAgricultureDr.HelmutTschiersky,PresidentoftheFederalOfficeofConsumerProtectionandFoodSafety(BVL)ProfessorDr.Dr.AndreasHensel,President,BFRDr.ChristopherWild,Director,IARCMr.JimJones,AssistantAdministrator,USEPA

Openletter:ReviewoftheCarcinogenicityofGlyphosatebyEFSAandBfRDearCommissionerAndriukaitis,Weareagroupofindependentacademicandgovernmentalscientistsfromaroundtheworldwhohavededicatedourprofessionallivestounderstandingtheroleofenvironmentalhazardsoncancerrisksandhumanhealth.WehavebandedtogetherandwritetoyouatthistimetoexpressourdeepconcernovertherecentEuropeanFoodSafetyAgency(EFSA)decision[1]thatthewidelyusedherbicide,glyphosate“isunlikelytoposeacarcinogenichazardtohumans.”WeaskthatyouforwardthelettertotherepresentativesofallEUmemberstatesbeforethenextmeetingoftheStandingCommitteeonPlants,Animals,FoodandFeed(December10/11).TheEFSAdecision,basedupontheRenewalAssessmentReport[2]providedbytheGermanFederalInstituteforRiskAssessment(BfR),runscountertothefindingearlierthisyearbytheInternationalAgencyforResearchonCancer(IARC),thehighlyrespectedcancerarmoftheWorldHealthOrganizationthatglyphosateisaprobablehumancarcinogen.ThisIARCclassificationisbasedonacomprehensiveassessmentofthepeer-reviewedtoxicologicandepidemiologicliteratureundertakenovera12-monthperiodbyaWorkingGroupof17independentexpertscientists.TheIARCreviewlinkedglyphosatetodose-relatedincreasesinmalignanttumorsatmultipleanatomicalsitesinexperimentalanimalsandtoanincreasedincidenceofnon-Hodgkinlymphomainexposedhumans.

Page 2: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

2

WereviewedthesetwodifferingdecisionsonthehumancarcinogenicityofglyphosateandconcludethattheIARCWGdecisionisbyfarthemorecredible.TheIARCWGdecisionwasreachedrelyingonopenandtransparentproceduresbyindependentscientistswhocompletedthoroughconflict-of-intereststatementsandwerenotaffiliatedorfinanciallysupportedinanywaybythechemicalmanufacturingindustry.Itisfullyreferencedanddependsentirelyonreportspublishedintheopen,peer-reviewedbiomedicalliterature.ItispartofalongtraditionofdeeplyresearchedandhighlycrediblereportsonthecarcinogenicityofhundredsofchemicalsissuedoverthepastfourdecadesbyIARCandusedtodaybyinternationalagenciesandregulatorybodiesaroundtheworldasabasisforriskassessment,regulationandpublichealthpolicy.Incontrast,theBfRdecisionisnotcrediblebecauseitisnotsupportedbytheevidenceanditwasnotreachedinanopenandtransparentmanner.Accordingly,weurgeyouandtheEuropeanCommissiontodisregardtheflawedEFSAfindingonglyphosateinyourformulationofglyphosatehealthandenvironmentalpolicyforEuropeandtocallforatransparent,openandcrediblereviewofthescientificliterature.TheIARCWorkingGroupDecisionTheInternationalAgencyforResearchonCancer(IARC)MonographsProgrammeidentifiesenvironmentalcausesofcancerinhumansandhasevaluatedmorethan950agentssince1971.TheMonographsProgrammeevaluateschemicals,drugs,mixtures,occupationalexposures,lifestylesandpersonalhabits,physicalagentsandbiologicalagents.MonographsarewrittenbyanadhocWorkingGroup(WG)ofinternationalscientificexpertsoveraperiodofabout12monthsendinginaneight-daymeeting.TheWGevaluatesallofthepublically-availablescientificliteratureonagivensubstanceand,throughatransparentandrigorousprocess[3],reachesadecisiononthedegreetowhichthescientificevidencesupportsthatsubstance’sabilitytocauseornotcausecancer.ForMonograph112[4],17expertscientistsevaluatedthecarcinogenichazardfor4insecticidesandtheherbicideglyphosate[5].TheWGconcludedthatthedataforglyphosatemeetsthecriteriatobeidentifiedasaprobablehumancarcinogen.ThisfindingstirredgreatdebategloballyonthesafetyofglyphosateandledtoacarefulevaluationbynumerousagenciesoftheIARCmonographresultswhentheybecameavailableonJuly29,2015.TheBfRAddendumInOctober,2015,theEFSAreported[1]ontheirevaluationoftheRenewalAssessmentReport[2](RAR)forglyphosate.EFSAconcludedthat“glyphosateisunlikelytoposeacarcinogenichazardtohumansandtheevidencedoesnotsupportclassificationwithregardtoitscarcinogenicpotential”.Addendum1(theBfRAddendum)oftheRAR[2]discussesthescientificrationalefordifferingfromtheIARCWGconclusion.

