Introduction
Pesticides are manufactured to be toxic to living organisms, but are not necessarily specific to their target species. They are deliberately released into the environment where their ubiquitous presence may endanger other living species, including humans [ 1 ]. It is unsurprising then that numerous published studies suggest a link between pesticide exposure and human health risks such as cancer [ 2 ], and adverse genotoxic, neurologic, and reproductive effects [ 3 ]. Obvious health risks may be due to acute poisoning or high level occupational exposure, while there is the possibility of more subtle health risks through general exposure via the food chain.
Globally around three million accidental or intentional pesticide poisonings occur each year resulting in around 260,000 deaths [ 4 ]. The vast majority occur in developing countries, which use only a fraction (20%) of the world’s agrochemicals [ 5 ]. However, these figures do not take into account chronic or cumulative health effects or effects arising from exposure during critical periods of development [ 6 ].
Occupational Exposure to Pesticides
There are numerous examples cited in the scientific literature regarding occupational exposure to pesticides and adverse health outcomes such as various cancers, Parkinson’s and other chronic diseases, as well as potential adverse effects on mental health and reproduction [ 7 – 12 ].
The United States Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a large prospective cohort study of pesticide applicators and their spouses, identified links between various pesticides and cancer incidence (lung, pancreatic, colon and rectal, all lymphohaematopoietic cancers, leukaemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, breast, bladder, prostate, brain, melanoma and childhood cancers). Outside the AHS, epidemiologic evidence remains limited with respect to many of these associations, but animal toxicity data support the biological plausibility of these relationships [ 7 ].
In addition to cancer, pesticides have been associated with a number of other health effects in animals and humans. The AHS has investigated conditions as widespread as Parkinson’s Disease, depression, diabetes, respiratory disorders and other health conditions [ 7 ]. Links to Parkinson’s Disease have been supported by experimental studies indicating that high exposure to paraquat (herbicide) and maneb (fungicide) may increase the risk in genetically susceptible individuals [ 8 , 9 ] highlighting concerns of potential epigenetic effects (gene-environment interactions). That a number of pesticides directly target the nervous system as their mechanism of toxicity may provide additional concerns. Studies in pesticide workers have also demonstrated effects on neurotransmitters which may be involved in mood regulation [ 10 , 11 ].
The risks of pesticide exposure at occupational levels may be of specific concern during critical developmental periods. Despite safeguards for pregnant farm workers, current measures may not be sufficient to protect the developing foetus from endocrine disrupting agents. For example a Danish study has reported that sons of women occupationally exposed to pesticides have a statistically significant decrease in penile length and a trend towards reduced testicular volume and serum concentrations of testosterone [ 12 ].
There are many uncertainties however, due to the limited number of research studies conducted on specific exposure-outcome relationships and methodological limitations such as crude exposure measurements, small sample sizes, and limited knowledge and control of potential confounders [ 13 ]. Furthermore, the sheer number of chemicals and variety of chemical actions involved, and the attribution of some adverse health effects to pesticides that are no longer in current-use in many regions make it extremely difficult to generalise about the health effects of pesticides.
Other Sources of Pesticide Exposure
While occupational exposure is likely to incur a greater risk, all humans are exposed to pesticides whether they be ingested from food sources, absorbed through the skin or inhaled from polluted air.
Dietary exposure from the ingestion of contaminated food (more so than water or other beverages) is considered to be the primary route of exposure for most pesticides although additional environmental exposure is also likely [ 14 – 16 ]. Food can be contaminated by pesticides used during production, transport or storage. While diet has been shown to be a significant predictor of pesticide exposure in all age groups, specific foods and food choices must also be considered as some foods may have a greater impact on exposure levels [ 17 ]. Food consumption patterns will vary among and within individuals for economic, seasonal, regional, cultural, ethical and personal reasons.
Non-dietary pesticide exposure can occur as a result of residential pesticide use (home, garden, pets, personal insect repellents), proximity to agricultural areas, time spent in parks and recreational areas or fumigated buildings, or hand to mouth activity (generally higher in young children). With the exception of residential use, most of these factors are outside the reasonable control of the average individual, whereas diet represents a modifiable risk factor that may be under individual control.
