1. Home
2. 最新消息
3. 美國環境保護署再次確認嘉磷塞不具致癌性

U.S. EPA Reaffirms Glyphosate is Not Carcinogenic
美國環境保護署再次確認嘉磷塞不具致癌性

EPA’s cancer evaluation is more robust than IARC’ s evaluation. IARC's evaluation only considers data that have been published or accepted for publication in the openly available scientific literature. As a result, IARC only considered a subset of the studies included in the EPA’ s evaluation. For instance, IARC only considered 8 animal carcinogenicity studies while the agency used 15 acceptable carcinogenicity studies in its evaluation. The EPA also excluded some studies that were not appropriate for determining the human carcinogenic potential of glyphosate, such as studies in non-mammalian species (i.e., worms, fish, reptiles, and plants) which IRAC used in its evaluation.

首先，環保署的癌症評估比國際癌症研究機構更加周全。國際癌症研究機構的評估僅考慮已經被發表或被接受發表於公開科學期刊中的數據。因此，國際癌症研究機構僅考慮了環保署評估研究中的子項目。例如，國際癌症研究機構僅採用了八項動物致癌性研究，而環保署在評估報告中採用了十五項被接受的致癌性研究。同時，環保署也排除了一些不適於評估嘉磷塞在人體致癌風險的研究，但國際癌症研究機構卻加入其評估報告，像是在非哺乳類動物上的研究(例如: 環節動物、魚類、兩棲動物與植物)

The Agency’s cancer evaluation for glyphosate is also more transparent. EPA' s draft cancer evaluation was presented to a FIFRA SAP for external peer review. EPA solicited public comment on the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate as part of the SAP process, which is well­documented with an agenda, transcript, meeting notes, and final SAP report. EPA responded to the SAP report, addressed panel recommendations, and made revisions to its cancer assessment that were transparent and provided to the public. EPA also solicited public comment on its full human health and ecological risk assessment for glyphosate in February 2018. In contrast, IARC meetings are not accessible to the public. Its deliberations are closed, it’s process does not allow for public comments to be submitted for consideration, there are no materials provided in advance of the meeting, and IARC’ s reports are final without an external peer review.

環保署在對嘉磷塞的癌症評估過程亦更透明公開。環保署的癌症評估草案會呈交給依據聯邦殺蟲劑、殺菌劑、殺鼠劑法案成立的科學顧問委員進行外部專家審查。環保署也同步收集關於嘉磷塞致癌風險的公眾評論，這些評論也是科學顧問委員審查之一環，審查過程都有詳實文件記錄議程、副本、會議記錄和最終的科學顧問委員會報告。環保署再回應科學顧問委員會報告中的建議並修改其癌症風險評估，這些都是透明公開的過程。環保署也在2018年二月完成關於嘉磷塞於人體健康和環境影響完整風險評估之公眾評論。反之，國際癌症研究機構的會議民眾皆不能參與，其審議過程不公開，過程也不參考、受理公眾評論的意見，在會議前也沒有預備資料，當然國際癌症研究機構的最終報告也不須接受外部專家審查。

The EPA has not identified any new information received during the public comment period which ended on April 30, 2018 that would result in changes to the conclusion of its cancer assessment. The agency’ s cancer conclusion is consistent with other regulatory authorities and international organizations, including the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Chemicals Agency, the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues, the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, and the Food Safety Commission of Japan.

環保署在2018年4月30日結束的公眾評論期間並未收到任何新資訊足以更改嘉磷塞的癌症風險評估。署內的評估結論與其他監管機構和國際組織一致，包括加拿大害蟲管理局、澳洲農藥與動物用藥管理局、歐洲食品安全局、歐洲化學品管理局、德國聯邦職業安全與健康研究所、聯合國糧農組織與世界衛生組織於農藥殘留量的聯合會議、紐西蘭環境保護署以及日本食品安全委員會。

全文請見 https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/proposed-interim-registration-review-decision-and-responses