Page 3: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

3

WehaveseriousconcernswithregardtothescientificevaluationintheBfRAddendumandfeelthatitismisleadingregardingthepotentialforadose-dependentcarcinogenichazardfromexposuretoglyphosate.SincetheBfRAddendumisthebasisfortheEuropeanFoodSafetyAgency(EFSA)conclusion[1],itiscriticalthatweexpresstheseconcerns.WearealsoconcernedaboutsomeoftheimplicationsoftheBfRAddendumregardingtheuseofhumandatainidentifyingcarcinogenichazards.OurcommentstotheBfRAddendumwillfocusonthehumanevidence,theanimallaboratoryevidenceandthemechanisticevidence.TheHumanEvidenceTheBfRagreeswiththeIARCWGthatthereis“limitedevidenceinhumansforthecarcinogenicityofglyphosate”.IntheIARCreviewprocess,limitedevidenceisassignedif“ApositiveassociationhasbeenobservedbetweenexposuretotheagentandcancerforwhichacausalinterpretationisconsideredbytheWorkingGrouptobecredible,butchance,biasorconfoundingcouldnotberuledoutwithreasonableconfidence.”[3]TheEFSAconclusionthat“glyphosateisunlikelytoposeacarcinogenichazardtohumans”isinappropriatewhenavailabledatasupportthedeterminationoflimitedevidenceofcarcinogenicityinhumans.TheBfRAddendum(p.ii)characterizestheIARCinterpretationas“precautionary”andthattheBfRtakesamore“cautiousview”ofthisclassificationbecause“noconsistentpositiveassociationwasobserved”,“themostpowerfulstudyshowednoeffect”andthatthestudies“couldnotdifferentiatebetweentheeffectsofglyphosateandtheco-formulants”.Wewillconsiderthefirsttwoargumentshereanddiscussthethirdargumentattheendofthisletter.ThefindingoflimitedevidencebytheIARCWGwasfornon-Hodgkinlymphoma(NHL).High-qualitycohortstudiesareparticularlyvaluablefordeterminingthecarcinogenicityofanagentbecausetheirdesigncanfacilitateexposureassessmentandreducethepotentialforcertainbiases.TheAgriculturalHealthStudy[6](AHS)wastheonlycohortstudyavailableprovidinginformationonthecarcinogenicityofglyphosate.ThestudyhadanullfindingforNHL(RR1.1,0.7-1.9)withnoapparentexposureresponseintheresults.TheBfRreferstothisstudyas“themostpowerfulstudy”andnotesthatitwas“negative”forNHL.Severalpotentiallimitationsofcase-controlstudiesarelaidoutinepidemiologytextbooks[7,8].TheBfRusestheselimitationstolabelallofthecase-controlstudiesasunreliable.Thisgivestheimpressionthatallofthestudiesareequalinqualityandunusableforanoverallevaluation.Thisisnotthecase:well-designedcase-controlstudiesarerecognizedasanefficientalternativetocohortstudies[8].AnIARCWGcarefullyevaluatesalloftheavailableepidemiologydata,lookingatthestudy’sstrengthsandweaknesses.Thisiskeytodeterminingwhetherthepositiveassociationsseenincase-controlstudiesareareliableindicationofanassociationorsimplyduetochanceormethodologicalflaws.Toprovideareasonableinterpretationofthefindings,anevaluationneedstoproperlyweightstudiesaccordingtotheirqualityratherthansimplycountthenumberofpositivesandnegatives.Themeta-analysescitedintheIARCMonograph[9]anddonebytheWG

Page 4: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

4

areexcellentexamplesofanobjectiveevaluationoftheexistenceofaconsistentpositiveassociation;bothmeta-analysesshowedastatisticallysignificantassociation.TheBfRprovidednojustificationfortheirevaluationof“noconsistentpositiveassociation”.Finally,despitethepotentialadvantagesofprospectivecohortstudiesversuscase-control,therearefewercasestoincludeinanalyses,dependingonthefollow-uptimeresultinginlimitedstatisticalpower.Therewereonly92NHLcasesincludedintheAHSunadjustedanalysisandfewerinadjustedanalyses,comparedto650inapooledcase-controlanalysisfromtheUnitedStates[10].ThefinalBfRconclusion(p.21)that“therewasnounequivocalevidenceforaclearandstrongassociationofNHLwithglyphosate”ismisleading.IARC,likemanyothergroups,usesthreelevelsofevidenceforhumandata[3].Sufficientevidencemeans“thatacausalrelationshiphasbeenestablished”betweenglyphosateandNHL.IARCdoesnotstatethattheevidenceissufficient.BfRconcludesthattheIARCdesignationoflimitedevidencewasnotapplicablebecausetherewasnot"anunequivocalandconsistentexcess".Infact,thatistheequivalenttothecriteriaforsufficientevidence,notlimitedevidence.ThusBfR’sconclusionisequivalenttoconcludingthereisnotsufficientevidence.Legitimatepublichealthconcernsarisewhen"causalityiscredible”,i.e.,whenthereislimitedevidence.BfR’slanguageismisleadingandnotinternationallyacceptableandthusfailstomeetECGuidelines.EvidencefromAnimalCarcinogenicityStudiesWefindtheconclusionsoftheBfRregardingtheanimalcarcinogenicitydatatobescientificallyunacceptable.TheIARCWGreviewfoundasignificantpositivetrendforrenaltumorsinCD-1mice[11],araretumoralthoughnocomparisonsofanyindividualexposuregrouptothecontrolgroupwerestatisticallysignificant.Asignificantpositivetrendmeansthatthepatternseeninthedatasupportsanincreasingriskwithincreasingdose.TheWGalsoidentifiedasignificantpositivetrendforhemangiosarcomainmaleCD-1mice[12],againwithnoindividualexposuregroupsignificantlydifferentfromcontrols.Finally,theWGalsosawasignificantincreaseintheincidenceofpancreaticisletcelladenomasintwostudiesinSprague-Dawleyrats[13-15].Inoneoftheseratstudies,thyroidglandadenomasinfemalesandliveradenomasinmaleswerealsoincreased.Thus,glyphosatewaspositiveformalignanttumorsinbothofthemousestudiesexaminedandforbenigntumorsintwoofthefiveratstudiesexamined.BytheIARCreviewcriteria[3],theevidenceinthemouseconstitutessufficientevidenceinanimalsandtheincreasedincidencesofbenigntumorsconstitutesadditionalsupport.TheBfRagreed,stating(p.43)"itisobviousthatIARCconcludeson“sufficientevidenceofcarcinogenicity”becausetheabovecriteriaforthisconclusionarefullymet.”TheIARCWGreachedthisconclusionusingdatathatwerepubliclyavailableinsufficientdetailforindependentscientificevaluation(arequirementoftheIARCPreamble[3]).BasedontheBfRAddendum,itseemstherewerethreeadditionalmousestudiesandtwoadditionalratstudiesthatwereunpublishedbutavailableforreview.BfRreportedontwoadditionalstudieswithapositivetrendforrenaltumors,oneinCD-1mice[16],andoneinSwiss-Webstermice[17].Oneofthesestudies[16]alsoreportedapositivetrendforhemangiosarcoma.Moreover,BfRreportedtwostudiesinCD-1miceshowingsignificanttrendsformalignant