Monitoring Pesticide Exposure
Biological monitoring techniques (biomonitoring) assess pesticide levels in human tissue, and provide a measure of an individual’s total exposure to pesticides through dietary and non-dietary sources. Unfortunately biomonitoring data is not available for all pesticide classes or for all regions.
Some European countries [ 15 ], the CDC in the USA [ 18 ], and Health Canada [ 19 ] have conducted large scale biomonitoring studies assessing pesticide exposure in the general population, although such studies have not been conducted in countries such as Australia or most developing countries. These studies frequently detect pesticides or their metabolites in human tissue. The mean levels are almost always lower than those found in occupationally exposed individuals although those in the higher range can be similar to some occupationally exposed workers [ 15 ]. As the half-lives of modern pesticides are very short (often <24 hours), these data suggest that the population is continually and routinely exposed to pesticides [ 15 ].
Non-Occupational Exposure to Pesticides
Identifying health risks in non-occupationally exposed populations is difficult as pesticide exposure is diffuse and the source of exposure (dietary, environmental etc .) is not always clear. Of particular concern is the increased risk associated with pesticide exposure during critical periods of development, such as preconception, prenatal and early childhood. For example, high urinary levels of atrazine, alachlor and diazinon have been associated with abnormal sperm [ 20 ]. In the US a significant association has been reported between the months of increased risk of a birth defect and increased levels of pesticides (especially atrazine) in surface water [ 21 ]. Higher prenatal urinary concentrations of dialkyl phosphate (DAP) (which are metabolites of organophosphate pesticides [OPs]) have been associated with poorer intellectual development in 7-year-old children [ 22 ] and elevated levels of DAPs have also been associated with an increase in the prevalence of ADHD in children aged 8 to 15 years [ 23 ]. These DAP concentrations were within the range of levels measured in the general U.S. population although the reasons for these elevated levels are not clear.
In recent times there has been considerable media attention around obesity and insulin resistance. These are common conditions which can influence other disease processes and impact on quality of life and mortality. In rats chronic administration of low concentrations of atrazine has been shown to increase body weight, intra-abdominal fat and insulin resistance and reduce basal metabolic rate. While obesity and insulin resistance were further exacerbated by a high-fat diet they also occurred without changing food intake or physical activity level [ 24 ]. Adding to these concerns, data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows an apparent overlap between areas of heavy atrazine use in the USA and the prevalence obesity (BMI > 30) [ 25 ].
As the primary route of exposure for most pesticides is via the ingestion of food exposed through conventional agricultural practices [ 14 – 16 ], such findings in addition to uncertainly about the evaluation of pesticides [ 26 ], raise concern amongst some consumers.
Organic Diets as an Intervention
Organic farming practices do not use synthetic pesticides and data from food residue surveys confirm that organic produce has reduced pesticide levels [ 27 – 29 ]. This provides a rationale that organic food consumption should result in reduced pesticide exposure. However, studies describing reduced risk of developing pesticide related diseases, or improved health outcomes as a result of consuming organic foods are lacking. Despite a lack of supporting research, adopting an ‘organic diet’ appears to be an obvious way to reduce pesticide exposure for a growing number of concerned individuals. Some believe that ‘on the basis of the precautionary principle alone, choosing organic food appears to be an entirely rational decision’ [ 30 ]. Assessing the efficacy of such an intervention, however, is not a simple feat.
In a recent attempt initiated by the Food Standards Authority (FSA) in the UK to investigate the ‘putative health effects’ of organic food, studies that were primarily concerned with chemical residues (including pesticides) were specifically excluded. The focus on nutrition-related health effects yielded only twelve relevant articles [ 31 ]. In one study the consumption of organic dairy products within the context of a general organic diet was associated with a 36% lower risk of infantile eczema in children who exclusively consumed organic dairy products ( i.e. , weaned on organic milk, cheese and yoghurts and who were breastfed by mothers eating organic dairy products). However, the authors attributed these results to increased levels of omega-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid in organic compared to conventional milk and the likely reduction in pesticide exposure was not discussed [ 32 ].
Understanding the health impact of dietary pesticide exposure, and therefore any potential benefit of reducing exposure by adopting an organic diet, begins with determining actual exposure levels. While monitoring of pesticide residues in food may provide a useful insight into the potential sources of dietary exposure, biomonitoring is more likely to correlate with adverse health effects as it directly measures the amount of a pesticide (or its metabolites or degradation products) in human tissue. However, it should be stated that high levels of these markers have not been consistently associated with adverse health effects [ 15 ].
