Slashdot Mirror
Experts Want To Ban Organophosphate Pesticides To Protect Children's Health (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Evidence that an entire class of pesticides threatens the health of children and pregnant women is now so arresting that the substances should be banned, an expert panel of toxicologists has said. Exposure to organophosphates (OPs) increases the risk of reduced IQs, memory and attention deficits, and autism for prenatal children, according to the paper, published in Plos Medicine. More than 10,000 tonnes of OP pesticides are sprayed in 24 European countries each year and usage is higher in the US, where the Trump administration is appealing against a federal court ban on chlorpyrifos, one of the most popular agricultural insecticides.
Irva Hertz-Picciotto, the paper's lead author and director of the UC Davis environmental health sciences centre, said: "We have compelling evidence from dozens of human studies that exposures of pregnant women to very low levels of organophosphate pesticides put children and fetuses at risk for developmental problems that may last a lifetime. By law, the EPA cannot ignore such clear findings: It's time for a ban not just on chlorpyrifos, but all organophosphate pesticides." Bruce Lanphear, one of the paper's co-authors, said: "We found no evidence of a safe level of organophosphate pesticide exposure for children. Well before birth, organophosphate pesticides are disrupting the brain in its earliest stages, putting them on track for difficulties in learning, memory and attention, effects which may not appear until they reach school-age. Government officials around the world need to listen to science, not chemical lobbyists."
Irva Hertz-Picciotto, the paper's lead author and director of the UC Davis environmental health sciences centre, said: "We have compelling evidence from dozens of human studies that exposures of pregnant women to very low levels of organophosphate pesticides put children and fetuses at risk for developmental problems that may last a lifetime. By law, the EPA cannot ignore such clear findings: It's time for a ban not just on chlorpyrifos, but all organophosphate pesticides." Bruce Lanphear, one of the paper's co-authors, said: "We found no evidence of a safe level of organophosphate pesticide exposure for children. Well before birth, organophosphate pesticides are disrupting the brain in its earliest stages, putting them on track for difficulties in learning, memory and attention, effects which may not appear until they reach school-age. Government officials around the world need to listen to science, not chemical lobbyists."
What is needed is more CFC to open up the atmosphere so more of the pollution can get out. When it all gets out then more Co2 to close the atmosphere. Repeat as needed. And this is how we republicans fight fire - WITH SCIENCE!
Good job, (probably paid) troll.
This isn't about politics. It's about science.
Make America Great Again is right - by banning a class of substances that appear to be about as safe for people (neurologically speaking) as lead. Would you have said 60 years ago, "Those pesky scientists will make up any lie to hurt the GOP. This lead fearmongering is clearly a lie. #MAGA"?
Probably.
Why do you think lead paint was banned in America in the 1970s instead of 60 years earlier as it happened in other developed countries? Why do you think TEL has been used in the first place?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
What is the magnitude of risk here? Is it an observable epidemiological effect like lead in petroleum, and iodine deficiency?
Or is it more like the recent hysteria over glyphosate?
And why should it be totally banned instead of just kept away from pregnant women? I don't believe there is any residual pesticide in fresh food when regulations are followed.
I rubbed this stuff (malathion) into my kids heads to kill headlice when they were little. They still get strait As. Would not have dreamed of using it on a pregnant Mrs.
I'd like to see the costs quantified, because a lot more people in 3rd world countries are going to experience famine, without these pesticides.
8 Myths About Pesticides That Monsanto Wants You to Believe (Nov. 4, 2015)
Quote: As of 2008, Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, DuPont, BASF and others had filed 532 patents for 'climate-related genes,' touting the imminent arrival of a new generation of seeds engineered to withstand heat and drought."
Answer to question on Yahoo: "Organophosphates KILL everything. Good bugs as well as bad. Most growers of any crops are now using something called. I.P.M., integrated pest management."
Everybody knows that autism and such things are a result of vaccination!
And they dare call themselves scientists, phu!
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
We've known for decades that organophosphates are very dangerous. This is why they developed neonicotinoids that are much safer. It's to bad that so called environmentalists would rather attack the safer alternatives simply because they want to blame the companies that make them for all evil in the world. Organics are more dangerous and less effective requiring greater use and higher costs.
Because of corporate profits. IIRC DuPont was front and center on that one, along with several other large corporations in their efforts to allow TEL to be introduced. The history of that was pretty interesting as there definitely were some non-democratic efforts going on behind the scenes to get TEL into gas.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Exactly. And there are far too many people who prioritise corporate profits before public health. Either because they are paid shills or because they are free market fundamentalists and suffer from the Stockholm syndrome.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I've seen unrelated news stories that have found correlations to being close to agricultural fields and rates of autism. Those news reports didn't go into a lot of detail, but evidence does seem to be mounting about a connection between autism and pesticides. It's not just these guys making isolated claims.
As is usual, the evidence is going to have to be weighed, critiqued, and the cost/benefits of a ban also considered.
--PeterM
Seriously though, just because we all grew up riding around in the back of a pickup truck doesn't mean it was safe.
Doesn't mean it needs to be banned, either.
So you are arguing in effect that people shouldn't be required to wear seat belts either? Because that's the same argument. Sometimes we need to ban behaviors that are needlessly dangerous because sometimes people don't know better and/or are bad at evaluating risk. A certain percentage of them are going to die unnecessarily and that measurably affects the rest of society in tangible ways. When others have to pay for first responders to scrape you off the highway because you wanted to do something idiotic then we get a vote on whether we permit that behavior. Obviously we can't stop someone from doing something stupid/dangerous if they are determined but we can deter some people and save some lives in the process. There is nothing physically preventing a 12 year old from getting the keys to a car and driving it but we deter them from trying by having consequences for doing so because in most cases it would be needlessly dangerous.
The question is whether these chemicals are sufficiently dangerous and costly (negative health effects, environmental cost, etc) to justify banning them. Sometimes we have to do something dangerous because the alternatives outcomes are worse or because we have limited alternative options. I'm no expert but I strongly suspect we have alternative options here and are capable of developing more. So if these chemicals are dangerous (and they evidently are) and we have viable alternatives then we're kind of idiots if we don't ban them for use cases where we don't need them.
We've known for decades that organophosphates are very dangerous. This is why they developed neonicotinoids that are much safer.
There is evidence that neonicotinoids hurt pollinators. Just because a few drops applied directly to a person don't result in a trip to the morgue doesn't mean they are "safer". Sometimes the indirect consequences are worse than the direct ones. No pollinators = no food and last I checked famine was pretty dangerous to humans.
Kids dying of all natural Malaria, delivered by all natural insects!
Like anything else, pesticides are developed and impeoved over time. New types of pesticides are more effective per gram, meaning less pesticide is needed. They are also more targeted to the problematic insects, and therefore safer for mammals.
"Organic" means they use the older, more dangerous pesticides, which are used in far greater amounts. An extract from Deadly Nightshade is one example of an organic pesticide. Another popular organic pesticide is produced by a deadly fungus - toxic to humans as well as insects. (Organic means, in this context, a toxin similar to one which could be produced by a plant, animal, fungus, or bacteria).
It's irrational to eat more dangerous food, and pay more for it.
My point is not that organic farming is inherently better, but that in order to successfully keep organic produce on the market the quality of what sits on the shelf must be higher than what's next to it. Which I suspect is the reason for the results of this recent study, conveniently posted today - https://science.slashdot.org/s...