Page 5: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

5

lymphoma[16,18].Forallofthemousetumorsdescribedabove,apositivetrendwasseenagainsttheconcurrentcontrol.However,inallstudiesinCD-1mice,includingthosereviewedbytheIARC,theBfRdismissestheobservedtrendsintumorincidencebecausetherearenoindividualtreatmentgroupsthataresignificantlydifferentfromcontrolsandbecausethemaximumobservedresponseisreportedlywithintherangeofthehistoricalcontroldata(Table5.3-1,p.90).Caremustbetakeninusinghistoricalcontroldatatoevaluateanimalcarcinogenicitydata.Invirtuallyallguidelines[3,19],scientificreports[20]andpublications[21-23]onthisissue,therecommendedfirstchoiceistheuseoftheconcurrentcontrols.Forinstance,thePreambletotheIARCMonographsstates,“itisgenerallynotappropriatetodiscountatumorresponsethatissignificantlyincreasedcomparedwithconcurrentcontrolsbyarguingthatitfallswithintherangeofhistoricalcontrols…”.Whenusinghistoricalcontroldata,theyshouldbefromstudiesinthesametimeframe,forthesameexactanimalstrain,preferablyfromthesamelaboratoryorthesamesupplierandpreferablyreviewedbythesamepathologist[19].ThiswasnotthecaseforthehistoricalcontroldatabaseusedbyBfR.Oneofthemousestudies[11]wasclearlydonebeforethishistoricalcontroldatabasewasdeveloped,onestudy[16]usedCrj:CD-1miceratherthanCrl:CD-1mice,andonestudy[12]didnotspecifythesubstrainandwasreportedin1993(probablystartedpriorto1988);henceonlyasinglestudy[18]usedthesamemousestrainasthehistoricalcontrols,butwasreportedmorethan10yearsafterthehistoricalcontroldatasetwasdeveloped.Interestingly,thehistoricalcontroldatausedbytheBfR[24]wasfromstudiesinsevenlaboratoriesusingtheCharlesRiverLaboratoryCD1mice.Itisimportanttonotethatthereisasecondreport[25]bythesameauthorswithalargercontroldatabaseusingthesamemousestrainfrom11laboratoriesoverthesametimeperiod(1987-2000)showingverydifferentresults.Forexample,the2000publication[24]showsfiveandfourstudiesoutof46withrenaladenomas(nomorethantwoinanyonestudy)andrenaladenocarcinomas(oneineachstudy)respectivelywhereasthe2005report[25]showsonlyonestudyeachoutof54studieswithasinglerenaladenomaandasinglerenaladenocarcinoma;allotherstudieshadnorenaltumors.Giventhisevidence,itisclearthatBfRdifferedfromstandardscientificpracticesinordertoreachtheirconclusions.BfRreportedsevenpositivemousestudieswiththreestudiesshowingincreasesinrenaltumors,twowithpositivefindingsforhemangiosarcomas,andtwowithpositivefindingsformalignantlymphomas.BfRadditionallyreportedtwopositivefindingsfortumorsinrats.Eliminatingtheinappropriateuseofhistoricaldata,theunequivocalconclusionisthatthesearenotnegativestudies,butinfactdocumentthecarcinogenicityofglyphosateinlaboratoryanimals.MechanisticInformationTheBfRAddendumdismissestheWGfindingthat“thereisstrongevidencethatglyphosatecausesgenotoxicity”bysuggestingthatunpublishedevidencenotseenbytheIARCWGwasoverwhelminglynegativeandthat,sincethestudiesthatwerereviewedwerenotdoneunderguidelineprinciples,theyshouldgetlessweight.Tomaintaintransparency,IARCreviewsonlypubliclyavailabledata.ThustheuseofconfidentialdatasubmittedtotheBfRmakesitimpossibleforanyscientistnotassociatedwithBfRtoreviewthisconclusionwithscientific

Page 6: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

6

confidence.Furtherskewingtheirinterpretation,theBfRdidnotincludeevidenceofchromosomaldamagefromexposedhumans[24]thatwashighlightedintheIARCMonograph.TheBfRconfirms(p.79)thatthestudiesevaluatedbytheIARCWGonoxidativestresswerepredominantlypositivebutdoesnotagreethatthisisstrongsupportforanoxidativestressmechanism.Theyminimizethesignificanceofthesefindingspredominantlybecauseofalackofpositivecontrolsinsomestudiesandbecausemanyofthestudiesusedglyphosateformulationsandnotpureglyphosate.TheWGconcludedthat(p.77)“Strongevidenceexiststhatglyphosate,AMPAandglyphosate-basedformulationscaninduceoxidativestress”.Fromascientificperspective,thesetypesofmechanisticstudiescanplayakeyroleindistinguishingbetweentheeffectsofmixtures,puresubstancesandmetabolitesandweencouragetheBfRtocarefullyreviewthisscience.Finally,westronglydisagreethatdatafromstudiespublishedinthepeer-reviewedliteratureshouldautomaticallyreceivelessweightthanguidelinestudies.Onceachemicaloritsformulationsareonthemarket,themajorityoftheresearchdoneonthesechemicalswillbedonebyresearchlaboratoriesusingvariousmodelstoaddressspecificissuesrelatedtotoxicitythatwilloftennothavetestingguidelinesassociatedwiththem.Thesepeer-reviewedandpublishedfindingshavegreatvalueinunderstandingmechanismsofcarcinogenicityandshouldbegivenappropriateweightinanevaluationbasedonstudyqualityandnotjustguidelinerules.GeneralCommentsSciencemovesforwardbasedondata,carefulevaluationofthosedataandarigorousreviewofthefindingsandconclusions.Oneimportantaspectofthisprocessistransparencyandtheabilitytoquestionordebatethefindingsofothers.Thisensuresthevalidityoftheresultsandprovidesastrongbasisfordecisions.ManyoftheaspectsoftransparencydonotexistfortheRAR[2]ortheBfRAddendum.Forexample,citationsforalmostallofthereferences,eventhosefromtheopenscientificliterature,havebeenredactedfromthedocument.Theabilitytoobjectivelyevaluatethefindingsofascientificreportrequiresacompletelistofthecitedsupportingevidence.Asanotherexample,therearenoauthorsorcontributorslistedforeitherdocument,arequirementforpublicationinvirtuallyallscientificjournals.ThisisindirectcontrasttotheIARCWGevaluationlistingallauthors,allpublicationsandpublicdisclosureofpertinentconflictsofinterestpriortotheWGmeeting[26].Asecondimportantaspectofthescientificprocessisacarefulevaluationandanalysisofthefacts.Severalguidelineshavebeendevisedforanalyzingcarcinogenicitydata,mostafterconsultationwithscientistsfromaroundtheworld.OneofthemostwidelyusedguidelinesistheOECDguidanceontheconductanddesignofchronictoxicityandcarcinogenicitystudies[19]whichiscitedintheBfRAddendum.ThisOECDguidanceisincontradictiontothemethodsusedbytheBfRforbothhistoricalcontrolsandfortrendanalysis;thetworeasonsgivenbytheBfRfordismissingthesedata.Thus,BfRusesthe

