Pesticides encompass a wide variety of chemicals. The active ingredients in pesticides are designed to kill or repel pests, including invasive and unwanted plants, insects, fungi, rodents, and nematodes. Human exposure is widespread and not limited to those who apply pesticides themselves, making the potential health effects of these chemicals an important public health concern. In the United States, it is estimated that of the population has detectable concentrations of pesticide biomarkers in their blood or urine.1
Despite the ubiquity of these chemicals, the assessment of pesticide exposure is particularly challenging owing to often intermittent exposures, the short half-lives of most pesticides in use today, and the fact that even occupationally exposed workers may not know what pesticides they are using.2 Although a recent literature review reported articles published in the previous 25 y that evaluated pesticides and chronic disease effects, many studies were limited to crude estimates of exposure, focusing on broad classifications of “pesticides.”3 This makes the identification of etiologic agents difficult given that there are hundreds of active ingredients available for agricultural use around the world.4
Studies with more detailed exposure assessments have typically focused on active ingredients either singly or in combination, rather than on large classes such as herbicides or insecticides. Epidemiologic studies of specific pesticide active ingredients and disease outcomes, and studies designed to support biological plausibility of these pesticide–disease associations, have greatly improved our understanding of the potential impacts of these chemicals on health. Examples include associations between permethrin and multiple myeloma5,6 and between some organophosphates and Parkinson’s disease.7,8
Although we still have much to understand about the potential effects of the hundreds of pesticide active ingredients being used currently, in their recent commentary, Cox and Zeiss highlight another important issue that thus far has not been addressed in most epidemiologic studies of chronic diseases and pesticides: inert ingredients and adjuvants.9 An inert ingredient is defined as any substance other than the active ingredient that is included in a pesticide product; notably, it does not imply that the chemical is nontoxic.10 Adjuvants are chemicals that are added to a pesticide mixture to improve the efficacy of the active ingredient.
The exclusion of these chemicals in epidemiologic studies of pesticides is largely because exposure data are not widely available. Although the active ingredients in a pesticide are reported on the product label, the components of the pesticide mixture that are not the active ingredient are not included and are not generally included in publicly available databases. An exception is California’s Pesticide Use Reporting System, which requires that use of adjuvants, but not inert ingredients, be reported.11 Using this database, Cox and Zeiss demonstrated that the adjuvant -hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) (APNOHO) was applied to the largest number of acres of any chemical in the system in 2019.9 APNOHO is used as both an inert ingredient and an adjuvant; because only its use as an adjuvant was reported in the system, the presumed actual application would be even greater.
Pesticide use has increased dramatically in the last several decades, with an estimated growth of 11% per year from 1950 to 2003.12 In 2012, the last year for which data are available, pounds (>2.7 billion kg) of pesticide active ingredients were applied worldwide.13 In some formulations, active ingredients make up only 1% of the pesticide mixture.14 This highlights the potential for extensive exposures to constituent chemicals other than active ingredients. In addition, inert and adjuvant ingredients may in some cases increase the potential for human exposures to active ingredients through inhalation and dermal pathways.15
Incorporating information on inert ingredients and adjuvants in epidemiologic studies of pesticides could enhance our understanding of the health effects of active ingredients. Components of pesticide mixtures may act synergistically.16 Cox and Zeiss focused on the endocrine-disrupting properties of APNOHO,9 effects which are also common in many active ingredients17 However, with the limited information available, evaluations of such potential synergy are not possible.
Our understanding of the health effects of pesticides is continuing to grow; advances in pesticide exposure assessment and in the incorporation of multipollutant models in epidemiologic studies should increase our knowledge of how these chemicals influence health. However, we will have an incomplete picture of potential impacts as long as we can evaluate only the active ingredient component of the pesticide mixture.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks K. Thomas for his helpful review and comments on this perspective.