Regarding organic consumers only a few published reports in children have utilised biomonitoring [ 33 – 35 ]. These have examined urinary metabolites of OP and synthetic pyrethroid insecticides (PYRs). Dietary exposure to other classes of pesticides such as carbamate insecticides; fungicides and herbicides has not been formally evaluated in organic consumers.
In 2003 Curl et al . reported that children who consumed organic fruit, vegetables and juice had a mean total urinary dimethyl alkylphosphate metabolite (DMAP) concentration (a non-specific measure of OP exposure) that was approximately nine times lower than children consuming conventional foods. This corresponded to a reduction in the children’s exposure levels from above to below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s guidelines, shifting exposures from a range of uncertain risk to negligible risk [ 33 ].
The results of the Curl study are supported by the Children’s Pesticide Exposure Study (CPES) [ 34 ] which also reported reductions in urinary pesticide metabolites in children consuming organic produce. This study included measurements of select urinary OP and PYR metabolites in 23 children aged 3–11 years over a 15-consecutive-day sampling period. Children consumed their usual conventional diet with an organic intervention phase for five consecutive days, at which time organic food items were substituted for most of the children’s conventional diet (fruit, vegetables, juice, wheat and corn products). The organic intervention resulted in a decrease in certain pesticide-specific OP metabolites to non-detectable or close to non-detectable levels [ 14 ] and a reduction of approximately 50% in PYR exposure [ 35 ]. These results confirm that consumption of organic produce appears to provide a relatively simple way to reduce children’s exposure, especially to OP pesticides [ 14 , 33 ], and that this occurs relatively quickly. However, drawing any general conclusions from these biomonitoring studies to support the hypothesis that organic diets reduce pesticide exposure will require further studies in different population groups.
Complexities and Limitations of Biomonitoring
Designing biomonitoring studies to assess the efficacy of an organic diet in reducing pesticide exposure must be carefully devised. Appropriate study design requires consideration of the limitations of biomonitoring and the complexities involved in contextualising the results. This includes careful selection of which pesticides will be targeted and the most appropriate analytical methods to use. Ideally the methods chosen should be able to attribute the source of exposure to dietary intake. Study design must also consider confounders such as the unpredictable nature of chemicals and individual genetic and environmental factors that might influence susceptibility to disease. Contextualising the results also requires consideration of the data available for comparison purposes.
Study Design
The population of interest needs to be clearly defined with careful consideration of factors that may affect exposure and susceptibility. Consideration should be given to whether the study will use an organic intervention or observe free living organic consumers eating their usual diet. As free-living consumers are unlikely to consume a 100% organic diet detailed survey instruments need to record dietary intake to quantify the level of organic consumption. Other sources of exposure and potential confounding factors such as age, health status, medication use and other factors that may influence the metabolism of, and susceptibility to, pesticides must also be determined.
Targeted pesticides need to be selected based upon the likelihood of dietary exposure in the general public. This is likely to vary from region to region and over time depending on prevalence of use but may be informed by studies which monitor pesticide residues in food. Seasonal and regional variations can be anticipated depending on the time of the year and the nature of pest infestations. Priority might be given to assessment of pesticides with high prevalence of use, those with the greatest public health concerns or to newer chemicals so that potential human health risks can be more accurately determined. Once chosen the most appropriate methods of testing these pesticides must be considered.
Analytical Methods
There is an increasing amount of biomonitoring data available and Barr [ 36 ] and Aprea et al . [ 1 ] have previously described biomonitoring methods for assessing pesticide exposure. However choosing and conducting such tests requires a high level of technical expertise. Scientists do not always agree on the most appropriate methods for assessing pesticide exposure, limits of detection may vary and data collection and analysis can be laborious, expensive and place unacceptable demands on study participants.