Page 7: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

7

conceptoftestingguidelinestoexcludesubstantivescientificevidencefromtheirriskassessmentandignoreOECDguidelinesinaddressingtheimportantissuesofhistoricalcontrolsandtrendanalyses.Duetothepotentialpublichealthimplicationsofthisextensivelyusedpesticideitisessentialthatallscientificevidencebefreelyavailable,reviewedopenlyinanobjectivemanner,andthatfinancialsupport,conflictsofinterestandaffiliationsofauthorsbefullydisclosed.ManyaspectsoftheevaluationconductedbytheBfRandEFSAdonotmeetthisfundamentalobjectivecriteriaandraisesignificantquestionsofvalidity.SummaryTheIARCWGconcludedthatglyphosateisa“probablehumancarcinogen”puttingitintoIARCcategory2Aduetosufficientevidenceofcarcinogenicityinanimals,limitedevidenceofcarcinogenicityinhumansandstrongmechanisticdata.

• TheIARCWGfoundanassociationbetweennon-Hodgkinlymphomaandglyphosatebasedontheavailablehumanevidence.

• TheIARCWGfoundsignificantcarcinogeniceffectsinlaboratoryanimalsfortwotumortypesintwomousestudiesandbenigntumorsintworatstudies.

• Finally,theIARCWGconcludedstrongevidenceofgenotoxicityandoxidativestressforglyphosate,entirelyfrompubliclyavailableresearch,includingfindingsofDNAdamageintheperipheralbloodofexposedhumans.

IntheirRAR,BfRconcluded(Vol.1,p.160)“classificationandlabelingforcarcinogenesisisnotwarranted”and“glyphosateisdevoidofgenotoxicpotential”.

• BfRagreedwiththeIARConlimitedevidenceinhumansbutthendismissedtheassociationas“insufficientlyconsistent”withnojustification.

• UsinganinappropriatehistoricalcontroldatasetinanincorrectmannerandignoringestablishedOECDguidelinescitedintheirreport,BfRdismissedevidenceofrenaltumorsin3mousestudies,hemangiosarcomain2mousestudiesandmalignantlymphomain2mousestudies.Thus,BfRincorrectlydiscardedalloftheglyphosate-inducedcarcinogenicfindingsinanimalsaschanceoccurrences.

• TheBfRignoredimportantlaboratoryandhumanevidenceofgenotoxicity.

• TheBfRconfirmedthatglyphosateinducesoxidativestressanddismissedthisfindingforlackofanyotherfindingbecausetheyhaddismissedalloftheotherevidence.

Themostparsimoniousscientificexplanationofthecancersseeninhumansandlaboratoryanimalssupportedbythemechanisticdataisthatglyphosateisaprobablehumancarcinogen.Onthebasisofthisconclusionandintheabsenceof

Page 8: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

8

contraryevidence,itisreasonabletoconcludethatglyphosateformulationsshouldalsobeconsideredprobablehumancarcinogens.WebelievethattheargumentspromotedbytheBfRtonegatethehuman,animalandmechanisticevidencearefundamentallyandscientificallyflawedandshouldberejected.Westronglyobjecttothealmostnon-existentweightgiventostudiesfromtheliteraturebytheBfRandthestrongrelianceonnon-publiclyavailabledatainalimitedsetofassaysthatdefinetheminimumdatanecessaryfortheapprovalofapesticide.WebelievethattheIARCWGevaluationofprobablycarcinogenictohumansaccuratelyreflectstheresultsofthepublishedscientificliteratureonglyphosateand,onthefaceofit,theunpublishedstudiestowhichtheBfRrefers.Conversely,theBfRevaluation,andconsequentlytheEFSAevaluation,donotreflecttheavailablescience.Thus,repeatingourearlierrequest,weurgeyouandtheEuropeanCommissiontodisregardtheflawedEFSAfindingonglyphosateinyourformulationofglyphosatehealthandenvironmentalpolicyforEuropeandtocallforatransparent,openandcrediblereviewofthescientificliterature.TheviewsexpressedinthisletteraretheopinionofthescientistswhoarelistedbelowandDONOTimplyanendorsementorsupportfortheseopinionsbyanyorganizationstowhichtheyareaffiliated.Sincerely,Prof.ChristopherJ.Portier(CorrespondingAuthor)SeniorContributingScientist,EnvironmentalDefenseFund,Washington,DCVisitingProfessor,MaastrichtUniversity,Maastricht,TheNetherlandsAdjunctProfessor,EmoryUniversity,Atlanta,Georgia,USAHonoraryProfessor,UniversityofQueensland,Brisbane,Queensland,AustraliaFormerDirector,NationalCenterforEnvironmentalHealth,Atlanta,USAFormerDirector,AgencyforToxicSubstancesandDiseaseRegistry,Atlanta,USAFormerAssociateDirector,USNationalToxicologyProgram,RTP,NC,USACH-3600Thun,[email protected]+41796057958BruceArmstrongMBBS,DPhil(Oxon),FFAPHM,FAAEmeritusProfessorSydneySchoolofPublicHealthTheUniversityofSydney,AustraliaDistinguishedProfessorBruceCBaguleyAucklandCancerSocietyResearchCentreTheUniversityofAucklandAuckland,NewZealandProf.Dr.med.XaverBaurInstituteforOccupationalMedicine