Refers to https://doi.org.10.1289/EHP10634
References
- 1.CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2019. Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals: Updated Tables, November 2019. Atlanta, GA: CDC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Beane Freeman LE. 2020. Challenges of pesticide exposure assessment in occupational studies of chronic diseases. Occup Environ Med 77(6):355–356, PMID: , 10.1136/oemed-2019-106348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ohlander J, Fuhrimann S, Basinas I, Cherrie JW, Galea KS, Povey AC, et al. 2020. Systematic review of methods used to assess exposure to pesticides in occupational epidemiology studies, 1993–2017. Occup Environ Med 77(6):357–367, PMID: , 10.1136/oemed-2019-105880. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Phillips McDougal AgriService. 2018. Evolution of the Crop Protection Industry Since 1960. Midlothian: Phillips McDougal AgriService. https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Phillips-McDougall-Evolution-of-the-Crop-Protection-Industry-since-1960-FINAL.pdf [accessed 27 April 2022]. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Alavanja MC, Hofmann JN, Lynch CF, Hines CJ, Barry KH, Barker J, et al. 2014. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk and insecticide, fungicide and fumigant use in the Agricultural Health Study. PLoS One 9(10):e109332, PMID: , 10.1371/journal.pone.0109332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hofmann JN, Beane Freeman LE, Murata K, Andreotti G, Shearer JJ, Thoren K, et al. 2021. Lifetime pesticide use and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in a prospective cohort of male farmers. Environ Health Perspect 129(1):017003, PMID: , 10.1289/EHP6960. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Paul KC, Sinsheimer JS, Rhodes SL, Cockburn M, Bronstein J, Ritz B. 2016. Organophosphate pesticide exposures, nitric oxide synthase gene variants, and gene–pesticide interactions in a case–control study of Parkinson’s disease, California (USA). Environ Health Perspect 124(5):570–577, PMID: , 10.1289/ehp.1408976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Shrestha S, Parks CG, Umbach DM, Richards-Barber M, Hofmann JN, Chen H, et al. 2020. Pesticide use and incident Parkinson’s disease in a cohort of farmers and their spouses. Environ Res 191:110186, PMID: , 10.1016/j.envres.2020.110186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Cox C, Zeiss M. 2022. Health, pesticide adjuvants, and inert ingredients: California case study illustrates need for data access. Environ Health Perspect 130(8):085001. 10.1289/EHP10634. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2022. Inert ingredients regulation. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/inert-ingredients-regulation [accessed 21 April 2022].
- 11.California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2017. A Guide to Pesticide Regulation in California: 2017 Update. Sacramento CA: California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 22–38. https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pressrls/dprguide/dprguide.pdf [accessed 27 April 2022]. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Carvalho F. 2017. Pesticides, environment and food safety. Food Energy Secur 6(2):48–60, 10.1002/fes3.108. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Atwood D, Paisley-Jones C. 2017. Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 2008–2012 Market Estimates. Washington, DC: Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/pesticides-industry-sales-usage-2016_0.pdf [accessed 2 April 2022]. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Weinhold B. 2010. Mystery in a bottle: will the EPA require public disclosure of inert pesticide ingredients? Environ Health Perspect 118(4):A168–A171, PMID: , 10.1289/ehp.118-a168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Katzman D, Bohbot-Raviv Y, Dubowski Y. 2021. Does polyacrylamide-based adjuvant actually reduce primary drift of airborne pesticides? Sci Total Environ 775:145816, PMID: , 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145816. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Nagy K, Duca RC, Lovas S, Creta M, Scheepers PTJ, Godderis L, et al. 2020. Systematic review of comparative studies assessing the toxicity of pesticide active ingredients and their product formulations. Environ Res 181:108926, PMID: , 10.1016/j.envres.2019.108926. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Knapke ET, Magalhaes DP, Dalvie MA, Mandrioli AD, Perry MJ. 2022. Environmental and occupational pesticide exposure and human sperm parameters: a Navigation Guide review. Toxicology 465:153017, PMID: , 10.1016/j.tox.2021.153017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