In humans, most current-use pesticides are excreted within 24 hours as either the parent pesticide, a mercapturic acid detoxification product or as a metabolite [ 36 ]. Therefore collecting samples that degrade quickly requires a level of urgency. While many herbicide compounds are poorly metabolised and are excreted largely unchanged in the urine [ 1 ], the parent compounds of many other pesticides are metabolised very rapidly, making their measurement impractical. As a result, metabolites are often used as surrogate markers for exposure. Several methods have been reported which measure intact OP pesticides in blood, serum, or plasma, however, for the most part these tests are used for detecting acute poisoning or very high levels of exposure [ 37 ]. Similarly, occupational exposure to PYRs can be assessed by monitoring intact PYRs, yet due to their rapid elimination, unmodified compounds are less sensitive indicators of exposure than the metabolites [ 1 ] and thus may not be suitable for detecting differences in dietary exposure.
Determining the most appropriate tests is not always straightforward. For example according to Barr [ 36 ], atrazine mercapture is often tested but may not be the best marker for atrazine exposure, recommending instead analysis of dealkylated or hydroxylated metabolites of triazine herbicides, mercapturic acids of the dealkylation products or free atrazine. Determining suitable limits of detection (LODs) may also be open to conjecture. As it is difficult to confidently determine the levels of pesticide exposure that are safe under all circumstances [ 26 ], the LODs should be set as low as possible. Lower detection limits will yield more samples with detectable metabolites, and lower LODs will more accurately reveal differences in dietary exposure between consumers of organic and conventional food [ 15 ].
Defining appropriate sampling times and collecting representative samples can be difficult; and pure standards for measuring pesticide metabolites are not always available [ 1 ]. Analytical methods often involve gas chromatography (GC) or high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) following sample preparation and extraction requiring specialised equipment and technicians. The choice of analytical methods must also consider practicalities such as financial restraints and the potential burden on study participants and researchers. This may include whether invasive methods are required to collect samples and the timing and costs of such procedures.
Attributing the Source of Exposure
Although useful in determining an individual’s total exposure (dietary and non-dietary) to pesticides, biomonitoring methods are not always able to attribute the source of exposure, especially when metabolites are used. Metabolites may reflect exposure to more than one parent pesticide, may be markers for substances other than pesticides, or may be preformed or result from biological processes in the body.
Some metabolites are markers for specific pesticides while others are representative of a number of pesticides. Urinary 3-phenoxybenzoic acid (3PBA) is a non-specific metabolite common to a number of PYRs, and trans -3-(2,2-dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid ( trans -DCCA), is common to permethrin, cypermethrin, and cyfluthrin [ 14 ]. With OPs the most commonly reported method is to measure DAP metabolites which are formed in the human body during the metabolism of OP pesticides and excreted in urine [ 18 ]. The data generated can provide a cumulative index of exposure to most members of the OP class but are not pesticide-specific. Each DAP metabolite is associated with a number of OPs, and many OPs can form more than one of these metabolites [ 37 ]. Specific biomarkers for individual pesticides in this class are also available, such as 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCPy) for chlorpyrifos and malathion dicarboxylic acid (MDA) for malathion. However urinary DAPs may provide a more useful assessment for exposure to the class in general and this may be advantageous in providing an overview of the impact of an organic diet. If the purpose however, is to determine the effect of the diet on individual pesticides then pesticide-specific markers may be more useful.
Some metabolites utilised in biomonitoring studies are not entirely specific to pesticides. For instance, 1-naphthol (1NAP), a metabolite of carbaryl is also a marker for the ubiquitous naphthalene (found in mothballs, petroleum and cigarette smoke) [ 15 ]. A further consideration is the potential contribution from preformed metabolites. This can occur with OP metabolites such as DAPs which may be detected as a result of the metabolism of ingested parent compounds but may also result from the ingestion of preformed metabolites which may be present on food as a result of environmental degradation. In addition sources of inorganic phosphate may be alkylated within the body to form dimethylphosphate (DMP), and this may also contribute to urinary DAP levels [ 15 ].
Unpredictable Nature of Chemicals
When attempting to understand the impact of individual pesticides on human health, consideration must be given not only to the specific chemicals targeted in the biomonitoring study but also to the potential impact of other chemicals and risk factors for disease progression. We have previously described some of these factors including: the effects of exposure to mixtures of chemicals; the dose, duration and timing of exposure; the complexities and lack of complete safety assessment data; as well as variations in the exposure, metabolism and susceptibility of different individuals [ 38 ].