Page 9: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

9

CharitéUniversityMedicineBerlin14195Berlin,GermanyIgorBeliaev,PhD,DrScAssociateProfessorofGeneticToxicologyHead,LaboratoryofRadiobiologyCancerResearchInstituteSlovakAcademyofScienceBratislava,SlovakRepublicandProfessor,LaboratoryofRadiobiologyDepartmentofEcologicalandMedicalProblemsProkhorovGeneralPhysicsInstituteRussianAcademyofScienceMoscow,RussiaProfessorRobertBelléLaboratoiredeBiologieintégrativedesmodèlesmarins(UMR8227,CNRS-UPMC)UniversitéPierreetMarieCurieStationBiologique29680RoscoffFranceDr.FiorellaBelpoggiDirectorCesareMaltoniCancerResearchCenterRamazziniInstitute40010Bentivoglio(Bologna),ItalyProf.AnnibaleBiggeriDirectorBiostatisticsUnitInstituteforCancerPreventionandResearchDepartmentofStatisticsComputerScienceApplications"G.Parenti"UniversityofFlorence,ItalyMaartenC.Bosland,DVSc,PhDProfessorofPathologyDepartmentofPathologyCollegeofMedicineUniversityofIllinoisatChicagoChicago,IL60612USAProf.PaoloBruzziMD,MPH,PhDDirector,UnitofClinicalEpidemiologyNationalCancerResearchInstituteSanMartino–ISTHospitalGenoaITALYProf.Dr.LygiaThereseBudnik

Page 10: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

10

UniversityofHamburg,Hamburg,GermanyEuropeanSocietyforEnvironmentalandOccupationalMedicine.Dr.MereteD.Bugge,PhDSeniorPhysicianSTAMI,NationalInstituteofOccupationalHealthOslo,NorwayKathleenBurns,PhDDirectorSciencecorpsLexington,MA,USAGloriaM.CalafPh.D.Director,InstitutodeAltaInvestigaciónUniversidaddeTarapacáArica-ChileandAdjunctAssociateResearchScientistColumbiaUniversityMedicalCenterCenterforRadiologicalResearchNewYork,NewYorkUSADavidO.Carpenter,M.D.Director,InstituteforHealthandtheEnvironmentUniversityatAlbanyRensselaer,NY12144USAHillaryM.Carpenter,Ph.D.,ToxicologistMinnesotaDepartmentofHealth,RetiredMaplewoodMN55109USALizbethLópez-CarrilloSeniorResearcherNationalInstituteofPublicHealthCuernavaca,Morelos,MexicoProf.RichardClappProfessorEmeritusBostonUniversitySchoolofPublicHealthBoston,MAUSAProf.PierluigiCocco,M.D.,HonFFOMChair,OccupationalMedicineDepartmentofPublicHealth,CLinicalandMolecularMedicineUniversityofCagliari,ItalyPietroComba,PhD,Head,UnitofEnvironmentalEpidemiologyDepartmentofEnvironmentandPrimaryPrevention

Page 11: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

11

IstitutoSuperiorediSanità,Rome,ItalyDrDarioConsonni,MD,MPH,PhDOccupationalPhysicianandEpidemiologistEpidemiologyUnit,DepartmentofPreventiveMedicineFondazioneIRCCSCa'Granda-OspedaleMaggiorePoliclinicoMilan,ItalyDevraDavis,Md,PhDVisitingProfessor,TheHebrewUniversity,HadassahMedicalSchool,JerusalemVisitingProfessor,OndukuzMayisUniversityMedicalSchool,Samsun,TurkeyPresident,EnvironmentalHealthTrustJacksonHole,WYUSAAnneclaireDeRoos,MPH,PhDAssociateProfessorEnvironmental&OccupationalHealthDornsifeSchoolofPublicHealthDrexelUniversityPhiladelphia,PAUSAPaulA.Demers,Ph.D.DirectorOccupationalCancerResearchCentre,CancerCareOntarioProfessorDallaLanaSchoolofPublicHealth,UniversityofTorontoToronto,CanadaDr.JamieDeWittAssociateProfessorofPharmacology&ToxicologyBrodySchoolofMedicine,EastCarolinaUniversityGreenville,NC,USADr.FrancescoForastiereDirectorEtiologicalandAnalyticalEpidemiologyDepartmentofEpidemiology,LazioRegionalHealthServiceRome,ItalyDr.JonathanHFreedman,Ph.D.Professor,DepartmentofPharmacologyandToxicologyUniversityofLouisvilleSchoolofMedicineLouisville,Kentucky40202USAProf.LinFritschiSchoolofPublicHealth,CurtinUniversityPerth,AustraliaDr.CarolineGausAssociateProfessorEnvironmentalToxicology

Page 12: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

12

TheUniversityofQueenslandBrisbane,AustraliaJuliaMGohlke,PhDAssistantProfessorDepartmentofPopulationHealthSciencesVirginia-MarylandCollegeofVeterinaryMedicineVirginiaTechBlacksburg,VA24061-0395,USAProfessorMarcelGoldbergEmeritusProfessorofepidemiologyParisDescartesUniversityParis,France.Prof.EberhardGreiserEmeritusProfessorofepidemiologyandmedicalstatisticsAssociateProfessor,CenterforSocialPolicyResearch,BremenUniversity,CEO,Epi.ConsultGmbH,Musweiler,Rhineland-Palatinate,Germany.Prof.PerGustavsson,MDHeadofUnitofOccupationalMedicineInstituteofEnvironmentalMedicine,KarolinskaInstituteCentreforOccupationalandEnvironmentalMedicine,StockholmCountyCouncilStockholm,SwedenDr.JohnniHansenSeniorScientistDanishCancerSocietyResearchCenterCopenhagen,DenmarkDr.LennartHardell,MD,PhDDepartmentofOncologyUniversityHospitalOrebra,SwedenDr.MichaelHauptmannHead,BiostatisticsBranchNetherlandsCancerInstituteAmsterdam,TheNetherlandsWeiHuang,ScD(HSPH2003)Professor,PekingUnivSchoolofPublicHealthViceDirector,PekingUnivInstituteofEnvironmentalMedicineKeyLabofMolecularCardiovascularResearchMinistryofEducationBeijing,China,100191JamesHuff,PhDFormerly,AssociateDirectorForChemicalCarcinogenesis

