Is weedkiller actually being found in sperm samples? No.
As usual, bad science is being wildly mischaracterized by clickbait anti-science media outlets
Over the weekend, people were bombarded with headlines circulating fear-laden headlines claiming that high levels of weedkiller was being found in more than half of sperm samples from men in partnerships that were undergoing care at an infertility clinic in France. The articles insinuate that a recent study suggests that glyphosate being detected in sperm is linked to the infertility issues.
Is this claim actually true? Not even remotely.
The study being cited is from the Journal of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Health, the senior author Joëlle Dupont, who works at the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, and publishes prolifically about a myriad of various chemicals and the purported harms they cause to humans and animals.
The title of the paper is: Glyphosate presence in human sperm: First report and positive correlation with oxidative stress in an infertile French population - but spoiler:
It doesn’t actually assess glyphosate in sperm.
So, can we fault the media outlets for making outlandish claims when the paper itself makes outlandish claims? Yes, for sure. They have a responsibility to ensure they understand what they are writing about.
But, journalists aren’t inherently scientists, whereas the scientists writing the paper presumably are scientists. However, this paper - and the subsequent headlines making unfounded and unsubstantiated claims go to several bigger issues:
Weak science being published in peer-reviewed journals
Either because editorial isn’t bothering to scrutinize it or they don’t have the skills to scrutinize it appropriately
The weak science is subsequently picked up by media outlets and social media to mischaracterize reality and scare people.
The general public not understanding that just because something exists in a scientific journal doesn’t mean it is of quality, and that it needs to be critically assessed in the context of the topic at hand.
That mischaracterized information leading to fear-mongering, public outcry, and misinformation used to demonize credible science and impact innovation, public policy, and legislation.
Ultimately, science misinformation in whatever form it takes is harmful and erodes trust in science, public health, and the autonomy of scientific agencies and regulatory bodies to do their job.
But this paper and the subsequent headlines presented the perfect opportunity to dissect and help people understand why you can’t take everything you read online at face value.
Dr. Kevin Folta and I discussed the paper in a mini journal club edition of the Talking Biotech Podcast. Watch the full episode (linked below), but I’ll provide a few high level points for those who don’t want to watch the full 25 minutes.
Nowhere in the study do they actually assess glyphosate levels in sperm.
The fact that the title of the study is demonstrably false should disqualify it off the bat. How did the editors not catch this?
Either way, what did they assess? Seminal plasma, a fluid produced by seminal vesicles, prostate, and bulbourethral glands. Sperm are produced in the testes. These components are not even produced in the same location of the body, so it cannot be used as a “stand-in” for sperm.
Sperm assessment in this study was the same between “groups”
Ironically, the measures they DID use to assess sperm between the men they sorted into “with glyphosate” and “without glyphosate” groups were the same. Motility, concentration in semen, and morphology.
So, you can’t conclude there is anything wrong with the sperm.
Detection of glyphosate does not mean clinical relevance.
So, they put together some charts and tables. They took samples from 128 men who were part of partners that were being seen at an infertility clinic. They DETECTED glyphosate in 73 of the seminal plasma samples and 72 of the blood plasma samples.
Let’s take a look at those levels. The mean seminar plasma level was 0.73 nanograms per milliliter. If you’re not familiar with this in context, let me reframe.
A nanogram is one-billionth of a gram.
1 nanogram per milliliter is 1 part per billion. So the levels being detected are in the parts per trillion range.
1 part per billion is 1 second in 31.7 years.
1 part be trillion is 1 second in 31,700 years.
They are using highly sensitive analytical chemistry tools to detect trace levels of substances. That does not mean those trace levels of substances are meaningful. This is the same tactic used by others that fear-monger about chemicals, like the Environmental Working Group, Consumer Reports, and others.
They make insinuations about fertility that have no data to support them.
All of these men used in this study are being seen with their partners at an infertility clinic. However, the authors insinuate that those with the trace levels of glyphosate detected in their seminal plasma have something inherently wrong with their sperm, and that’s why they are at the infertility clinic.
There is zero basis for this whatsoever. They collected some survey responses from the participants, including things like job function, smoking status, what types of produce they eat, but then don’t actually do anything with those information.
They make unsubstantiated claims about “oxidative stress” when comparing the glyphosate group to the non-glyphosate group, but fail to evaluate other things that can change oxidative stress markers… like anything. Exercising, eating a big meal, being a smoker… these things can change these values all the time, because your body is constantly undergoing metabolic processes.
So why didn’t the authors parse out the smokers versus non-smokers when assessing the oxidative stress markers? Perhaps… because it would have negated the leading argument they were trying to make, that the infertility must be because of glyphosate?
This study shows nothing that you need to be concerned with.
Fertility is a complex topic, and all this study shows is that there is nothing to be concerned about when it comes to trace levels of glyphosate - a chemical that has decades of data demonstrating it poses no risk to human health, yet continues to be demonized as a surrogate for opposition to biotechnology writ large.
Instead of focusing on relevant topics that can impact fertility, these authors, and the media outlets that are propagating misinformation are causing unnecessary fear, undue anxiety, and eroding trust in our regulatory and scientific agencies.
For the full discussion, watch here:
Thanks for joining in the fight for science!
Thank you for supporting evidence-based science communication. With outbreaks of preventable diseases, refusal of evidence-based medical interventions, propagation of pseudoscience by prominent public “personalities”, it’s needed now more than ever.
Your local immunologist,
Andrea
Must have been the comment. I posted without the comment and it went through. I was originally afraid I'd get further penalized for trying it again. Their algorithm stinks.
Fyi, I tried to post this on Facebook and it was removed as spam. I put in for a review. I don't know why this happened, but I thought people should know.