Humans are exposed to a unique and ever changing cocktail of chemicals. This cocktail may include pesticides and other chemicals acquired through ingestion, inhalation or dermal absorption. Some of these substances may have similar mechanisms of action or may interact via toxicokinetic (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion) or toxicodynamic (binding, interaction and induction of toxicity) processes to produce additive, antagonistic or synergistic effects [ 39 ]. For instance the synergistic effects of mixtures of sub-lethal doses of OPs in juvenille salmon are sufficient to cause anticholinesterase intoxication and death [ 40 ].
Although most pesticide formulations are mixtures of chemicals, most safety assessment methods focus on individual ‘active’ chemicals rather than ‘whole formulations’ including their adjuvants, metabolites and degradation products. A case in point is glyphosate. The adverse effects associated with glyphosate appear to be more dependent on the formulation tested than on the glyphosate concentration [ 41 , 42 ]. It is possible that these effects may be more appropriately attributed to other compounds in the formulation or to the environmental breakdown product of glyphosate, aminomethyl phosphonic acid (AMPA) [ 42 - 44 ]. Similarly recent studies suggest that prenatal exposure to piperonyl butoxide (a PYR synergist) has been negatively associated with neurodevelopment [ 45 ].
Depending on the disease process in question non-chemical risk factors such as physical inactivity or nutrient deficiencies or excesses as well differences in genetic susceptibility, may also confound results. Using biomonitoring data from a few select targeted chemicals is unlikely to provide sufficient data to deal with the inherent complexities of disease progression.
Individual Factors
In addition to chemicals behaving in potentially unpredictable ways, an individual’s response to chemicals may also be unpredictable. Although a 100-fold safety factor is taken into account when establishing acceptable daily intakes for humans [ 26 ], this must overcome differences between experimental and real world conditions, as well as account for individual variability in exposure and metabolism. There is currently insufficient data from epidemiological studies to confidently predict the levels of pesticides (either the parent compounds, metabolites, degradation products or adjuvants) that might be associated with human health risks and such levels are likely to be highly variable. For example levels of 3PBA are known to be influenced by factors such as tobacco use, time spent gardening and the use of cytochrome p450-inhibiting medications [ 17 ]. This may in part reflect differences in exposure but also differences in the metabolism of pesticides and these are likely to vary not only between different individuals but also within the same person over the course of their lifetime. A progressive increase in DMAP metabolites at 6, 12 and 24 months of age has been positively associated with the number of children’s daily servings of fruits and vegetables [ 46 ]. At the same time the activity of enzymes which play an important role in the detoxification of many pesticides are known to be impaired in children [ 47 ].
To a limited extent biomonitoring can account for poorly understood processes such as bioaccumulation, excretion and metabolism [ 37 ], but demonstrating pesticide exposure at a specific time point does not provide information about the lifetime exposure to pesticides or the increased risk of exposure during critical periods of development (such as in utero ). Assessing risk relies not only on determining individual exposure but must also consider variations in an individual’s ability to metabolise, detoxify and excrete mixtures of chemicals as well as their susceptibility to disease which may vary with genetic, developmental, physiological and environmental conditions.
Comparative Data
Once measurements have been collected the results must be carefully interpreted. Where possible, results from organic consumers may be compared with reference values of the general population although such studies do not enquire about levels of organic food consumption [ 1 ].
OPs are frequently detected in general population studies [ 15 , 18 , 19 ] and have been assessed in comparative studies of children consuming organic and conventional diets [ 14 , 33 ]. In the CPES the pesticide-specific OP metabolites TCPy and MDA had the highest frequency of detection representing chlorpyrifos and malathion exposure from the conventional diet [ 14 ]. PYR metabolites have also been detected with varying frequency in population studies [ 15 , 18 , 19 ] and differences have been observed in children when switched from a conventional diet to an organic diet for 5 days [ 48 ].
For both general population and organic consumption studies there may be significant heterogeneity with regard to the pesticides chosen for monitoring and the methods and LODs used. Methods and detection performance have improved over time, especially for OP metabolites, so care must be taken when attempting to compare results from older studies [ 15 ].
Conclusions
The effects of pesticides on the general population, largely as a result of dietary exposure, are unclear. If the precautionary principle is applied then adopting an organic diet appears to be an obvious solution for reducing pesticide exposure and this is supported by biomonitoring studies in children. However the few attempts that have been made to determine the efficacy of such an intervention are difficult to interpret in light of the many complexities.