Page 13: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

13

NationalInstituteOfEnvironmentalHealthSciencesResearchTrianglePark,NorthCarolinaUSAProfessorMargaretO.JamesJackC.MasseyProfessorofPharmacy,ProfessorofMedicinalChemistryUniversityofFloridaGainesville,FloridaUSACWJameson,PhDCWJConsulting,LLCRetiredDirectorfortheReportonCarcinogensNationalToxicologyProgram/NationalInstituteofEnvironmentalHealthSciencesNationalInstitutesofHealthCapeCoral,FLUSAProfessorAndreasKortenkampHumanToxicologyInstituteofEnvironment,HealthandSocietiesBrunelUniversityLondonUxbridge,UB83PH,UnitedKingdomProf.Dr.AnnetteKopp-SchneiderHeadofDiv.BiostatisticsGermanCancerResearchCenter69120Heidelberg,GermanyProfessorHansKromhoutChairinExposureAssessmentandOccupationalHygieneChairinEpidemiologyofHealthEffectsofElectromagneticFieldsDivisionofEnvironmentalEpidemiologyInstituteforRiskAssessmentSciencesUtrechtUniversityUtrecht,TheNetherlandsProf.MarceloL.Larramendy,Ph.D.PrincipalResearcherNationalCouncilofScientificandTechnologicalResearch(CONICET)SchoolofNaturalSciencesandMuseumNationalUniversityofLaPlataLaPlata,ArgentinaPhilipJ.Landrigan,MD,MSc,FAAPDeanforGlobalHealthArnholdInstituteforGlobalHealthProfessorofPreventiveMedicine&PediatricsIcahnSchoolofMedicineatMountSinaiNewYork,NY10029USA

Page 14: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

14

LawrenceH.Lash,Ph.D.ProfessorandAssociateChairDepartmentofPharmacologyWayneStateUniversitySchoolofMedicineDetroit,MI48201USADariuszLeszczynski,PhD,DScAdjunctProfessorDepartmentofBiosciencesDivisionofBiochemistry&BiotechnologyUniversityofHelsinki,FinlandProf.CharlesF.Lynch,MD,PhDDepartmentofEpidemiologyCollegeofPublicHealthUniversityofIowaIowaCity,IA,USAProf.CorradoMagnaniMDProfessorofMedicalStatisticsHeadoftheCancerEpidemiologyUnitUniversityofEasternPiedmontNovara,ItalyDanieleMandrioli,MDAssociateDirectorCesareMaltoniCancerResearchCenterRamazziniInstitute40010,Bentivoglio(Bologna),ItalyFrancisLMartinCentreforBiophotonics,LEC,BailriggLancasterUniversityLancasterLA14YQ,UKDr.RonMelnick,PhDRonMelnickConsulting,LLCRetiredSeniorToxicologistNationalToxicologyProgram/NationalInstituteofEnvironmentalHealthSciencesNationalInstitutesofHealthChapelHill,NCUSADr.EnzoMerler,PhDDirectorRgionalRegistryonMesothelioma,VenetoRegion,ItalyDepartmentofPrevention,OccupationalHealthUnitNationalHealthServicePadua,Italy

Page 15: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

15

PaolaMichelozziDirectorEnvironmentalEpidemiologyUnitDepartmentofEpidemiologyLazioRegionRome,ItalyDr.LuciaMiligi,SeniorEpidemiologist,OccupationalandEnvironmentalEpidemiologyUnit,ISPO-CancerPreventionandResearchInstitute,Florence,ItalyAnthonyB.Miller,MDProfessorEmeritusDallaLanaSchoolofPublicHealth,UniversityofTorontoToronto,CanadaDr.DarioMirabelliEpidemiologistUnitofCancerEpidemiology,UniversityofTurinandCPO-Piemonte10126TorinoItalyFranklinE.Mirer,PhD,CIHProfessor,EnvironmentalandOccupationalHealthSciencesCityUniversityofNewYorkSchoolofPublicHealthNewYork,NY10035USAMichaelM.Müller,PhDEUROTOXRegisteredToxicologistHeadoftheToxicologicalLaboratoryUnitDepartmentofOccupational,SocialandEnvironmentalMedicineUniversityMedicalCenterGöttingen37073GöttingenGermanyDrSaloshniNaidoo(MBChB,FCPHM,MMed,PHD)ChiefSpecialist/HeadofDisciplinePublicHealthMedicineSchoolofNursingandPublicHealthUniversityofKwaZulu-NatalDurben,SouthAfricaProf.MelissaJ.Perry,ScD,MHS,FACEProfessorandChairofEnvironmentalandOccupationalHealthProfessorofEpidemiologyMilkenInstituteSchoolofPublicHealthProfessorofBiochemistryandMolecularBiologySchoolofMedicineandHealthSciencesTheGeorgeWashingtonUniversityWashington,DC20051USA

