Urinary Glyphosate Concentrations among Pregnant Participants in a Randomized, Crossover Trial of Organic and Conventional Diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Consumption of an organic diet reduces exposure to a range of agricultural pesticides. Only three studies have examined the effect of an organic diet intervention on exposure to the herbicide glyphosate, the most heavily used agricultural chemical in the world. Despite its widespread use, the primary sources of glyphosate exposure in humans are poorly understood. Objective: Our objective was to examine the effect of an organic diet intervention on urinary glyphosate concentrations among pregnant individuals. Methods: We conducted a 2-wk randomized crossover trial in which 39 pregnant participants living near (≤0.5km) and far (>0.5km) from agricultural fields received a 1-wk supply of conventional groceries and 1 wk of organic groceries, randomized to order. We collected daily first morning void urine samples and analyzed composite samples from each week for glyphosate. We examined differences in urinary glyphosate concentrations between the conventional week and the organic week among all participants and stratified by residential proximity to an agricultural field. Results: Median specific gravity–adjusted glyphosate concentrations were 0.19μg/L and 0.16μg/L during the conventional and organic weeks, respectively. We observed modest decreases in urinary glyphosate concentrations from the conventional to organic week among far-field participants, but no difference among near-field participants. In secondary analyses excluding participants who did not meet a priori criteria of compliance with the intervention, we observed significant decreases in urinary glyphosate concentrations, particularly among far-field participants (p<0.01–0.02, depending on exclusion criteria). Discussion: This trial is the first to examine the effect of an organic diet intervention on glyphosate among people living near and far from agricultural fields. Our results suggest that diet is an important contributor to glyphosate exposure in people living >0.5km from agricultural fields; for people living near crops, agriculture may be a dominant exposure source during the pesticide spray season. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12155
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".