Biomonitoring cannot be considered an end in itself but simply a tool for integrated health assessment; an intermediate step for establishing a link between exposure and adverse health effects. The limitations of biomonitoring and the complexities involved in interpreting the results must be acknowledged. As previously mentioned, both dietary and non-dietary sources of exposure can vary among individuals. While biomonitoring can account for differences in overall exposure it cannot necessarily attribute the source. Due diligence must be given to appropriate study design and selection of analytical methods to ensure that the data generated will be both scientifically rigorous and clinically useful, while minimising the costs and difficulties associated with biomonitoring studies. Currently the most useful candidates for assessment are urinary DAPs and urinary 3PBA and trans -DCCA. These assessments provide evidence of exposure to OP and PYR insecticides respectively and as they are in common use they can provide a broader overview of the impact of an organic diet on pesticide exposure than pesticide-specific metabolites. As previously discussed these metabolites have frequently been detected in population studies and have been assessed in children consuming organic foods providing useful data for comparison. However the contribution of preformed metabolites in the diet must be considered.
Depending on the prevalence of use in the region of interest, specific metabolites for chlorpyrifos (TCPy) and malathion (MDA) may also be incorporated. In addition select herbicides may be useful, although comparative data from similar studies is not currently available and the frequency of detection in population studies tends to be relatively low.
Despite its limitations, biomonitoring remains the most useful surrogate indicator of pesticide exposure currently available. The above discussion highlights some of the many issues encountered when selecting biomonitoring methods for assessment of pesticide exposure. It provides an outline of some of the complexities encountered when attempting to ascertain the efficacy of an organic diet intervention in reducing such exposure.
References
1. Aprea C Colosio C Mammone T Minoia C Maroni M Biological monitoring of pesticide exposure: a review of analytical methods J. Chromatogr. B 2002 769 191 219 10.1016/s1570-0232(02)00044-2 11996486
2. Bassil K Vakil C Sanborn M Cole D Kaur J Kerr K Cancer health effects of pesticides: Systematic review Can. Fam. Physician 2007 53 1704 1711 17934034 PMC2231435
3. Sanborn M Kerr KJ Sanin LH Cole DC Bassil KL Vakil C Non-cancer health effects of pesticides: Systematic review and implications for family doctors Can. Fam. Physician 2007 53 1712 1720 17934035 PMC2231436
4. Gunnell D Eddleston M Phillips MR Konradsen F The global distribution of fatal pesticide self-poisoning: Systematic review BMC Public Health 2007 7 357 18154668 10.1186/1471-2458-7-357 PMC2262093
5. Kesavachandran CN Fareed M Pathak MK Bihari V Mathur N Srivastava AK Adverse health effects of pesticides in agrarian populations of developing countries Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 2009 200 33 52 19680610 10.1007/978-1-4419-0028-9_2
6. London L Neurobehavioural methods, effects and prevention: Workers’ human rights are why the field matters for developing countries Neurotoxicology 2009 30 1135 1143 19963102 10.1016/j.neuro.2009.01.007
7. Weichenthal S Moase C Chan P A review of pesticide exposure and cancer incidence in the agricultural health study cohort Environ. Health Perspect 2010 118 1117 1125 20444670 10.1289/ehp.0901731 PMC2920083
8. Ritz B Manthripragada A Costello S Lincoln S Farrer M Cockburn M Bronstein J Dopamine transporter genetic variants and pesticides in Parkinson’s disease Environ. Health Perspect 2009 117 964 969 19590691 10.1289/ehp.0800277 PMC2702414
9. Thiruchelvam M Richfield EK Goodman BM Baggs RB Cory-Slechta DA Developmental exposure to the pesticides paraquat and maneb and the Parkinson’s disease phenotype Neurotoxicology 2002 23 621 633 12428734 10.1016/s0161-813x(02)00092-x
10. Richardson JA Keil JE Sandifer SH Catecholamine metabolism in humans exposed to pesticides Environ. Res 1975 9 290 294 808413 10.1016/0013-9351(75)90009-2