Page 16: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

16

Dr.MariaGraziaPetronioHeadofUnitofHealthandEnvironment-DepartmentofPreventionLocalHealthAuthority-Empoli,Florence,ItalyProfessorofEnvironmentalHygieneSchoolofSpecialization“HygieneandPreventiveMedicineUniversityofPisa,ItalyVice-PresidentforCentralItalyAreaofInternationalSocietyofDoctorsforEnvironment,ItalyDrRobertaPirastuResearcherDepartmentofBiologyandBiotechnology"CharlesDarwin"SapienzaRomeUniversity,ItalyProf.MiquelPorta,MD,MPH,PhDProfessorandSeniorScientist,HospitaldelMarInstituteofMedicalResearch(IMIM)andSchoolofMedicineUniversitatAutònomadeBarcelonaBarcelona,Catalonia,SpainRalphJ.Portier,PhDDistinguishedProfessorofEnvironmentalSciencesDepartmentofEnvironmentalSciences,SchooloftheCoast&EnvironmentLouisianaStateUniversityBatonRouge,LA70803USAKennethSRamos,MD,PhD,PharmBAssociateVicePresidentforPrecisionHealthSciencesProfessorofMedicineDirectorofCenterforAppliedGeneticsandGenomicMedicineUniversityofArizonaHealthSciencesTucsonAZ.85737USALarryW.Robertson,MPH,PhD,ATSProfessorandDirector,IowaSuperfundResearchProgramandtheInterdisciplinaryGraduatePrograminHumanToxicologyTheUniverityofIowaIowaCity,Iowa,USAMartinRöösli,PhDHeadoftheEnvironmentalExposuresandHealthUnitSwissTropicalandPublicHealthInstituteAssociatedInstituteoftheUniversityofBasel4002Basel,SwitzerlandMattK.Ross,PhDAssociateProfessor

Page 17: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

17

CollegeofVeterinaryMedicineMississippiStateUniversityMississippiState,MS39762USAProf.DeoduttaRoy,MS,M.Phil.,Ph.D.DepartmentofEnvironmentalandOccupationalHealthRobertStempelCollegeofPublicHealthandSocialWorkFloridaInternationalUniversityMiami,FL33199-0001USAIvanRusyn,MD,PhDProfessor,VeterinaryIntegrativeBiosciencesTexasA&MUniversityCollegeStation,TX77843-4458USAPauloSaldiva,MD,PhDProfessorofPathology,FacultyofMedicine,UniversityofSãoPaulo,BrazilCoordinatoroftheNationalInstituteofIntegratedRiskAssessmentNationalResearchCouncil,BrazilJenniferSass,PhDSeniorScientistNaturalResourcesDefenseCouncilandProfessorialLecturer,GeorgeWashingtonUniversityWashington,DCUSAKaiSavolainen,MD,Ph.D.,ResearchProfessorDirector,NanosafetyResearchCentreFinnishInstituteofOccupationalHealthHelsinki,FinlandAssocProf.PaulT.J.Scheepers,PhD,ERTWorkgroupLeaderandHead,ResearchLabMolecularEpidemiologyRadboudInstituteforHealthSciencesRadboudUniversityMedicalCenterNijmegen,TheNetherlandsProf.Dr.ConsolatoSergi,MSc,MD,PhD,FRCPCFullProfessorofPathologyandFullProfessorofPediatrics(Adjunct)UniversityofAlberta,Edmonton,Alberta,CanadaEllenKSilbergeld,PhDProfessor,EnvironmentalHealthSciencesJohnsHopkinsBloombergSchoolofPublicHealthBaltimoreMD21205USAProf.MartynT.SmithSchoolofPublicHealth

Page 18: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

18

UniversityofCalifornia,BerkeleyBerkeley,CAUSAProf.BernardW.StewartFacultyofMedicine,UniversityofNewSouthWalesHead,CancerControlProgramSouthEastSydneyPublicHealthUnitRandwickNSW2031AustraliaPatriceSutton,MPHResearchScientistUniversityofCalifornia,SanFrancisco,ProgramonReproductiveHealthandtheEnvironmentSanFrancisco,USADr.FabioTateoResearcherIstitutodiGeosceinzeeGeorisorse(CNR)35131Padova,ItalyProf.BenedettoTerraciniProfessorofCancerEpidemiology(retired)UniversityofTorinoTorino,ItalyProf.Dr.med.Dr.rer.nat.HeinzW.ThielmannFormerDivisionHeadattheGermanCancerResearchCenter,HeidelbergRetiredProf.ofBiochemistry,FacultyofPharmacy,HeidelbergUniversityMemberofCommitteeonHealthHazardsofChemicalsoftheDeutscheForschungsgemeinschaftGermanyDavidB.Thomas,MD,DrPHProfEmeritus,SchoolofPublicHealthandCommunityMedicineUniversityofWashingtonandMember,FredHutchinsonCancerResearchCenterSeattle,WA,U.S.A.Prof.HarriVainioProfessorofEnvironmentalandOccupationalHealthDean-ElectFacultyofPublicHealth,KuwaitUniversity,KuwaitKuwaitCity,KuwaitJohnE.Vena,Ph.D.ProfessorandFoundingChairDepartmentofPublicHealthSciencesMedicalUniversityofSouthCarolinaCharlestonSC29425USA

Page 19: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

19

ProfessorPaoloVineisChairinEnvironmentalEpidemiologyImperialCollegeLondon,UKProfessorElisabeteWeiderpass,M.D.,M.Sc.,Ph.D.Head-DepartmentofResearchHead-GroupofEtiologicalCancerResearchInstituteofPopulationBasedCancerResearchCancerRegistryofNorway,Oslo,NorwayDepartmentofCommunityMedicine,FacultyofHealthSciencesUniversityofTromsø,TheArcticUniversityofNorway,Tromsø,NorwayDepartmentofMedicalEpidemiologyandBiostatisticsKarolinskaInstitutet,Stockholm,SwedenGeneticEpidemiologyGroupFolkhälsanResearchCenter,Helsinki,FinlandDennisD.Weisenburger,M.D.Professor/Chair,DepartmentofPathologyCityofHopeMedicalCenterDuarte,CA91010USAProfessorTraceyJ.Woodruff,PhD,MPHDirectorUniversityofCalifornia,SanFrancisco,ProgramonReproductiveHealthandtheEnvironmentSanFrancisco,USAProf.Dr.rer.nat.IreneWitte(retired)InstituteforBiologyandEnvironmentalSciencesUniversityofOldenburgGermanyDr.TakashiYorifujiAssociateProfessorOkayamaUniversityOkayama,JapanIlJeYu,PhD,ProfessorDirector,InstituteofNanoproductSafetyReserchHoseoUniverstiy,Asan,KoreaDr.PaolaZambonPastDirectorVenetoTumorRegistryUniversityofPaduaPadovaItalyProf.Dr.HajoZeeb

Page 20: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

20

Head,DepartmentofPreventionandEvaluation,Leibniz-InstituteforPreventionResearchandEpidemiology-BIPSBremen,GermanyProf.Shu-FengZhou,MD,PhDAssociateDeanforInternationalResearchandChairCollegeofPharmacyUniversityofSouthFloridaTampa,Florida,USA

Page 21: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

21

_______________________________________________________________________________________References1. EuropeanFoodSafetyAuthority,Conclusiononthepeerreviewofthe

pesticideriskassessmentoftheactivesubstanceglyphosate.EFSAJournal,2015.13(11):p.4302.

