Liliana A Zúñiga-Venegas1, Carly Hyland2,3, María Teresa Muñoz-Quezada4, Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá5,6, Mariana Butinof7, Rafael Buralli8, Andres Cardenas2, Ricardo A Fernandez9, Claudia Foerster10, Nelson Gouveia11, Juan P Gutiérrez Jara1, Boris A Lucero4, María Pía Muñoz12, Muriel Ramírez-Santana13, Anna R Smith2, Noemi Tirado14, Berna van Wendel de Joode15, Gloria M Calaf16,17, Alexis J Handal18, Agnes Soares da Silva19, Sandra Cortés20, Ana M Mora2,15. 1. Centro de Investigaciones de Estudios Avanzados del Maule, Universidad Católica del Maule, Talca, Chile. 2. Center for Environmental Research and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA. 3. School of Public Health and Population Science, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, USA. 4. Centro de Investigación en Neuropsicología y Neurociencias Cognitivas, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Católica del Maule, Talca, Chile. 5. Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Bloomberg School of Public Health, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 6. Maryland Institute of Applied Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA. 7. Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina. 8. Departamento de Saúde Ambiental, Faculdade de Saúde Pública, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil. 9. Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Católica de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina. 10. Instituto de Ciencias de la Agroalimentarias, Animales y Ambientales, Universidad de O'Higgins, San Fernando, Chile. 11. Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil. 12. Escuela de Salud Pública, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 13. Departamento de Salud Pública, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Católica del Norte, Coquimbo, Chile. 14. Instituto de Genética, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Mayor de San Andrés, Louisiana Paz, Bolivia. 15. Infants' Environmental Health Study, Central American Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances, Universidad Nacional, Heredia, Costa Rica. 16. Instituto de Alta Investigación, Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica, Chile. 17. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. 18. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 19. Pan American Health Organization, Washington, District of Columbia, USA. 20. Centro Avanzado de Enfermedades Crónicas (ACCDiS), Centro de Desarrollo Urbano Sustentable, Departamento de Salud Pública, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple epidemiological studies have shown that exposure to pesticides is associated with adverse health outcomes. However, the literature on pesticide-related health effects in the Latin American and the Caribbean (LAC) region, an area of intensive agricultural and residential pesticide use, is sparse. We conducted a scoping review to describe the current state of research on the health effects of pesticide exposure in LAC populations with the goal of identifying knowledge gaps and research capacity building needs. METHODS: We searched PubMed and SciELO for epidemiological studies on pesticide exposure and human health in LAC populations published between January 2007 and December 2021. We identified 233 publications from 16 countries that met our inclusion criteria and grouped them by health outcome (genotoxicity, neurobehavioral outcomes, placental outcomes and teratogenicity, cancer, thyroid function, reproductive outcomes, birth outcomes and child growth, and others). RESULTS: Most published studies were conducted in Brazil (37%, n=88) and Mexico (20%, n=46), were cross-sectional in design (72%, n=167), and focused on farmworkers (45%, n=105) or children (21%, n=48). The most frequently studied health effects included genotoxicity (24%, n=62) and neurobehavioral outcomes (21%, n=54), and organophosphate (OP) pesticides were the most frequently examined (26%, n=81). Forty-seven percent (n=112) of the studies relied only on indirect pesticide exposure assessment methods. Exposure to OP pesticides, carbamates, or to multiple pesticide classes was consistently associated with markers of genotoxicity and adverse neurobehavioral outcomes, particularly among children and farmworkers. DISCUSSION: Our scoping review provides some evidence that exposure to pesticides may adversely impact the health of LAC populations, but methodological limitations and inconsistencies undermine the strength of the conclusions. It is critical to increase capacity building, integrate research initiatives, and conduct more rigorous epidemiological studies in the region to address these limitations, better inform public health surveillance systems, and maximize the impact of research on public policies. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP9934.
BACKGROUND: Multiple epidemiological studies have shown that exposure to pesticides is associated with adverse health outcomes. However, the literature on pesticide-related health effects in the Latin American and the Caribbean (LAC) region, an area of intensive agricultural and residential pesticide use, is sparse. We conducted a scoping review to describe the current state of research on the health effects of pesticide exposure in LAC populations with the goal of identifying knowledge gaps and research capacity building needs. METHODS: We searched PubMed and SciELO for epidemiological studies on pesticide exposure and human health in LAC populations published between January 2007 and December 2021. We identified 233 publications from 16 countries that met our inclusion criteria and grouped them by health outcome (genotoxicity, neurobehavioral outcomes, placental outcomes and teratogenicity, cancer, thyroid function, reproductive outcomes, birth outcomes and child growth, and others). RESULTS: Most published studies were conducted in Brazil (37%, n=88) and Mexico (20%, n=46), were cross-sectional in design (72%, n=167), and focused on farmworkers (45%, n=105) or children (21%, n=48). The most frequently studied health effects included genotoxicity (24%, n=62) and neurobehavioral outcomes (21%, n=54), and organophosphate (OP) pesticides were the most frequently examined (26%, n=81). Forty-seven percent (n=112) of the studies relied only on indirect pesticide exposure assessment methods. Exposure to OP pesticides, carbamates, or to multiple pesticide classes was consistently associated with markers of genotoxicity and adverse neurobehavioral outcomes, particularly among children and farmworkers. DISCUSSION: Our scoping review provides some evidence that exposure to pesticides may adversely impact the health of LAC populations, but methodological limitations and inconsistencies undermine the strength of the conclusions. It is critical to increase capacity building, integrate research initiatives, and conduct more rigorous epidemiological studies in the region to address these limitations, better inform public health surveillance systems, and maximize the impact of research on public policies. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP9934.
Authors: Juliana da Silva; Camila R Moraes; Vanina D Heuser; Vanessa M Andrade; Fernanda R Silva; Kátia Kvitko; Vanessa Emmel; Paula Rohr; Diana Lilian Bordin; Ana Cristina Andreazza; Mirian Salvador; João A P Henriques; Bernardo Erdtmann Journal: Mutagenesis Date: 2008-06-11 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: María Teresa Muñoz-Quezada; Boris A Lucero; Dana B Barr; Kyle Steenland; Karen Levy; P Barry Ryan; Veronica Iglesias; Sergio Alvarado; Carlos Concha; Evelyn Rojas; Catalina Vega Journal: Neurotoxicology Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 4.294
Authors: Jose R Suarez-Lopez; Naomi Hood; José Suárez-Torres; Sheila Gahagan; Megan R Gunnar; Dolores López-Paredes Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 5.840