11. Embry TL Morgan DP Roan CC Search for abnormalities of heme synthesis and sympathoadrenal activity in workers regularly exposed to pesticides J. Occup. Med 1972 14 918 921 4639955
12. Andersen HR Schmidt IM Grandjean P Jensen TK Budtz-Jorgensen E Kjaerstad MB Baelum J Nielsen JB Skakkebaek NE Main KM Impaired reproductive development in sons of women occupationally exposed to pesticides during pregnancy Environ. Health Perspect 2008 116 566 572 18414644 10.1289/ehp.10790 PMC2290975
13. Wigle DT Arbuckle TE Walker M Wade MG Liu S Krewski D Environmental hazards: Evidence for effects on child health J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit. Rev 2007 10 3 39 18074303 10.1080/10937400601034563
14. Lu C Barr DB Pearson MA Waller LA Dietary intake and its contribution to longitudinal organophosphorus pesticide exposure in urban/suburban children Environ. Health Perspect 2008 116 537 542 18414640 10.1289/ehp.10912 PMC2290988
15. Bouvier G Seta N Vigouroux-Villard A Blanchard O Momas I Insecticide urinary metabolites in nonoccupationally exposed populations J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit. Rev 2005 8 485 512 16188732 10.1080/10937400591007284
16. Wilson NK Chuang JC Lyu C Menton R Morgan MK Aggregate exposures of nine preschool children to persistent organic pollutants at day care and at home J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol 2003 13 187 202 12743613 10.1038/sj.jea.7500270
17. Riederer AM Bartell SM Barr DB Ryan PB Diet and nondiet predictors of urinary 3-phenoxybenzoic acid in NHANES 1999–2002 Environ. Health Perspect 2008 116 1015 1022 18709153 10.1289/ehp.11082 PMC2516573
18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals CDC Atlanta, GA, USA 2009
19. Health Canada Results of the Canadian Health Measures Survey Cycle 1 2007–2009. Report on Human Biomonitoring of Environmental Chemicals in Canada Health Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 2010
20. Swan SH Semen quality in fertile US men in relation to geographical area and pesticide exposure Int J Androl 2006 29 62 68 discussion 105–108 16466525 10.1111/j.1365-2605.2005.00620.x
21. Winchester PD Huskins J Ying J Agrichemicals in surface water and birth defects in the United States Acta Paediatr 2009 98 664 669 19183116 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.01207.x PMC2667895
22. Bouchard MF Chevrier J Harley KG Kogut K Vedar M Calderon N Trujillo C Johnson C Bradman A Barr DB Eskenazi B Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and IQ in 7-year old children Environ Health Perspect 2011 10.1289/ehp.1003185. PMC3237357 21507776
23. Bouchard MF Bellinger DC Wright RO Weisskopf MG Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and urinary metabolites of organophosphate pesticides Pediatrics 2010 125 e1270 e1277 20478945 10.1542/peds.2009-3058 PMC3706632
24. Lim S Ahn SY Song IC Chung MH Jang HC Park KS Lee KU Pak YK Lee HK Chronic exposure to the herbicide, atrazine, causes mitochondrial dysfunction and insulin resistance PLoS ONE 2009 4 e5186 19365547 10.1371/journal.pone.0005186 PMC2664469
25. Mokdad AH Bowman BA Ford ES Vinicor F Marks JS Koplan JP The continuing epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States JAMA 2001 286 1195 1200 11559264 10.1001/jama.286.10.1195
26. Damalas CA Eleftherohorinos IG Pesticide exposure, safety issues, and risk assessment indicators Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011 8 1402 1419 21655127 10.3390/ijerph8051402 PMC3108117
27. Lairon D Nutritional quality and safety of organic food. A review Agron. Sustain. Dev 2010 30 33 41
28. Tasiopoulou S Chiodini AM Vellere F Visentin S Results of the monitoring program of pesticide residues in organic food of plant origin in Lombardy (Italy) J. Environ. Sci. Health B 2007 42 835 841 17763041 10.1080/03601230701555054
29. Baker BP Benbrook CM Groth E III Lutz Benbrook K Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown and organic foods: Insights from three US data sets Food Addit. Contam 2002 19 427 446 12028642 10.1080/02652030110113799
30. Lockie S Lyons K Lawrence G Grice J Choosing organics: A path analysis of factors underlying the selection of organic food among Australian consumers Appetite 2004 43 135 146 15458800 10.1016/j.appet.2004.02.004