2. EuropeanFoodSafetyAuthority.FinalAddendumtotheRenewalAssessmentReport.2015;Availablefrom:http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/outputLoader?output=ON-4302.

3. IARC.PREAMBLETOTHEIARCMONOGRAPHS2006;Availablefrom:http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/CurrentPreamble.pdf.

4. Guyton,K.Z.,etal.,Carcinogenicityoftetrachlorvinphos,parathion,malathion,diazinon,andglyphosate.LancetOncol,2015.16(5):p.490-1.

5. IARCWorkingGroupontheEvaluationofCarcinogenicRiskstoHumans,Glyphosate,inIARCMonogrEvalCarcinogRisksHum,I.M.Program,Editor.2015.p.1-92.

6. DeRoos,A.J.,etal.,Cancerincidenceamongglyphosate-exposedpesticideapplicatorsintheAgriculturalHealthStudy.EnvironHealthPerspect,2005.113(1):p.49-54.

7. Checkoway,H.,N.Pearce,andD.Kriebel,Researchmethodsinoccupationalepidemiology.2nded.Monographsinepidemiologyandbiostatistics.2004,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.xiv,372p.

8. Rothman,K.J.,S.Greenland,andT.L.Lash,Modernepidemiology.3rded.2008,Philadelphia:WoltersKluwerHealth/LippincottWilliams&Wilkins.x,758p.

9. Schinasi,L.andM.E.Leon,Non-Hodgkinlymphomaandoccupationalexposuretoagriculturalpesticidechemicalgroupsandactiveingredients:asystematicreviewandmeta-analysis.IntJEnvironResPublicHealth,2014.11(4):p.4449-527.

10. DeRoos,A.J.,etal.,Integrativeassessmentofmultiplepesticidesasriskfactorsfornon-Hodgkin'slymphomaamongmen.OccupEnvironMed,2003.60(9):p.E11.

11. Epa,Glyphosate;EPAReg.#524-308;mouseoncogenicitystudy,B.WilliamDykstra.Toxicology,Editor.1985.

12. JCFA,Evaluationofcertainfoodadditivesandcontaminants:Forty-ninthreportoftheJointFAO/WHOExpertCommitteeonFoodAdditives.1999,JointCommitteeonFoodAdditives(includingC.Portier),WorldHealthOrganization/FoodandAgricultureOrganization:Geneva.p.96.

13. Epa,SecondpeerreviewofGlyphosate.1991.p.1-19.14. Epa,Glyphosate-EPARegistrationNo.524-308-2-YearChronic

Feeding/OncogenicityStudyinRatswithTechnicalGlyphosate,I.WilliamDykstra.ToxicologyBranch,Editor.1991.

15. Epa,Glyphosate;2-YearCombinedChronicToxicity/CarcinogenicityStudyinSprague-DawleyRats-ListAPesticideforReregistration,B.WilliamDykstra.Toxicology,Editor.1991.p.1-29.

16. Sugimoto,18-MonthOralOncogenicityStudyinMice.Unpublished,designatedASB2012-11493inBfRRAR,1997.

Page 22: 96 scientifiques contestent l'évaluation de l'EFSA sur le glyphosate classé « cancérogène probable » par l’OMS.

22

17. Unknown,Achronicfeedingstudyofglyphosate(rounduptechnical)inmice.unpublished,designatedABS2012-11491inBfRRAR,2001.

18. Unknown,GlyphosateTechnical:DietaryCarcinogencityStudyintheMouse.Unpublished,designatedABS2012-11492inBfRRAR,2009.

19. OECD,GuidanceDocument116ontheConductandDesignofChronicToxicityandCarcinogenicityStudies,H.a.S.P.Environment,Editor.2012,OECD:Paris.

20. NRCCommitteetoReviewtheStyreneAssessmentintheNationalToxicologyProgram12thReportonCarcinogens,inReviewoftheStyreneAssessmentintheNationalToxicologyProgram12thReportonCarcinogens:WorkshopSummary.2014,NationalAcademiesPress:Washington(DC).

21. Keenan,C.,etal.,Bestpracticesforuseofhistoricalcontroldataofproliferativerodentlesions.ToxicolPathol,2009.37(5):p.679-93.

22. Haseman,J.K.,G.A.Boorman,andJ.Huff,Valueofhistoricalcontroldataandotherissuesrelatedtotheevaluationoflong-termrodentcarcinogenicitystudies.ToxicolPathol,1997.25(5):p.524-7.

23. Greim,H.,etal.,Evaluationofhistoricalcontroldataincarcinogenicitystudies.HumExpToxicol,2003.22(10):p.541-9.

24. Giknis,M.andC.Clifford,SpontaneousNeoplasticLesionsintheCrI:CD-1(ICR)BRMouse.2000,CharlesRiverLaboratories.

25. Giknis,M.andC.Clifford,SpontaneousNeoplasticLesionsintheCrI:CD-1(ICR)BRMouseinControlGroupsfrom18Monthto2yearStudies.2005,CharlesRiverLaboratories.

26. IARCMonograph112.ListofWorkingGroupParticipants.IARCMonogrEvalCarcinogRisksHum201526March,2015[cited201524November];Availablefrom:http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Meetings/vol112-participants.pdf.