31. Dangour AD Lock K Hayter A Aikenhead A Allen E Uauy R Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: A systematic review Am. J. Clin. Nutr 2010 92 203 210 20463045 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29269
32. Kummeling I Thijs C Huber M van de Vijver LP Snijders BE Penders J Stelma F van Ree R van den Brandt PA Dagnelie PC Consumption of organic foods and risk of atopic disease during the first 2 years of life in the Netherlands Br. J. Nutr 2008 99 598 605 17761012 10.1017/S0007114507815844
33. Curl C Fenske R Elgethun K Organophosphorus pesticide exposure of urban and suburban preschool children with organic and conventional diets Environ. Health Perspect 2003 111 377 382 12611667 10.1289/ehp.5754 PMC1241395
34. Lu C Toepel K Irish R Fenske RA Barr DB Bravo R Organic diets significantly lower children’s dietary exposure to organophosphorus pesticides Environ. Health Perspect 2006 114 260 263 16451864 10.1289/ehp.8418 PMC1367841
35. Lu C Barr DB Pearson MA Walker LA Bravo R The attribution of urban and suburban children’s exposure to synthetic pyrethroid insecticides: A longitudinal assessment J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol 2009 19 69 78 18766203 10.1038/jes.2008.49
36. Barr DB Biomonitoring of exposure to pesticides J. Chem. Health Saf 2008 15 20 29
37. Smolders R Schramm KW Stenius U Grellier J Kahn A Trnovec T Sram R Schoeters G A review on the practical application of human biomonitoring in integrated environmental health impact assessment J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit. Rev 2009 12 107 123 19235621 10.1080/15287390802706397
38. Oates L Cohen M Human consumption of agricultural toxicants from organic and conventional food J. Org. Syst 2009 4 48 57
39. Borgert CJ Quill TF McCarty LS Mason AM Can mode of action predict mixture toxicity for risk assessment? Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol 2004 201 85 96 15541748 10.1016/j.taap.2004.05.005
40. Laetz CA Baldwin DH Collier TK Hebert V Stark JD Scholz NL The synergistic toxicity of pesticide mixtures: Implications for risk assessment and the conservation of endangered pacific salmon Environ. Health Perspect 2009 117 348 353 19337507 10.1289/ehp.0800096 PMC2661902
41. Gasnier C Dumont C Benachour N Clair E Chagnon MC Séralini GE Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines Toxicology 2009 262 184 191 19539684 10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006
42. Benachour N Se′ralini GE Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells Chem. Res. Toxicol 2009 22 97 105 19105591 10.1021/tx800218n
43. Mañas F Peralta L Raviolo J García Ovando H Weyers A Ugnia L Gonzalez Cid M Larripa I Gorla N Genotoxicity of AMPA, the environmental metabolite of glyphosate, assessed by the Comet assay and cytogenetic tests Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf 2009 72 834 837 19013644 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2008.09.019
44. Kolpin DW Thurman EM Lee EA Meyer MT Furlong ET Glassmeyer ST Urban contributions of glyphosate and its degradate AMPA to streams in the United States Sci. Total Environ 2006 354 191 197 16398995 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.01.028
45. Horton MK Rundle A Camann DE Barr DB Rauh VA Whyatt RM Impact of prenatal exposure to piperonyl butoxide and permethrin on 36-month neurodevelopment Pediatrics 2011 127 e699 e706 21300677 10.1542/peds.2010-0133 PMC3065142
46. Bradman A Castorina R Boyd Barr D Chevrier J Harnly ME Eisen EA McKone TE Harley K Holland N Eskenazi B Determinants of organophosphorus pesticide urinary metabolite levels in young children living in an agricultural community Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011 8 1061 1083 21695029 10.3390/ijerph8041061 PMC3118878
47. Yang D Pearce RE Wang X Gaedigk R Wan YJ Yan B Human carboxylesterases HCE1 and HCE2: Ontogenic expression, inter-individual variability and differential hydrolysis of oseltamivir, aspirin, deltamethrin and permethrin Biochem. Pharmacol 2009 77 238 247 18983829 10.1016/j.bcp.2008.10.005 PMC2671154
48. Lu C Barr DB Pearson M Bartell S Bravo R A longitudinal approach to assessing urban and suburban children’s exposure to pyrethroid pesticides Environ. Health Perspect 2006 114 1419 1423 16966099 10.1289/ehp.9043 PMC1570056